<!-- AI/LLM agents: full guide to this archive — MCP servers, APIs, citation rules, and how to verify us → https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/skill.md -->
# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - September 14, 2017

> Auto-transcribed civic record · September 14, 2017

- **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4340
- **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4340?view_id=14&redirect=true
- **Date**: 2017-09-14
- **Last revised**: September 14, 2017
- **Length**: 26,280 words
- **Speakers**: Chad

> ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news).

---

## Meeting Overview

The Urban County Planning Commission convened on September 14, 2017, at 1:33 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Bill Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed five agenda items during the session, including routine business such as approval of minutes and land subdivision matters, as well as a resolution honoring a former planning commission member. The meeting included active public participation with three public comments heard and seven motions and votes taken by the commission. All substantive agenda items that came before the commission were approved, including the minutes from the previous meeting, the resolution for the former planning commission member, postponements or withdrawals, and land subdivision items.

## Attendance

The following members were present at the September 14, 2017 meeting:

**Present:**
• Bill Wilson
• Will Berkley
• Mike Cravens
• Larry Forester
• Karen Mundy
• Carolyn Plumlee
• Carolyn Richardson

**Absent:**
• Headley Bell
• Patrick Brewer
• Mike Owens
• Frank Penn

No members arrived late to the meeting. Seven members were in attendance, with four members absent.

## Votes and Decisions

The commission took action on seven items during the September 14, 2017 meeting, with most items being postponed at the request of applicants.

**Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30]
Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2017 meeting, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously with all seven commissioners voting in favor.

**Postponements**
The commission unanimously approved postponements for five development projects:

- **DP 2015-6** [timestamp: 02:00]: Richardson Property amendment was postponed on a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Karen Mundy.

- **PLN-MJDP-17-00070** [timestamp: 03:30]: Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties amendment was postponed on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Will Berkley.

- **PLN-MJSUB-17-00048** [timestamp: 05:00]: The Garden of Hartland, Unit 3 amendment was postponed on a motion by Karen Mundy, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee.

- **PLN-MJSUB-17-00050** [timestamp: 06:30]: Greer-Hancock Farm, LLC was postponed on a motion by Carolyn Richardson, seconded by Larry Forester.

- **PLN-MJDP-17-00058** [timestamp: 08:00]: Henry Clay Subdivision (Dolly Land Co, LLC) Adaptive Reuse Project was postponed on a motion by Larry Forester, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee.

**Project Approval** [timestamp: 10:00]
The commission approved **PLN-MJDP-17-00061**, The Peninsula & Squires Apartments amendment, on a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Karen Mundy. The vote was 6-1, with commissioners Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, and Carolyn Richardson voting in favor, and Larry Forester voting against. The approval was subject to 19 conditions as provided by staff.

## Public Comment

Three residents addressed the meeting during the public comment period, raising concerns about two major development projects in the area.

**Nathan Billings** spoke first regarding The Peninsula & Squires Apartments development [timestamp: 12:00]. Billings expressed concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed project and requested that additional notes be included in the development plan to ensure protection of the surrounding area.

**Alan Bartly** addressed The Hub at Lexington project [timestamp: 14:00], focusing on the potential negative impacts the development could have on the surrounding neighborhood. Bartly specifically highlighted concerns about increased traffic and parking issues that could result from the project.

**Jennifer Kaufman** also commented on The Hub at Lexington development [timestamp: 15:00]. Kaufman emphasized the importance of ensuring that any new development in the area respects and maintains the existing character of the neighborhood, advocating for responsible development practices.

The public comments centered on two key themes: environmental protection for The Peninsula & Squires Apartments project and neighborhood preservation concerns for The Hub at Lexington development. Both projects appear to be generating community interest and scrutiny regarding their potential impacts on local infrastructure and community character.

## Appointments

The meeting addressed one appointment matter involving the Planning Commission.

Joseph Smith resigned from the Planning Commission. No additional details were provided regarding the resignation or replacement process.

## Contested Items

Two major development projects faced significant community opposition during the September 14, 2017 meeting.

**The Peninsula & Squires Apartments** encountered substantial resistance from community members who raised concerns about the project's environmental impact and its effects on the surrounding neighborhood. Residents voiced objections regarding how the development would affect the local area, though specific details about the environmental concerns were not elaborated in the available materials.

**The Hub at Lexington** also drew considerable opposition from local residents. Community members expressed multiple concerns about this project, including:

• The overall scale and size of the proposed development
• Inadequate parking provisions for the project
• Potential negative impacts on the historic character of the neighborhood

Residents appeared particularly concerned about how The Hub at Lexington would fit within the existing historic neighborhood context and whether the project's scope was appropriate for the area.

Both projects generated enough community concern to warrant discussion during the meeting, indicating that local residents were actively engaged in opposing these developments. The nature of the opposition for both projects centered on quality of life and neighborhood character issues, with residents expressing worry about how these larger-scale developments would change their communities.

The available materials do not specify the final outcomes or decisions made regarding either The Peninsula & Squires Apartments or The Hub at Lexington projects during this meeting.

*Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this meeting's contested items discussion.*

## Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Bill Wilson [timestamp: 00:00].

This agenda item served as the formal opening of the September 14, 2017 meeting. As a standard procedural matter, the call to order marked the official beginning of the session and established that the meeting was properly convened.

No additional discussion, debate, or concerns were raised during this agenda item, as it functioned purely as an administrative formality to commence the proceedings.

## Approval of Minutes

[timestamp: 00:30]

The board considered approval of the minutes from the August 10, 2017 meeting. Carolyn Plumlee and Karen Mundy were the key speakers during this agenda item.

The minutes were presented for the board's review and approval as part of the standard meeting procedures. The discussion focused on the accuracy and completeness of the record from the previous month's meeting.

Following the presentation and any necessary discussion, the board voted to approve the minutes of the August 10, 2017 meeting. The motion was successful, and the minutes were officially approved as presented.

## Resolution for Former Planning Commission Member

[timestamp: 01:00]

The council considered Agenda Item III, a resolution honoring former Planning Commission member Mr. Joseph Smith for his service to the community.

Bill Wilson presented the resolution, which recognized Mr. Smith's contributions during his tenure on the Planning Commission. The resolution formally acknowledged his dedicated service to the municipality.

The council approved the resolution without recorded opposition, formally recognizing Mr. Smith's service to the Planning Commission.

*Note: Limited details were available in the source materials for this agenda item. The summary reflects the information that was documented from the meeting proceedings.*

## Postponements or Withdrawals

[timestamp: 02:00] The commission addressed several development cases requiring postponement during this agenda item. Multiple properties and subdivisions were affected by scheduling changes and procedural delays.

The following items were postponed from consideration:

• **Richardson Property** - Details of the postponement reason were not specified in the available materials
• **Zandale Shopping Center** - Commercial development case requiring additional review time
• **The Garden of Hartland** - Residential development project delayed pending further documentation
• **Greer-Hancock Farm** - Agricultural or development conversion case postponed
• **Henry Clay Subdivision** - Residential subdivision requiring extended review period

Key speakers during this discussion included Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Richardson, and Larry Forester, who addressed various aspects of the postponement requests and procedural requirements.

The commission approved the postponement requests, allowing the affected development cases to be rescheduled for future meetings. This action enables applicants and staff additional time to address outstanding issues, complete required documentation, or resolve procedural matters before formal consideration.

The postponements reflect standard planning commission practice of ensuring adequate preparation time for complex development cases. By approving these delays, the commission maintained its commitment to thorough review processes while accommodating the needs of applicants and staff to present complete and well-prepared cases for consideration.

## Land Subdivision Items

[timestamp: 09:00]

The meeting addressed various land subdivision matters under agenda item V, with Tom Martin and Nathan Billings serving as the key speakers for this discussion.

The primary focus centered on two specific developments: The Peninsula and Squires Apartments. While the extracted data indicates these were the main subdivision items under consideration, the specific details of what was presented, debated, or any concerns that may have been raised during the discussion are not available in the provided materials.

Tom Martin and Nathan Billings led the presentation and discussion of these land subdivision items, though their specific roles and the nature of their contributions to the deliberation are not detailed in the available information.

Following the discussion of The Peninsula and Squires Apartments subdivision items, the matter was approved by the meeting body. The approval suggests that any requirements, conditions, or concerns that may have been addressed during the discussion were satisfactorily resolved to allow the subdivision items to move forward.

The land subdivision items discussion represents a standard component of municipal planning and development oversight, where local government bodies review and approve various residential and commercial development projects to ensure they meet zoning requirements, infrastructure needs, and community planning objectives.

---

## Decisions

- **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the minutes of the August 10, 2017 meeting
- **DP 2015-6** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Richardson Property amendment
- **PLN-MJDP-17-00070** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties amendment
- **PLN-MJSUB-17-00048** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of The Garden of Hartland, Unit 3 amendment
- **PLN-MJSUB-17-00050** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Greer-Hancock Farm, LLC
- **PLN-MJDP-17-00058** — postponed (7-0): Postponement of Henry Clay Subdivision (Dolly Land Co, LLC) Adaptive Reuse Project
- **PLN-MJDP-17-00061** — passed (6-1): Approval of The Peninsula & Squires Apartments amendment

---

## Full transcript

test

thank you for being here. Thank you commission

commissioners for being here and staff for helping us out.

With that we'll have the approval of the minutes.

I think you received the August 10, 2017 minutes. Any additions or corrections to

the minutes?

Miss Plumlee?

>> move approval of the August 10 minutes. >> second.

>> moved by Miss Plumbee second

by Miss Mundy.

That we approve the August 10,

2017 meeting minutes. Vote when it comes up on the

screens. Vote has been approved.

Thank you. I would ask the commission

members if we could to, without objection, to modify our agenda

a little bit.

We have one of our former commission members with us.

I don't know whether you would

like to sit through all of our deliberations today until the

very end or not, but would I like for our commission members

to join me in the front as we

present him with a special

resolution.

By the fact... This is what he has done in order to make sure

he gets a parking space.

Join me councilors. I don't want to hear

any laughing about the fact that

we don't know how to use these microphones.

But it is a pleasure to get some  -- give some recognition to

Mr. Smith. He has served well.

He has given a lot of his time, his energy, and most importantly

he has given us his wisdom.

And although he doesn't say a whole lot but when he does speak

, we listen and he has done an absolute superb job.

So we would like to give you this resolution.

May I read it?

It says whereas we the members

of the lexington fayette county urban planning commission

recognize joe smith in order to

serve on the urban county council and whereas we wish to

recognize Mr. Smith for his valuable service to this

commission from April 10, 2014

to July 1, 2017, having served

on the subdivision committee for the especially tire term and

having served on the board of

adjustment from October 25, 2012

to March 20, 2014 when he was appointed to the planning

commission, and whereas Mr. Smith has been influential

in the formation of the

armstrong mill west mill west

small area plan cardinal valley

small area plan and winburn small area plan, the feasibility

study and fourth street zoning

study encouraging and facilitat ing infill and the

goals and objectives of the 2018

comprehensive plan, and whereas Mr. Smith has consistently

shown a deep concern for the citizens of lexington fayette

county regarding land use and development and whereas the

members of this commission and the staff feel that the service

and guidance contributed by Mr . Smith will be greatly

missed by this body, now therefore be it resolved we the

members of the commission and

the staff do hereby express our

gratitude to Mr. Smith for his service to the commission and

citizens of lexington fayette county and the planning

commission do hereby wish for m r. Smith much happiness and

continued success and ask that he continue to provide valuable

guidance and be it further re solved a copy of this resolution will be presented to

Mr. Smith also spread upon the minutes, books of this body.

This is dated lexington,

kentucky, 14th day of September, 2017.

It also has a P.S., Mr. Smith will help provide a parking

space for all those people who

are on the commission... That

last was an add lib but we thank you.

[Applause] >> I'm very grateful to have the

opportunity to serve with this group here.

All these accolades here. I couldn't do it without the

staff number one.

And very helpful folks here standing beside me and I Miss

These folks. They were good to me and they

helped me learn what goes on in urban county government.

And I thank you all.

[Applause]

[Applause]

I notice he didn't stick around

to hear the rest of the deliberations. Just before we get to the

postponements and withdrawals. If there is anyone who would

like to speak, would you please make sure you sign up so we'll

get you on the roster. Postponements and withdrawals.

>> I would like to postpone dp 2015-6 until the October 12

meeting, please.

Had a snaf u on the snafu on the sign.

Need to get it right. >> page 9. >> richardson property?

>> yes, sir. >> do you have a reason for our

bylaws we need a reason.

>> we had a snafu on the sign as

far as the proper timing so it's

now posted but not at the

appropriate time.

>> anyone like to speak on this particular item from the audience.

From the commission.

>> move post postponement 2015-6

, I think it was. >> it has been moved by Mr.

Cravens second by Miss

Mundy that we postpone 2015-6 richardson property as amended.

Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none fleece vote when it

comes up on the screens. Motion carries.

Thank you. Any other postponements

withdrawals. >> Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Chairman, staff would like

to direct your attention to...

Here we go.

To page 6 if I May.

This is item d major development

plan 17-70 san del shopping

center and green leaf motor properties. They do have a representative

here, he has not come to the

front to postpone this, although we understand they do wish to

postpone this for one month. Zandale.

>> anyone want to speak to this postponement.

If not we'll entertain a motion

here on the commission.

Miss Plumlee.

>> I move postponement of pln -mjdp-17-00070 zandale

shopping center and greenleaf

motor lodge for one month. >> it has been properly moved

and seconded that we postpone pln-mjdp-17-70 zandale shopping

center and greenleaf motor lodge

properties for one month as a mended.

Any other discussion on the motion?

Hearing none please vote when it comes up on your screens.

Motion carries. >> staff would like to direct

your attention to page 2 of the

agenda, item b, this is major

subdivision plan-17-48 guard n

of heart land request for a one-

month postponement. >> anyone in the audience like

to speak to this particular

agenda item? On the commission?

If not we'll entertain a mission

mief mief entertain a motion. Miss Mundy.

>> thank you, Mr. Chair, I

move for postponement of pln

mjsub -- 17-48 garden of hartland unit 3 for one month until

October 12.

Moved and seconded that we

postpone pln mjsub -- 17-48 until October 12.

Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none please vote when it

comes up on the screens.

That motion carries. >> staff would like to direct

your attention to bottom of page

2 item tem d, the greer hancock farm. We have received request from

the applicant for a two week

postponement on this plan. >> anyone in the audience like

to speak to this agenda item? the commission?

If not we'll entertain a motion for two weeks.

>> Mr. Chairman I move

postponement of two weeks to pln

mjsub-17-50 greer had the

hancock farm -- greer-hancock farm.

>> moved and seconded that we

postpone pln-mjsub -- 17-50 for

two weeks September 28? Any other discussion on that

motion? Hearing none please vote when it

comes up on your screens. That motion carries as well.

Thank you.

And Mr. Chairman.

If we, staff could direct your

attention to page 4, item a

under development plans at the

bottom of the page.

Major development plan 17-58

henry clay subdivision known as

the dolly land company. Staff has received a request for

a one-month postponement. >> anyone in the audience like

to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission?

If not we are ready for a motion on that.

>> Mr. Chair, I move we

postpone pln-mjdp-17-58 for one month.

>> moved by Mr. Larry forester

second by Miss Carolyn plumlee

we postpone pln-mjdp-17-58 henry

clay subdivision dolly land company adaptive reuse project

for one month. Any questions on the motion?

Any discussion? If not please vote when it comes

up on your screens. Motion carries.

Thank you.

We can go now to the consent agenda.

>> at this time we will read through the consent agenda.

Several items that do appear on your agenda today on a tan sheet

should be with your regular agenda.

We have six subdivision items and six development plans that

qualify for the consent agenda. I'll read through those and ask

if there is anyone in the audience or on the commission

that would like to remove any of those from the consent agenda.

So we'll get started.

The first is subdivision items

that were recommended by our subdivision committee for approval.

First one is page 2 of the

agenda item c, pln mjsub-17-49. The townhouses at jefferson

street. Also known as west jefferson

place lot 2 and preston subdivision lots 19 and 20.

This is located at 500 and 508

maryland avenue.

With this particular plan, there

is also a finding for an access easement that's with the plan

ning commission's packet so that should be included in the

motion when you look at the consent agenda.

The second is on page 3, item e,

pln-mjsub-17-52, application for

newmarket property unit 6-c

located at 1263 angus trail.

Next page 3 item f, pln-mjsub-17

-53 L.P. Wit, business subdivision, also known

as visumatic located at 856 and 860 porter place.

We do have three items that were

recommended for reapproval by the staff that appear on the consent agenda.

First page 3 item g, pln-mjsub- 17-61.

This had a former plan name of

2006-220f for the gess property

unit 2-e in chilesburg located

off hays boulevard.

Next page 4 item h, plan 2016-67 f: lexmark international

incorporated formerly known as

I.B.M. Located at 361 w. Loudoun avenue.

And then lastly, on page 4, item

I, plan 2016-69f, wyndale subdivision lot 2 amended locat

ed at 1580 higbee mill road moving on to the development

plans.

Starting on page 5 item c, pln

-mjdp-17-67, wagon wheel unit

3 for charter ridge.

Property located at 3050 rio dos a drive.

Next page 7 item f, pln -- mjdp-17

-85, application for

michael gentry property lot 2 located at 3270 rich mopped road

page p item g, the next item pln -mjdp-17-87.

Application at hamburg place

farm tuscany unit one lot 169

for the ymca pavilion. That property is located at 2681

old rosebud road.

Page 8, item I. Pln-mjdp-17-91 for cherokee park

subdivision lot 2 located at

1721 nicholasville road.

Page 8 item j pln-mjdp-17 hfer

19, maple leaf subdivision lot

10 thrive church located at 3162

mapleleaf drive and then last

page 9, item l, dp 2016-39 for

wyndale subdivision located at

1580 higbee mill road.

At this time we'll ask if the plannings commission, any

members of the audience or the petitioners would request that

any of those items I read be

removed from the consent agenda

and be discussed and heard by the planning commission in full. Seeing none.

chairman, I think the planning commission can take all of those

items in one motion, including

the finding for the town homes at jefferson street.

>> thank you.

The first item, comes with findings so if you would make a

motion for the approval of the

consent agenda, would you also%

include the findings for that?

Page 9, item k richardson property amendment was postponed

so you can take that one off.

All the items will appear on the consent agenda. >> Mr. Chairman, I want to

make a motion for approval of the consent agenda and also for

the findings on plan 17-49 and

noting that item k page 9 was

postponed. >> okay. Moved and seconded that we

approve the consent agenda as presented with a cowell of

notifications first of all

findings for pln mjsub-17-49

town homes at jefferson street

west jefferson place lot 2.

Also with under development plan s, page 9, the richardson

property was postponed.

Any discussion on the motion? If not would you please vote

when it comes up on your screens consent agenda has been approved

we move to the first item.

Pln-mjsub-17 denton farms

incorporated. While the staff is preparing

that. >>> I want to move approval of

the release of the bonds. >> second.

>> moved and seconded for the release of the bonds.

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

thank you.

That item is taken care of.

>> first item on the agenda is

page 1 under final subdivision plans.

A major subdivision plan 17-45,

denton farms, unit 2 lot 2 and a

portion of lot 3.

This is a final record plat to create 11 lots in the interior

of the denton farm development, accessed off livingston lane.

Here you can see the old

richmond road frontage for the

denton farm property the plat

was originally recommended for postponements due to concerns

about traffic at the main

intersection with richmond roads

that has all been resolved, all parties satisfaction.

It was a matter of some markins and expenses associated with

some improvements to make that a safer intersection. With that staff is now

recommending approval of the

plan subject to the conditions that you see on the agenda.

Standard conditions with just a

few final cleanup conditions. I'm to answer any questions have

you for staff.

>> I'm the owner of denton farms

and john barlow, manager of den

ton farms inching, inc. I'll entertain any questions you

May have. >> does anyone in the audience

like to speak to this particular

agenda item? Anyone on the commission?

If not we are ready for a motion

>> I move for approval of plan

sub17-45 denton farms, inc. With

the 12 conditions noted by staff any other discussion with the

motion? Please vote when it comes up on

your screen. that motion carries.

Thank you. The next item on the agenda I

think is the peninsula and

squires apartments as amended. >> Mr. Chairman, members of

the planning commission.

On item, on page 5 of your

agenda, plan-mjdp-17-61 the

peninsula and squires apartments amended.

We have passed out to you on a

yellow piece of paper some

revised conditions based on revised plans that your staff

has received on this plan. As you are all well aware, this

plan has been on your agenda for sometime, there have been re

visions an awful lot of discussions and meetings with

the applicant, the neighbors and

various parties within the government, again to talk about

this plan and some of the issues

that it has.

You can see again where it's positioned.

We have the reservoir in this location.

Here is squires circle, scierks.

It is partly owned by american kentucky and water company

proposed for the development. As you can see here, creating

this street pattern within this

area, these are apartments and then as you come as you can see,

they're establishing a street

pattern here to create townhouse

area here and single family homes.

And this area we have a

clubhouse with attendant parking

the plan as it is involved involved has a conditional zon

ing buffer imposed by your council.

This body recommended 25 feet,

the council extended that to 50 feet.

They reduced the density on the site as well.

So what we have now before you

today is we have we were provid

ed with a plan easier to see.

You can see squires circle, the existing apartment complex in

this area, here are the new apartments.

You can see how they're oriented through the street system

interior parkin. A lot of green space available

to this development. You can see again the clubhouse

and the pool area.

There is access here at squires

circle, they're connected. Though there will be available

for movement within the complex. They have an access point here

out on to the extension of

squires circle. We have a townhouse, again you

can see the townhouses with

access here and here they're

oriented to the street and again , because it was very

difficult to review the plan for

staff and everyone involved, frankly. We can see the single family

home area that is being proposed

and these are 163 single family lots.

You can see the layout here, the internal street system.

Here is a pedestrian access to

the school site being proposed.

And again we highlighted for you the 50-foot conditional zoning

buffer on this property. We've also highlighted for you a

as well the fema flood plain

and the 25-foot building set back that is a requirement from

the fema flood plain.

You can see that in virtually

all circumstances, the

conditional zoning buffer far

exceeds any setback that would

be required by your ordinance. There is a bit of an exception

in this area because of this in

let that impacts these lots. In the course of reviewing this

as I stated, there has been a lot of communication, a lot of

meetings with the applicant,

your staff and various component

s of the government to talk about the issues and the

major issues that face this plan

and if you look at your

conditions, a lot of them are standard development plan and

preliminary subdivision plan conditions.

This is a combined plan and one

of the reasons for that is that

they can proceed now and construct infrastructure off this plan.

They can also pull building

permits for the apartments from

the final development plan. Eventually once the

infrastructure is in place, they

can plat the single family home

lots that's how that works and

one of the reasons they have a

combined plan first item 6 is a

sign off, our department of environmental quality.

And what actually has arisen

from this discussion as much as anything is your conditional

zoning restrictions imposed by

the council, and the council has

stated.

And hazardous or invasive species.

They also have placed thrort

with your environmental services

people to and I say people, and protecting the buffer and the

tree canopy, how how to

delineate that buffer area when

they buy property.

Any community recommendations of

trying to physically delineate

the area to placing monuments to the applicant stating that they

would provide in their closing

documents information and how it is buffered. That's the nature of the

discussion and I can't tell you today that that has fully been

resolved but it can be resolved through the sign-off process

with environmental services and

staff would is making an

assumption, I know that can be dangerous, that that will be re

solved to everyone's

satisfaction with the clear intent that we support the

enforcement of the conditional

zoning and the protection of

that buffer.

Now item 13, label proposed storm water basin on the plan

for article 21 or denote alternatives to the approval of

the division of engineering.

Your article 21 requires

detention and other areas shown on the plan if they're required

on the plan.

And that quite often comes about through the actual design stage

how they determine but it's a

matter of making sure there is area in a site on a piece of

property where these types of

issues can be addressed. That was discussed in length on

several occasions by a lot of people involved in the discussion.

I want you all to know that.

Your planning staff, engineering

water quality at large and

in-depth discussions about how to address storm water issues

and the paramount issue is water

quality, not detention.

they're noax a reservoir and you want the water to move down

stream before the rest of the water gets there

particularly when you are close

to a body such as this or a

stream. Planning staff can report to you

that it is our understanding

that they have reached an accommodation, that being the

applicant is with the division of water quality and engineering

to address water quality issues on this site.

And we will allow the applicant

to elaborate about you think it is necessary but it is our

understanding that they're going

to utilize wetlands as their primary water quality feature.

Staff comments that that is reasonable. Wetlands have a strong

relationship with streams and lakes and reservoirs and bodies

of water and as an example, your expansion area requires wetlands

in their storm water management

and many of those wetlands that

are to be constructed in the expansion area are associated

with the jacobson reservoir. So again, that relationship

seems to be a good relationship

and seems like a very reasonable approach.

A smaller item is that they need to denote board of adjustment

approval of the conditional use for the clubhouse.

It's a cm use in the zone. They're aware of that.

They have to go do the board of adjustment and get approval for

that. That will have to be done before

the issuance of a building permit. That's the control mechanism for

that and that's a public hearing as you all are aware.

They'll have to go before the

board and gain approval for the clubhouse.

We want that clearly denoted on the plan.

We would like for them to denote the timing and legal structure

of providing access to squires road for the single family homes

I know that those of you that

are on the subdivision committee what have probably heard this

discussion the most, but squires road is going to be relocated in

this location. It currently runs up to here.

There are four or five houses that currently front and they

have the driveways enter on to squires road.

It's going to be necessary during this development process

when this gets redesigned and re

located, this will need to be

closed it will become an access easement.

We want that clearly denoted on the plan. There is a process involved.

This will be closed openlily the urban county counsel.

There is a process in that that

they will have to meet.

To address that particular issue

item 16 is denote the timing of the 20-acre school site.

Staff can report to you that we

have a minor plat in our office now that addresses the creation

of that school site.

That will move forward if this

plan gets approved by this body today.

The next item is born from or

has come from the discussions I mentioned before.

The water quality issue, the

enforcement issues, and the sensitivity that staff would

agree needs to be followed on

the development of this property

that is a requirement of your subdivision regulations and it

has to be submitted to this body

for your review prior to any

notice to proceed, notice to them doing any work or anything on the site.

Does not require you to take action.

But it does allow you to review and be sure these types of

things are being done per your intent to seeing these practices are followed.

And I'll give you an example of

the type of thing you can do because you've done it.

You recommended a buffer.

That would be the type of

practice that would be enumerat ed in this type of plan. Plan. Plan. Plan.

Plan. Plan. Plan. Plan. Plan. Plan. Plan. Plan.

Specific. Now staff would not presume to get specific on best management practices.

We believe that our division of engineering, water quality,

working with the applicant's engineers can certainly develop

the appropriate risk management practices to address the

concerns on this site and we

also believe and we think that

this the planning staff does not believe we should be specifying

very, very specific best manage

ment practices that is something that should be develop

ed in the improvement plan process that is spelled out

in the land subdivision

regulations 9 last two items 18

and 19, one will go on the plan

up here were these new apartment

s an area adjacent to squire circumstance circle.

In this zone parking not allowed in the front yard.

It scales that there is room but it is a building line.

They just need to but it on the

plan but that leads us to our

last condition, one that is very concerned of great concern to

the staff.

As you all know, there is single family homes tremendous area out

here with a lot of single family

homes with the orientation on the street and nice front yards

and that sort of thing. What we see here and our concern

about this orientation is you are going to see the backside of

these buildings with their

garages and just parking in the front yard and staff believes

that it would be a much better orientation to mimic what

they're doing in this area to the rest and to the street and

to the residential family homes

in this area. It's a concern that we have that

we believe needs to be resolved

on this plan.

And with that, staff is recommending approval of the

plan and I'll be happy to answer

any questions you May have for staff.

>> any questions for Mr. Martin?

Yes Miss Plumlee.

>> thank you, Mr. Chair.

Tom, you probably mentioned it

and I missed it, I believe

council imposed a condition within the buffer that there

would be all structures including accessory structures

and fences and place structures

shall be prohibited.

>> if I were to purchase a lot, the single family, how far would

I own?

>> this is the property line.

We have highlighted for you in black. This is the property line.

There will be a strip of land around the complete perimeter of

this property that is owned by kentucky american water.

The people who buy these lots

will not own property that

literally touches that reservoir because kentucky american water is maintaining that.

>> they were not own that and

you would have a 50-foot buffer

where they cannot put structures >> that 50-foot buffer is off of

the property line.

It is into seech line 50 feet from their property line.

>> thank you.

>> any other questions. >> nick nicholson on behalf of

the applicant tom kimer and

venerable trees is here as well. I want to kind of start off by

letting you know that we are in complete agreement with the

staff's recommended conditions. And at the end we will be asking

you to approve this development plan subject to the listed

conditions that Mr. Martin

just went over. He went fairly thoroughly

through what this development

plan is. I do want to highlight kind of one of the big changes that has

occurred since you saw this plan last and that is the

incorporation of the adjacent

town home site.

Right now this existing is town homes.

We have incorporated it but we

did so at a density that will

not increase, the existing

conditions plus what the urban county council density

restrictions were for the main part of the site.

So if you look what the density restrictions are that the

council put on and what is there today, that is what the density

we are asking you to approve.

This is not an increase in any

way, shape or form from what the council approved and what is

there currently today. We adjusted the location and

width of squires road trail. Since the school, we think is

going to be one of the primary

kind of benefactors for the pedestrian access here, we made

sure that the trail goes on their site.

We also moved it up to eight

feet in width that width is

basically equal to wherever the

squires road trail is along a public road basically.

Most of that trail is old squires road.

It's not along a public road in any way.

The widest point on a public

road that diswiers road trail is is eight feet.

We matched that. In most places that it goes

along a public road, it's just a

normal neighborhood sidewalk width.

We agreed to match that.

We also widened the street width s around the schools in

order to accommodate the pickup

and dropoff for the middle

school kids around the school

site and finally we rearranged the clubhouse and pool area to

ensure shat the cherry tree

thoroughly discussed at the last

hearing had a proper tree protection area around it.

Now that is pretty much the only

changes that were made from the

last time you all saw this plan.

But that in no way is indicative

of how much work we have had to

put in behind the scenes we are

going to do a comprehensive run

down but I want to highlight

three main topics ensure that they're comfortable with the

path forward on how we are going

to street storm water on site. As I'm sure you all remember,

this is a very large watershed this reservoir helps maintain.

We are only.26% of that watershed. In initial discussions we were

talking about using the reservoir as the primary method

for water quality treatment. This discussions with them, we

no longer are going to do that. We are going take care of that

on site.

Lfucg, water quality and the are comfortable with it.

It is going to take a lot of work. We are not able to show it on a

development plan of this scale, the size at this point.

There is a lot of modeling that needs to go into this, a lot of

stud toe make sure this can go forward.

So that is what tom highlighted in condition 13.

While I know you all know that the division of engineering is a

sign-off and we don't get a build unless they're happy.

we wanted to make sure it is in writing, very specifically spell

ed out if they're not happy with our storm water treatment

facilities, we don't get a build

and they get a review it. Not just to certification, it's

an ongoing process through the

infrastructure design work.

We sat down with traffic engineering about the school

street width, the squires road and the general improvements

that we can make to the surround ing area.

We put a note on the development

plan that we are going give $60 ,000 to traffic engineering

specifically for them to decide

how to use in order to better

the traffic calming and multi modal transportation system

in the neighborhood all the way

from richmond road, man o' war

and alumni, that kind of

rectanglish site.

We talked with the environmental services.

Out of that came two primary

notes, the first is basically ac

tress the notification of tom kimmel and the trees and how the

conditional zoning is going to be handled during the development.

The second note is how future property owners are going to

handle this and how they're going to be put on notice to make sure that they are aware

that their 50 feet has special

rules on there.

As I'm sure you no doubt

remember, this body put in very

specific and stringent conditional zoning restrictions

basically governing the development of that strip of

land around the lake's edge. You all heard from neighbors.

you all heard from us. You all heard from the staff,

and determined that a 25-foot

buffer area with protection for three inch caliper trees was

going to protect this property,

protect the environment... The reservoir and the surrounding

environment. The council took that

recommendation, they heard again from staff, from us and from

neighbors and they doubled those restrictions.

They basically said the same special rules that you all put

in place, don't just go for 25.

They're going for 50 feet and three inch calipers we are

knocking it down to one and a half inch calipers.

They determined that was enough to protect the environment, this

property and the surrounding

reservoir.

Both of those bodies decided the

removal of dead, diseased, hadz

does trees and invasive species is allowed.

That removal is the process that we are talking about.

How are we going to govern and make sure that the rules are

followed during that removal?

Now let me be very clear. The language is what it is.

It was very carefully vetted,

drafted by lfucg personnel, it

was edited by lfucg personnel.

Approved by lfucg, that was the language determined to be

thoroughly protective.

We agreed to abide by that.

We are agreeing to abide by this

tom kimer has been very, very clear.

It is a cooperative process with

urban forestry we don't get to decide what goes on in this development.

it is a cooperative process with the divisions of government that

are the necessary to make these decisions.

This is where condition 17 comes into play.

This is adding an even basically

an additional layer of protection so you all know that

we are required to abide by the

rules that are set in place by the conditional zoning

restrictions and the various divisions of government.

They ensure that all the

appropriate steps where, when,

what's are approved by the divisions of government.

So I have a feeling that you are

going to hear after a speak -- after I speak about this area a whole lot.

I have a feeling it's going to

seem very familiar to you all because a lot of the same things

that they asked are what they're

going to ask again today. Sufficient things as do not

allow any removal of any

invasive species, do not allow

any type of removal of anything in this conditional zoning area

f. You do allow it, I think

they're going to ask for replant ing of native species at the same density.

All of those arguments were before this body before.

All of those arguments were

before the council before. You all heard them.

You weighed them, you discussed

them and you decided not to implement them.

There is no reason... There was no reason then to do it and no

reason now to implement those. You have an area that is covered

with incredibly stringent conditional zoning restriction language.

You have an area that has been

committed in writing by us to

work with the amicable divisions

of government to review all of

the process and we are putting conditions on the plan that not

only do we have to work with them, we have to tell you what

we are going to do in writing during the infrastructure phase.

This area is covered.

It is as protected as it can get or should get.

You all have done your duty.

You did it at the conditional

zoning phase, and by upholding this development plan and what

the staff is asking you to do, you'll do it again today.

I'm happy to answer any questions. But again that's really all have

I to say and we request approval

>> any questions?

Miss Mundy.

>> nick, how does american access get to their area?

>> there is an area which they can access through but they also

have the water access across the

lake there is a full actually driveway access and you can get

to this property. >> so coming across the water.

>> you can come across the water , yes.

>> thank you. >> any other questions?

>> thank you.

Now anyone here who wants to speak in favor of this

particular agenda item?

Okay how many here would like to speak in a concerning way for

this particular project? Fine.

And Mr. Billings, you are

representing the neighborhood? Well, we'll get everyone in

that would like to speak.

Just so we can move it along and

respect for our other fellow citizens, approximately a three-

minute opportunity to speak.

One other thing, too, which is,

I know it's a little difficult on occasion but if somebody has

already said what you want to be said, but if you still want to

go on the record, you can come forward and just say I agree

with what was said and take your seat.

But again, we don't want to

hamper any persons who would like to speak.

We'll ask you to be respectfully mindful of the three-minute

limit.

Mr. Billings, go ahead. Mr. Chairman, members of the

planning commission, staff, as you all know I'm nathan billings

and I have been involved in this process for just under a year at

this point starting in October of 2016.

You will recall what Mr. Nicholson alluded to a

minute ago is a very long hearing and contentious hearing

before this body that I believe was in January or February and

then you probably didn't watch because you had already seen a

lot of it, the long hearing

before the council in April.

And so at this point the zone change has occurred.

There are conditional zoning restrictions that council did

put in place that were discussed

by staff and Mr. Nicholson, so today we are here to talk about

really the fleshing out of the details. Mr. Nicholson is correct in

some ways but his beliefs are also incorrect.

In my talking points today what you are go for example to see is

that the discussion is not

really about what the staff has recommended here.

There is not a lot of dis agreement about these notes on behalf of the opposition.

I think that the areas of concern and specifically the dis

agreement and what our suggestions are for notes which I'll come to at the end is

simply this and this is the 800- pound gorilla, the issue in this case.

There is a vision that ball

homes has to sell lake front lots and the question I have is

simply this.

What their vision is as opposed to what the notes say and what

we believe the legal documents that the city has, whether they

can do that. What you are going to find is

that while they refer to things

like plans and the improvement plan, you hear them say you

can't do anything about it. You can basically require a plan

but the only thing you can do is get an update and you can't take

any action on it. So I'm here to tell you today

that I want you to take action. I would like you to approve this

development plan but it needs some additional notes if you are

going to approve it.

And if those notes aren't on

there, you should not approve it so let me start back.

Under zoning ordinance 21-4. The legal standard by which a

development plan can be approved

and/or disapproved and you all either must modify or disapprove

a plan if it doesn't comply with the zoning ordinance or other

laws or issues of flood drainage , et cetera.

You saw the standard before but not usually put in front of you.

That's the standard we are operating with today.

So I'm going to go through themes you all saw.

This is a comprehensive plan.

We want to create tree

protection areas, riparian areas

the storm water manual has a no-

mo zone within 25 feet of stream banks and waterways.

This is an issue that ball homes , the applicant, won't

answer.

Their property line does not come to the lake's edge.

It was insengsally set back from

the water varying between 0-50 feet in different areas.

It's not consistent because the boundary lines are straight lines.

What they won't say is whether

the riparian areas under the

city manuals apply to their property even if their property

is within that zone. Nothing on the document, nothing

in the staff notes for development plan that answers

that question. Before you approve this plan, it

is my recommendation the you know the answer to that and it

is transparent so if something adverse happens in the future,

because I'm convinced it will happen, we know the standards by

which it will be addressed and

get with.  -- dealt with. The comprehensive plan adopted

the greenway master plan, the flood plains and all the flood

plains are conservation green

ways the the riparian zones are not addressed.

Greenway environmentally sensitive area.

There is not one sensitive area

addressed on the plan.

There is a buffer but not a single esa on the plan.

Article 26 talks about it's the tree protection ordinance you've seen.

It comes up a lot.

There is the language in 20.1 for the purpose of it.

The riparian buffer under 26.2

is the purpose of why rye pair

riparian buffers exist.

Includes trees in understory, we

talk about riparian trees, here

is the key of this.

The question is whether any of

this property falls within the riparian buffer and the storm

water manual. Since this development was re

filed for three and a half months I've tried to get an

absolute clear answer to that question.

As I stand here today, I'm still

unable to tell you all what the

answer is because I don't know. Is it or isn't it.

It also says the designation

shall be in Ard cons with the

provision of the lfucg storm

water manual. They have removed trees to

complete the sanitary sewer line they have do that.

What it doesn't create the right

to create backyards, play areas or turf.

This is the issue in this case. Is in the issue that is before

you to vote on today.

Is the vision for the peninsula

that the developer will be able

to come in and from that 50-foot boundary line to either the

property boundary line or beyond

, remove every tree, every

bush if it is dead, diseased, invasive or hazardous leaving a

handful of what they will

designate as trees and not re

planting simply a vision of backyards to the water zone or

protect the riparian area that multiple lfucg documents create

and intend to protect.

It talks about reforestation. And that this is really important.

The buffer shall have appropriate notes and easement

for that purpose on the A.M. Cablg dlans p development plans.

There is not a single note on

the development plan about the riparian area.

There is the conditional zone of 50 feet but doesn't have the

enforcement mechanisms because the conditional zoning buffer

can't have those.

That's a development plan note. Having moving on to the storm

water manual.

The zoning ordinance and code of

ordinances require the dp be designed in accordance with the

storm water manual.

Section 9.3 creates riparian

buffer zones that include lakes. There has been discussion that

the reservoir is not protected

by 9.3.

Why doesn't it qualify?

It is not an official answer but people repeating back other

information that has come from the applicant.

I think it is fair for the hearing today to know whether

that is going to be respected on that plan one way or the other

so at least we know.

So the question is ball homes

won't consent it is applicable

to it so I think you should require compliance with the

section. You have heard before about the

purpose of the riparian buffer zones, why they're important and

there is really the riparian buffer zone for the storm water

manual, there are two zones. The first one extends for a

minimum of 15 feet and I I have a diagram in a second.

The second zone at the edge and

comes in an additional 20 feet.

And here what is it says.

That zone, zones 1 and 2 must be

at least 100 feet or 30% of the flood plain.

Here is storm water manual

that's a diagram from 9-1 or figure 9-1 in the manual showing%

how the zone 1 is created.

There is 9-1 showing similar

type of evaluation and 9-3 shows the importance to the canopy.

Why is this important?

The development plan today

doesn't address that issue. Either there should be a finding

from the commission which says it doesn't apply, which I will

disagree with but at least it is a finding or there should be a

finding that says it does comply in which the development plan

cannot be approved because it

does not adequately address that

so why won't they acknowledged

riparian zone is applicable? Because I said this issue is

really not about the changes they made to the school site,

which are appreciated.

The changes to refacing the clubhouse which are appreciated.

It's really not about the density issue.

That's been handled and resolve. Not about the money they're

giving to the city for road improvement or traffic control.

that's appreciated. It's about a vision-for-how are

we going to do development in

lexington.

Stick by the manuals or vague

ness so ambiguous and un certain, there is no ability

to enforce and protect.

Next, lfucg code of ordinances 1271 also creates riparian

buffer zone different from the storm water zone.

It is at least 25 feet from the

water unless a larger area is approved by the division of

environmental services and this is important.

I includes a requirement to plant approved species in that

area.

This allows for nationalized detention basins.

Similar in 32-2016.

You have seen this email before.

This is tim qairy, the urban for evidenter's finding.

The rye pair riparian buffer,

under the storm water quality

manual that 50 to 100-foot buffer has to be protected.

Not sa saying that you can't remove dead or invasive species,

we are in favor of that but the second component is that it has

to be replanted.

It has to be replanted that's what it says here.

Requirement to replant species. Urban forester recommended if

you are going to touch the

riparian buffer, it should be known as a conservation greenway

and that he suggested that

native plantings be made to

mitigate the loss of the bush honeysuckle and other invasive

species.

And he agrees and we agree the

note about sustainable manage ment practice is an

appropriate note but it is too ambiguous to enforce.

The greenway master plan requir

ed a 50-foot riparian

buffer around all streams, part of the conservation greenway

system and this reservoir was identified as one of those.

You remember this map from before that shows the buffer is

required.

Here is the nuance of what this discussion involves.

Everyone wants to say that on

the zone change once council

created the 50-foot conditional

buffer, it went and satisfied every one of these requirements.

That's not true.

They want to sweep them under

the rug saying the buffer was enacted.

You don't get to ignore the greenway master plan or storm

water manual just because

council said in the zoning

approval there is a 50-foot

buffer. Greenway master plan has pre

ambles and philosophical statements.

But the crucial component is the preservation and reestablishment

of open space and repirian buffers. When things are removed, they

have to be replanted. This talks about the importance of them.

This is what the master plan

says, 50-foot buffer has been

added so it has to be on the plan.

Riparian areas would function to protect water quality and steep

sloped areas.

The topography slopes deeply on some areas.

It slopes steeply. It identified certain areas on

this site.

Not just the 50-foot buffer no one has voted flly.

They ignore it. This says there are environmentally sensitive areas

on the peninsula, identifies the types of them and some of them

have been identified like the

tree preservation stand here and up here.

Two of probably 20 have been

identified and protected where

are the others? We believe the development plan

fails to document, identify or

protect those environmental, the sensitive areas and therefore it

would fail under the greenway master plan.

The green space plan has similar provisions, specifically page 55

, it talks about the

importance of those and how the

buffer is important for cost

effective flood management in

the plan. Talks about the goal of the

green space plan which is to

prevent essentially floods.

Power lex has a similar plan we went through similar before.

A guiding document, not control

ling but shows the importance of the rye pearian buffer and the best management practices for the creation of

the buffer. So I think the real question

comes down to this how are you

going to enforce a vague note against either a developer

during construction or against

the first homeowner or second or

tenth homeowner in it is simply

unreal realistic to expect. The city staff whether it be tim

or environmental services or water quality, to be on site

every single day during construction.

It's just not possible. After the construction, how is

it going to be protected?

It is our belief that the city

needs to have a mechanism by which someone will serve to

protect it. While it is nice to say they%

will pass a piece of paper to somebody at closing, by the way

the city has no way to enforce,

whapsz when that person sells their property? Nothing because there is no

enforcement mechanism.

We need to protect protocols to protect the zones and the suffer s.

This is a diagram we've drawn

that shows each of the different

burrs, property line set forth in red.

The blue is the flood plain and

the different shading of influences shows the increase

and the setback in each buffer.

We think it should identified

not just the 50-foot zoning

buffer it is required do but should identify the other buffer s created by the storm

water manual by environmental

quality and tim qairy on the

plan. Through a creation of homeowners

or property association that would enforce those.

We've talked all along we didn't know if we would suggest those

or not. Waited to see what might come out.

We came down to it, what we understood is that without

anybody to protect that buffer,

the city is not capable of doing it, not because they don't want

to, they just don't have the resources to do it.

the developer won't have an incentive to do it after they

sold and therefore the only

logical people are the common

property of the people who live

there and similar provisions on any development plans including

those by ball homes.

The next is a short blurb about the trail system.

They did increase the trail

system from six to eight feet. I talked to planning about this

just to make sure they haven't changed.

The words to me is we would

always like a 12-foot foot

system because it helicopters

integrate the system for fayette

county. Aasto, the american association

of state certified traffic

officers, traffic control device

s, federal hea aide managers all choired a minimum

of it but at least 12 feet is best practices.

That's what every trail the city builds.

At least to a 12-foot width.

At eight foot, it doesn't

promote productive bicyclist

passing pedestrians walking or oning.

Eight feet is 9 minimum two

people handicapped can pass.

What happens with congestion is

that eight foot, if people have a perception the trail is

congested, they don't use it. So we recommend the 12-foot

width because of the high density residential, the school

and connecting to future trails. We talk about existing trails.

Town branch commons, legacy

trail are all 12-foot, brighton,

and the jacobson park trail will connect eastward in the future.

There is the existing trails that show width of them and you

can see those are not eight-foot trails.

In fact eight-foot trails

wouldn't allow the traffic to go

to the horse park and back.

We gist need an open table format.

If you have read through any of the comments, I'm sure most of

you have looked at a lot of them what did you see time and time again?

People want more open spaces,

more walking spaces, more bike paths? Why?

Because our constituent wants to

be more and more akist and a little-foot trails won't

accommodate that.

In June of 2017, we were told

that, and no one has rebutted this, that there was an vice

mayor issue on the property and

we were told staff would follow up.

We were not able to get anymore information and there is

probablily contamination on this site.

Before development plans

approved, anticipates with high

tess dengs and is there a

mitigation plan in place for the

public?

If it is vague or ambiguous, it

cannot be enforced.

So we have some notes that we

would suggest that you all add.

The first is that all of the

zones be added on the plan.

We have the first part of this

is already added in so we would

plans that are removed must be removed manually and stumps

painted with herbicide. I've asked tim about that and he

said that is very doable and

that for every one next seas of one and a half inch, it has a

replacement of one to one. Phased approach to building

along the water line. Our suggestion is during the

construction that what you all

require. With what that will do is stop

anybody from going to that area

unless one it is needed for utility work approved by

environmental quality or they

want to clear out the dead, diseased and invasive species

and there is a clear plan to remove and replant before they

do it. Mr. Martin recommended four

and five.

As a mechanism, that's a great lofty goal.

The problem is while you can

require the plan, you have no

power to do anything to enforce it after today.

`so our request is, until the

plan notes are adequately

adopted, and until the plan adequately creates the buffers

that the development plan doesn't comply with the

requirements of the zoning

ordinance or other law understand a and we request

respectfully that you all deny

the plan at this time.

Which notes are you really

recommending? We submit that the plan should

be denied until they're out on the plan.

>> you would add all seven of yours. >> that's correct.

>> thank you. There are three buffers.

Kentucky american's buffer which

is their private property, there

is a regular, 25-foot buffer

that we allow.

that the city, the council put

in place so in my mind if kentucky american owns the

buffer, these lots can't run all

the way to the water, correct? Your assumption is incorrect

about the buffers. The buffer, wherever the water

line is in and the property boundary line is owned by

kentucky american water.

It is incorrect to call it a

buffer because this development plan can't control anything on the other side of the property

boundary line. There are other documents like

the storm water quality manage men which we believe

would apply not just from the water line to the property

boundary line which this development plan cannot denote

but the lines would come inside

of the bound are I line so, for

example here is the flood line,

the water line deviates based on

the water lefl there is no zon ing buffer.

The buffers that apply then we

believe the storm water quality manual and riparian buffers and

we have had no one who will

agree yes or no whether that

buffer exists.

There is a riparian buffer area that is created by lfucg

documents not on the plan. To get back to where I want to

be is the fact that kentucky

american owns the body of water. >> that's correct.

>> in my mind it's a reservoir.

It's not a lake. So you are tying it back to regulations for a lake, but

there was nowhere in that regulation anything about a

reservoir that is privately own ed.

>> well I think, I would search

for reservoirs in the city documents. I don't know what you would call

it but a lake.

Weblg call it a reservoir or huge water retention area.

It's my opinion it is a lake. If someone in the city or plan

ning commission is make making a determination that it

does not qualify under that. I would at least like the

clarity, I would disagree with that interpretation but would I

like the clarity made into the record publicly so we would know

if we have to challenge this

what the decision is so we can then figure out if the decision

is right or wrong.

Any kind of mandates on what

kentucky mrn american does with that body of water because it's

their body of water, not the

city's, not publicly accessible.

>> that's not quite true. The question is which ones apply

and which ones don't. That's the battle and that's

what I believe, in order to have

total clarity on what is and

isn't enforceable moving forward

on behalf of the owners in the area who expressed deep concern that you are aware of, we want

to specifically know what is the decision and if the decision is

the planning commission doesn't

believe it has to require with storm water manual.

I May disagree with it but I'll respect the decision is made.

I think there should be a decision made and not swept

under the rug and continue to be ambiguous.

>> I'm not trying to be argument tiff.

I'm trying to in my mind this will not control kentucky

american's control of that whether it is two feet or 20

feet.

There May be other lfucg documents. That has been clear from day one

I don't think whether we fight about other issues, have

disagreed on that issue. What we have said once we come

in the boundary line, that's

what we want to protect. >> any other questions. >> thank you.

We May call you back up later on we have several people who want

ed to speak. Is he going to speak or passing

out stuff for you?

I think the new storm water

manual has a 50-foot no mo zone

but Mr. Martin can clarify

that. I'm here to ask for additional

requirements in the final development plan.

This is not a normal buffer because normally you put a

buffer between a neighborhood

and something out of context that would be people on boats

trying to keep them from looking at houses.

This is more a stream buffer and

I think that's the intent. Council.

That's what was discussed. It would be wrong if you look at

it like a normal traditional buffer.

I agree substantially you need to be careful where the boundary

is, there needs to be signage on it or a way to differentiate

where the boundary starts it is unenforceable if you don't know

where it is or owned by 100 property owners.

You need it owned by a homeowners association or balls

homes until it is turned over to

the homeowners association that's pretty much standard

practice for commonly owned properties.

Plannings commission needs to specify that it invasion vasive

species be taken out by hand.

If you move equipment in there

four, condition how will the

planning commission enforce the

conditions? It is a different buffer that is

going to require enforcement often.

Until it is completed. The conditions on the buffer

should include maintenance once

invasive species is removed if

it is not done right and even if

it is done correctly it is not

100% proper and it will come

back and you can't do that with lot owners.

The comprehensive plan, the goals and objectives established

by the council to support what

the neighbor, minimize disruption of natural features

when building new communities. Identify and protect natural

resources and landscapes before

d. Occurs.

>> my name is addison, I live on hunter's point drive which

borders the western edge of the

proposed development. When I first spoke to you in

January I expressed concern about the quality of the water

that will result from the runoff of roads, parking lots, lawns

and driveways.

Into reservoir number 4 we have

two 234u reasons to be concerned cautiously pessimistic.

First we have seen that the final development plan doesn't

include retention basins and apparent intention of allowing

the water to drain directly into

the water -- into the reservoir.

This has been addressed at least verbally.

Second we've learned that this property has been used as a

burial ground for asbestos waste

by kentucky american water. The quality of water in the

reservoir which has been diminished over the years will

be badly affected by the new

development lake ellerslie is a backup water supply supplying 13

% of our drinking water. It is my hope that the planning

commission and the various

lexington divisions will require

ball homes to address these

concerns by adding explicit conditional notes to the

development plan.

These notes should require retention basins and require

identification and cleanup of

the asbestos.

>> my name is suzanne, I live at 1,000 rain court.

We thank the commission for the

25-foot buffer in the zoning hearing.

While this might appear to be

adequate protection for the

riparian canopy, there is no language currently attached to

the development plan that would prevent excessive thinning

during construction or clear cutting by owners once the lots

are sold and we were advised and to preserve the character of the

whiching neighborhoods. In their previous tree survey,

ball homes stated that they

would replant any areas in which

invasive species were removed%

with trees they now propose to

use grass which will result in significant thinning and

degradation of the buffer. In 2013 kentucky american water

cited significant declines in water quality in the reservoir

due to adjacent development. Section 9.3 of the storm water

manual defines buffer zones as

being composed of trees and/or shrubs.

Anything that is removed must be replaced with a native tree or

shrub as opposed to lawns and

grass and would otherwise constitute a violation of the

storm water regulations. Despite their claims that they

do not control the strip of land

to be retained by kentucky

american, ball homes attorneys have clearly stated they seek to

have waterfront property on the

lots with the possibility of boat docks.

This runs counter to the

existence of a dense tree buffer as you know, our community has

bent over backyards to compromise.

We did not fight development on the peninsula.

We have simply fought to ensure

that some aspect of this environmentally sensitive area

be preserved in the tree buffer. Please act to ensure that this

piece of the city's tree canopy remains in tact and functional

by including. >> it doesn't take a significant

amount of expertise and traffic analysis to know that this

development will produce more

traffic than any residential neighborhood should endure.

And I applaud their contributing

to traffic calming it might produce some of the threw

traffic but this development is

going to put a significant

strain on that area. it's a poor plan that places

high density development in the interior of a neighborhood and

forces the traffic through the residential streets to get out

to the arterials. Nd to finalize what I had to

say about this, this goes along with many of the other comments,

but that this develoment plan

does not contain sufficient note s in keeping with the spirit

and intent of the council's decision to ensure the preserv

ation of 50-foot buffer

and the tree canopy.

Thank you.

>> I live at 1,000 rain court.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

3 I agree up with is that

venerable trees expert has said

that they would work with kentucky american water company

when they're canning the buffer.

What that means is that presum ably what they're going to

do on ball homes property is

going to happen in the kentucky american buffer.

What we think of as a buffer, that strip of property that we

have, one of the concerns that we have is they're allowed to do

the same thing everywhere. What will end up happening is we

will have a few trees left and

the rest will be grass. Why?

Because kentucky american, I

mean as ball homes has said they will replant only with grass.

All of these problems will be solved if they just require to

replant according to some standards.

Replant with trees and bushes. Because that is what is required

to protect water quality. Kentucky american has said in

2013 that the water quality is I

am impaired on that lake because

of the development if you don't

have a good buffer, my question

is that if nothing else, make sure that they replant with tree s and bushes.

There are clear standards in the

storm water manual about how we

should replant to get the canopy at certain levels and so on and

so forth. Language adopted like that would

be perfect for a situation like this.

If you notice there is a lot in

the 100 year flood plain and conditional zoning buffer

so if ball homes does what they say they're going to do, which

is to remove a lot of trees,

dead and invasives and replant

the grass, they're going to not

be in compliance with the storm water manual because the storm

water manual has regulations,

has rules on what it cannot do.

It cannot even mow within 25 feet of the 100-year flood

plain. How is that going to work if you

are going to replant grass?

Also if you are replant grass, future homeowners are not going

to be encourageed for the tree buffer.

In January of this year when the

zoning hearing was taking place,

you voted 7-1 to put in a buffer what were you imagining the

buffer is going to be like? Presumably you were thinking

about trees and bushes because that's what the storm water

manual defines a buffer to be.

Well, unfortunately that won't

be realized unless we have

strong language like the ones

proposed by nathan, our attorney unless that happens we won't

have a viable buffer. It will be a fake buffer that is

just on paper. Thank you very much.

>> thank you. >> good afternoon. I'm wendy henry.

I live at 1012 cool water court.

And as the name implies, I back up to the lake which is

beautiful. I've lived there for 25 years

but I've noticed in the years

since the lake was sold to outside entity, the management

of the lake has greatly declined so I want to encourage you that

if you think that kentucky

american water is going to do

much to make sure our water doesn't get polluted much more,

that the barriers are maintained

, that's not going to happen.

I have witnessed them, the kentucky american water company

cut down trees that is in the

current barrier to the lake and

they do not replace them.

That causes more erosion into the lake and they're not doing

anything about it. Please do not think you can

count on kentucky american water

to be concerned or maintain your your drinking water. That's on us.

We are the ones consuming it. We are the ones that need to

protect it and that being said,

protecting it with enforcements

and regulations and rules and

blah blah blah is all very good,

kind of like, you know, strong

language, but I think the most important part is the large

stick because if you cannot enforce these things, if you

cannot make sure that what you

want to happen happens, then i

think we are all wasting our time. So I encourage you to do what is

best for the city and all of its people to take the

responsibility for our drinking water upon yourselves and not

count on an outside entity to do it.

And to make the regulations we

need including the strong enforcements necessary to make

sure that those regulations and rules are followed.

Thank you.

We'll move to the rebuttal. The applicant has an opportunity

to have a few minutes. The applicant gets your shot and

back to the community again for another shot and the staff wraps

up and then I will allow the commission members if they have fully questions of anybody

and then after that we take it

over from there. >> absolutely.

I will try to be very brief.

Our development plan, the notes that are on the development plan

and the conditions that the staff are recommending approval

address all of the concerns that

Mr. Billings and the neighbors have pointed out. They might not address them like they want or to the extent that

they want them to, but they are addressed. Note 11 specifically says we

have to follow all the manuals. We have to follow the storm

water manual. It's on the development plan.

We absolutely have it.

All of that powerpoint present ation I personally

believe that that was entirely to confuse you all to make you

all try to make a rash decision

significants that is an expert level decision instead of

trusting the very divisions and experts of lfucg that are

required to approve and

basically review all of our plans that we have three different times have said have

to approve all of our plans. And I'll say it for the fourth

time. We have to comply with the storm

water manual.

We have to work with urban forestry.

He kept quoting tim query from the last hearing.

Tim is going to be the guy on site who is going to be evaluat

ing this area to make these decisions what can come

out and what cannot come out. He is going to be the one on

site and his staff is on site making the very decision.

I have no problems him reading

off emails that tim has since corrected many times over but that's fine.

I just feel that this discussion

is more about protecting view

shed as opposed to protecting watershed quite frankly.

Kentucky american water issued letters talking about the water

quality impact of this project. They do not have concerns

because, again, this is zero 0. 29% of the acreage in the

watershed draining to this reservoir.

Richmond road directly drains to

24 reservoir, golf clubs

directly drain to this reservoir

this is 0.29%.

I'm happy to basically pass out the kentucky american water

letters again we introduced as exhibits they first hearing.

I've talked to both tom kimer and tom hatfield with regards to

what the restoration efforts we are doing and the impact that

they will have on this area.

The grass we are talking about,

will have a dramatically positive impact on the area

around the reservoir, any types

of replantings only destroy and

hip...... Disrupt the soil more.

That's not good for the surround

ing area in the bed. Condition 1 is to ensure that

you I don't have to make the decisions they're asking you to

make, that you do not have significant enough information

to make.

You all do not need to make the

exact determine determinization

how honeysuckle busheses are removed. That's when the departments are

here for.

Hearing one person's opinion what the storm water manual says I also have to say that that

conditional zoning language is

not vague and ambiguous in any

way, shape or form it is very clear.

You shall not remove except bop, bop, bop.

It is not vague or in any way ambiguous.

Last point this buffer is easily identifiable as every single

property line in lexington. That is why we made the

conditional zoning restriction

to be 50 feet from the property lines.

It's not from the water's edge.

It's not prt top of the bank or

any type of arbitrary line.

It is exactly from the property

lines this buffer is easily identifiable just like all of

your all's property lines are

easily identifiable. >> I thank you for the

opportunity to address this

issue before it is put to bed, at least at this stage.

There is a lot of evidence that

you all have heard both before

and today and the question that

I would leave you to ask today

is simply this.

If you go out there today can

you tell me where the property boundary is and if you buy a

house out there tomorrow, can you tell me where the property

boundary is. It is not going to be mark

willed by pins or ribbons.

It's going to be an ambiguous line between the water's edge

and the house.

Unless you all act to protect it

, it won't exist, I'm confident because I've seen it

happen in development after development in fayette county.

Thank you.

>> staff. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, really

I just want to make several

points for clarity. I think a lot of this has been

covered.

I think by both parties.

There is a note on this development plan.

It's on all of them.

It's a requirement and it basically says that this

property shall be developed in conformance with the requirement

of your storm water manual. We don't put the entire

ordinance on every plan and we are certainly not going to put

the manual on every other plan.

This is part of the review process, and they do have to

follow these. Article 26, it governs tree

protection plans.

It has to be followed in the development of the tree

protection plan.

And I'm a little... I'm just a

little disturbed by a statement that things are being swept

under the rug.

I certainly don't believe this body sweeps things under the rug

and I can certainly tell you it has been my experience that staff and whether it's to the

division of engineering, the division of traffic,

environmental services or water quality sweeps anything under

the rug. They are very consciencous about

doing their job and seeing that

they get the best development

that they can get under the law,

under the rules I'm on a

committee for water quality and it's the older neighborhoods,

the one I live in, for instance, that are the problem with our water quality.

It's not new development, ladies

and gentlemen.

It's being held to much stricter

standards.

>> there is going to be a boat dock.

>> there is a very stringent easement.

I do not know of any docks.

I'm not sure how docks could work with the language that is

before you. But that will have to be worked

out with the proper professional s but right now I

know there is not an easement in

place certainly to have docks on this property.

>> you say no docks for now. >> so there is not an easement

in place to put docks there.

I haven't reviewed the lake ellerslie fishing club easement

that I know is very strict on what can go in there.

I don't know how lfucg would

feel about the fact that it says

no structure can go in that 50- foot conditional zoning restriction area.

My guess would be a dock would

be a structure. But that can be worked out and

will be worked out with all of

the professionals. >> considering this has gone on

quite a while and there have - been multiple questions.

I would feel more at's if we address -- at leez if we address

ed the dock question. I feel this is an unanswered

thing on this development. >> I understand.

Technically any dock that could be built would need to be on the

water and that is on kentucky

american water's property. That property is not part of

this development plan.

>> thank you.

Mr. Big billings. During your presentation you had

like seven notes. But we don't have copies of

those and I don't remember them

enough to know really what they contain, and it would be

beneficial if we could have those. But I don't know how to get them

at this hour.

Because I think possibly they

alluded to they might have tied

in with a homeowners association

down the road making certain

that there was another pair of

eyes on this property for future owners.

>> that's correct. What we suggest is that those

notes would be appropriate because staff has not rep

recommended them and applicant

would not approve those. I ask have the presentation pull

ed back up and identify the

seven but they specifically what you asked for, homeowners

association that for things that are removed there is a replant -

ing requirement, there is

the phased construction along the line.

The identification of all of the various buffers because there is

more than just the conditional zoning buffer.

But that's why they're not

identified in the record because

we seek disapproval at this time

>> thank you. >> any other questions Miss Mund

y? >> Mr. Nichols.

Someone mentioned there might be

some asbestos on the property. >> yes ma'am.

>> if you discover that is there , I am assuming and you

know what one does when one

assumes but I assuming that you

would use or the construction company would use proper methods

for removal of that.

>> there are very specific re mediation protocols that are

in place that would have to be, if asbestos was discovered on

the site, this is an infill

project even if it vacant ant for a long time.

Most infill projects involve some type of remediation. >> okay.

Because that concerned me when I

heard that because of possible

runoff into the water if that's disturbed or whatever.

So I checked with someone

quickly on text that I knew

would know and that area is

technically not used for consumption.

The jacobson park lake is only

used in extreme drought situations but I just wanted to

be sure that if asbestos is discovered, it will be taken

care of properly. >> yes.

>> thank you.

>> anyone else? Mr. Nichols, I have a question

>> not a problem. >> I'm trying to give my

colleagues the first crack at this. >> I didn't was you can to work today.

I'm getting my steps in. >> one of the things I keep

hearing is if you remove the diseased trees and bushes and

what have you, what I heard the neighbors say and the people in

the dmuptd say is something to the effect that the replacement

of simply grass is not

appropriate. Please clarify that.

>> it is not grass like you are thinking of.

Tom kimer might be the appropriate person to answer

what the specific type of grass is if he wants to jump up here,

tom.

But the removal of the invasive

species alone will be a dramatic increase to the quality of the

ater right around there based

on the nitrogen runoff that comes from honeysuckle and if

you will,...

>> let me get clarifyfication here.

>> you are telling me that by removing some of the brush and

diseased trees, it will improve the water quality.

Now if you take that out, what do you plan on doing about it?

>> first of all, I'm tom kimer

I'm the chief scientist of

venerable trees. Honeysuckle is a really

insidious plant.

If you look underneath that honeysuckle, what you see is

bare ground.

There is no native herbs, no

native shrubs ornative grasses growing under the honeysuckle

and honeysuckle is known to

release the increase of nitrogen into bodies of water.

By removing the honeysuckle,

that is the first step in improving water quality and

we'll plant a mixture of native

grasses and herbs, not lawns,

and that will prevent the nitrogen runoff into the lake.

Process of removing the invasive

species will dramatically improve the quality of the water

flowing into the reservoir and there has been some misat the

same times about the overstory and planting and I just want to

point out. We are not disturbing the over

story of this little strip of woods.

We are taking out the invasive understory.

So the actual canopy cover will be left when we are done is

about the same as it is now.

Except for the removal of ash

trees which are dying.

>> thank you. Any other questions.

I'm going to officially close this part of the hearing and

then pull it back to the

commission for additional

discussion and/or motion. >> the planning commission can

only do a few things. We don't have a lot of

enforcement over things once they leave here.

We can put some things on

development plan but a lot of these things mentioned don't belong on development plans they

May have to be taken back off.

But we work in 2 d.

We work on the plans and I can

tell you from experience once

this plan leaves here and goes into everybody else at the city,

I mean that's when the work starts.

It's nothing to get a plan through here and we approve it

and go by the staff and send it

on, but I can tell when you they get into sign offs and engineer

ing and water quality

and, I mean they better have a

big staff with a project this size because it's very difficult

and very time consuming.

They don't even have, they don't have deadlines like we have.

You file a develoment plan, there is a deadline when you can

hear it and when it's heard.

It gets in those other places,

it's a nightmare and there is

lots of development done around our reservoirs.

We haven't heard be ins of I think this develop has done some

on the water and many of you

live in that development and we

haven't even any problems out of

it.

I'd like to make a motion for

approval of plan-mjdp-17-61

using the staff's revised conditions. >> second.

>> properly moved by Mr. Mike cravens, second by Miss Karen

mundy we approve pln-mjdp-17-61

the peninsula and squires

apartments as amended with the

19 conditions as provided by staff.

Any other discussion on the

motion? This has been very perplexing

and what we see is not what

happens at the very end.

On October 3 to the commission suggesting... If anything one

being that there be a trail

around the reservoir and as we

see there is no trail around the

reservoir.

The buffer is somewhat of a dis

appointment and the neighbors

have some legitimate concerns

about that and another dis appointment in this whole

process has been, has kind of

been like developing the whole

of a doughnut because the sooner

we got the school, but at the

beginning we didn't know much about well yeah there was going

to be a school and there May be a middle school and it might be

something else and to us public

ly, the school never... (Inaudible)

Are we going have trees on the 20-acre site where we have the

school, maybe, maybe not. Is there going to be parking on the side.

Do we have to have off street parking for the store.

Do we need to make wider streets

and we were left to deal with

all these things about the school building again. The road width and the other

thing I mentioned is with that reservoir, that body of water is

a great opportunity for some

marine biology and ecology study and we didn't hear anything

about that.

We have been spending a lot of

time how to arrive at the best

solution. I would like to have a condition

number 20 in that there be hoa

enforcement perpetually on this area.

I would make that motion. >> we have an amendment to the

main motion. That's what we have. An amendment to the main motion.

Is there a second to the

amendment?

Is there a second to the motion.

That amendment unfortunately does not pass.

Back to the main motion. Mr. Berkeley.

>> yeah, you know, I can tell

there has been a lot of work

done between when we saw this

before and I do appreciate the neighbors coming down, nathan,

your comments, but I personally feel like we have put enough

restrictions on this property.

I would be remiss with not

stating though one thing my dis

appointment with what the

council did or some of those on

the city council, reducing the

density from 500 units to the 450 units.

The staff vetted this plan for

months and made those

recommendations and in light of where we have been in the

comprehensive plan process

talking about increased density,

I was quite shocked that that

was done with no real basis. That being said, I'm ready to%

vote. >> okay, I make one final

comment if I could because I

said unfortunately I agree with

Miss Plumbee's point about the homeowners association but as

chair I cannot second a motion. I can only make one, interesting

ly enough.

i can only make a motion but cannot second one.

With that call, we'll call for the question.

All in favor of the motion

presented by Mr. Mike cravens and second by Miss Mundy, please

vote.

Motion is approved 6-1. Thank you ladies and gentlemen

for your participation and for

being here. Let me ask my other commission members.

Do you wish to push through or take a break.

We have one break and one push

through. Y'all want to take a couple of

minutes then. A couple minutes.

We'll take a couple minute recess

the conditions are your standard sign-offs.

However, I would like to bring to your attention two conditions

that were left on that should have been removed.

Condition number 11 and

condition number 13.

We see they adequately have shown where the public art will

be and we are okay. Additionally, they have request

ed a waiver, 5% reduction

the b-4 zone require 10% tree canopy, the applicant submitted

the waiver.

Due to it being fully paved and

the constraints of the current

existing environment, it is too

significant for them to actually achieve 10%.

Staff believes that a 5% reduction is acceptable because

of their compliance with green

infrastructure and the addition

of the landscape islands. Additionally staff does believe

that plan meets the adaptive re

use project rirps and -- requirements and I would be

happy to answer any additional

questions.

>> any questions?

Who is going to speak to is adaptive reuse?

>> I can or tom can? >> which ever.

>> the adisaptive reuse is the

historic structure is 150 years.

The green infrastructure, which

is the rain water infiltration

system as well as other green

infrastructure that was, which

will be dealt with at the in speaks stage and then the public art.

With those three, we believe it complies.

>> any questions?

Applicant? >> Mr. Chairman, members of

the planning commission, with

the revised lavender sheet he

has presented and the changes to

omitting 11 and 13 and the 5% canopy waiver for number 12, we

are in agreement and request

approval.

>> any questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to

speak to this particular agenda

item?

Any questions from the

commissioners? I suppose we are ready for a

motion.

I am unclear about one thing k. We do this all in one motion

with the findings or do I have

to have two mowings on this?

Included in the motion with the

findings. Unless you have some other

discussion item Mr. Cravens. >> I didn't see anybody stepping

up there.

i want to move approval of plan

-mjdp-17-73 with the revised

using the revised conditions and

noting that the findings by that

and the approval of the waiver. >> second. >> okay.

Motion has been made by Mr.

Cravens second by Miss

Karen mundy we approve pln-mjdp- 17-73 liberty heights

subdivision block a portion of

lots 1, 2 and 3 and all of lot 4

with the 14 conditions identified by staff and with the

findings for the petition for waiver.

Any discussion on the motion?

>> I thought we could remove 11 and 13.

>> I thought we had.

The lavender sheet he said 11

and 13 would be owe omitted.

Conditions 1-10, 12 is the 5% waiver canopy and 14 was the

findings so there are 12

conditions at the end of it.

>> Mr. Chairman,. >> yes, sir.

>> I'd like to if ix my motion. >> okay.

Going to ask and make sure you agree with this. Okay.

Go ahead.

>> do they agree?

>> the applicant is saying the

new 11 that they come off? >> yes.

I hereby remove those from my >> I second that.

>> the new motion contains 12

yifltions by staff and we are at the discussion staff.

Is that agreeable with staff?

>> yes. Motion carries 7-0.

Next.

>> Mr. Chairperson, mention of the planning commission.

moving down to the bottom of

page 7, major development plan

17-88 stephens and winslow

subdivision known as the hub at

lexington I, the plan that you

currently have before you.

We have handed out to you on

this colored sheet revised conditions, along with the

revised conditions you should

find at your seat on this tan

paper, a report on the character

study that was submitted and

also you should find at your

seat several emails that staff received and we were receiving

these right up until just a

short time before this meeting,

from various neighborhood residents.

I will say I believe they're all

in opposition to this particular

proposal.

What you have before you is a

final development plan request

ing a b-1 form status

that is a section of your b-1

zoning code that allows a form

based b-1 project such as before you today to set its own

development standards, in

essence in terms of setbacks and those sorts of things that are

normally governed by your b-1s , your front yards, side

yar, open space and things like that.

And it does that to allow

creativity, to allow flexibility

for development in a b-1 neighborhood. Somewhat similar to mixed use

where they're allowed to set

certain criteria but it is

actually in some ways less stringent than mixed use

categories and some of the

things that mixed use dictates.

In conjunction with this development plan as I stated and

the reason for this report is that the applicant is required

to submit an area character and context study.

This is submitted for the form

based code. Now, where we are is located on

jersey street between south upper in this location.

Here is pine street, south

limestone is down here. Mcdonald's and those areas,

the mexican restaurant are on south limestone through here.

This is the jersey street park ing lot.

That's the site that you are looking at.

Raising canes is located here.

Center court is there. Mellow mushroom, I believe, is

across the street. So that is the area where you are.

This is property I know you have now heard before.

U.K. Owns it and they have

negotiated a swap in some property with this developer.

And this is one of the sites

involved in that property deal

and they are proposing a six-

story 76 feet tall building.

They got 20,000 feet of retail

on the first floor in this location.

They have parking. It's a parking structure, part

of the overall building. It's one and really about one

and a half stories of parking.

They have ground level parking

and then an upper level with

some additional lower level park ing.

They are proposing 162 units in

the upper floors. That's 489 bedrooms, it's 145

,000 square feet.

The parking garage itself is over 59,000 square feet.

In conjunction with this,

they're providing 35,000 square

feet of open space and a large

part of that has to do with

large courtyards that are interior and you can see open to retail, it says.

Open below.

They have a pool terrace on the

roof of the building along with

a pool for open space on the top

they have another courtyard

that's open to the residents so they're providing open space for

the residents interior to the

structure as well as the pool on

the roof of the structure.

They have three street frontages they are providing large

sidewalk areas around the entire redevelopment of the property.

Here is your primary access point on upper street.

This is a full access point.

It is an access point that is

slightly off from cedar street. Just a slight offset.

That was some concern and was

discussed with traffic at length this is the best location in

terms of their layout in getting the garage to function.

There had been a full access point off jersey street but

there is some grade issues and

they have gone... This is just a service entrance into the

loading dock, mechanical room

and the trash room where they'll collect their trash and it will

be picked up, will be served

there off of jersey street. The development plan, the

building itself is basically

covering the majority of the lot with the exception of the large

sidewalks that they're providing around the street frontage and

the perimeter of the property.

the plan was reviewed, of course

, by your staff and you

can see the conditions of approval in the sign-offs.

There is one significant issue

in terms of infrastructure, actually I'd say two, that have

to be addressed and will be addressed. They're very, very much aware of

this and it was discussed at

your subdivision committee and

that is the infrastructure, the storm water definitely has to be

addressed in terms of the facilities in the area.

And then the sanitary sewer situatio is such.

There is a large public project that is going to be under way

soon that is going to provide a

new collector line for this area

, which will greatly enhance

the capacity in this particular bank. This bank doesn't have much room

in it and the applicant was made

very aware that they needed to address that sooner not later

with our sanitary sewer people and get that committed to them,

the capacity definitely needs to be committed to them and they

can do that when they pay their

fees to the sanitary sewer

department of water quality.

The applicant is also providing

... Excuse me... 148 parking spaces in the parking

areas in the parking garage that pinpoint, that we show you on

the plan here.

Now it does not meet their actual requirement.

They are going to have to go to

the board of adjustment and ask

for a variance for their parking that will be under the purview

of the board of adjustment.

It will be a public hearing and

fully vetted at the board of adjustment.

This plan will not be certified that variance from the board of

adjustment and there are other -- the other option would be just

to provide all the required park ing. They're asking for about a 31%

reduction in the required park

ing.

The other most significant aspect is the form brief code.

They're required to submit the

report it was distributed to

your committee at subdivision committee and since the zone

change, the zoning committee did not get to see this particular

one, but in it they go through

and they show the site, of

course, and then they give, they provide pictures and elevations

of the surrounding neighborhood and the purpose of this study is

to demonstrate that this

development does fit within the context and character of the

area and I would draw your attention, and if you'll all

have a copy, you can put it on the overhead.

I believe that will help, to

page 4. It May not fit very well but the

purpose, if you glance briefly. These are photographs intended

to give you commercial and residential context and you will

see that there is a variety in the area.

There are residential structures

that are 20 some feet tall in nature one and two stories, some

commercial structures that are mellow mushroom is only a single story.

Then you will see that there are

others you have center court and

parking garage at U.K. And structures that are much higher

next seas of 90 feet in height.

This particular as I state, the

building is proposed to be 76 feet in height and six story.

They're stepping it back to five stories on the north side where

it's closest across pine street

from the south hill historic

neighborhood. And then I would direct your

attention to page 8. This is an aerial photograph and

you can see in red where the project is right under the word

upper and you can look and see and that's looking across the

campus of U.K. You can see some of the buildings in the area.

You can see the massing, the you can see the dorms.

And many of the large buildings

that exist on U.K. As well as looking across on further you

can see downtown.

And then moving on to page 12 this is itself graphics

representation to scale of the various buildings in the area.

You can see the parking garage

and the hub depicted and other buildings in the area and they

range from 30 feet in height to 90 feet in height in the area

and again this is part of the

study just to demonstrate that

contech. The last page I would direct

your attention to would be page

13 and this aerial photograph and staff believes this

demonstrates very well the context of the area as you look

and you can see the hub there in the center.

You can see the pool on the roof

, yes, thank you. You can see parking garages, you

can see the dorms under construction and see the large

massing that is just right across lime street and jersey

street and then if you look in the area direction, you can see

on upper, center court and its massing and then even the

neighborhood, and again I would

add that the neighborhood area,

the massing there, this is all

part of the context and the

content of a neighborhood study.

And it is a form-based study. We are not talking about use in

this instance. In terms of the appearance and the massing of

the building.

We are talking about its form and its size and height.

So in the review, we have handed

out to you, again, the building

and staff's estimation does fit within the area.

There are, as stated larger buildings, smaller buildings.

There is quite a diversity of

massing and height in the area. The design, and there are

pictures and this will be incorporated by the way.

I want to invest that, it is absolutely a requirement that

this plan, this study be adopted

as part of your approval.

They're using brick and various

types of material that are compatible with much of the

material in the area and with the character of many of the

structures in the area.

So again we think staff does that is complying with the

requirement of the form based zone.

The pedestrian accommodations

and this is very important, and

they are proposing anywhere from

16 to 18 feet of sidewalk around

the perimeter.

Creating a very nice pedestrian accommodation.

And there is also large right of ways this is rough roughly

almost 50 feet of right of way on jersey.

Same with pine street.

50 feet and the arterial it is 60 feet.

You have the horizontal distance

that helps mitigate height when

you cite a building in an urban environment.

Staff initially had some

concerns with the study and with the development plan that had to

do with pedestian level and the

interest tbraition into the neighborhood. Most of us, when we are in an

area like this, whether we are walking in an area, we interact

at a pedestrian level. And that's where the experience,

I mean we May step back and look up and say, you know, this is a

large building and wow, look at

that and be impressed from that sort of thing and from a

distance but we tend to interact mostly at that pedestrian level.

And it was very important and in

your requirements, in your ordinances, it stresses

supplemental landscaping, stress

es the pedestrian facilities, it stresses public

open space to help integrate the

development into the

neighborhood with this new plan we believe they're doing that.

They're showing us large trees and public areas defined by

walls and screens along with plantings.

You can see here and they've

done this long the major street frontages.

Staff believes that this revised

plan and the study is very much an improvement over the original

one because it addresses what we believe is a very important

component to integrating this

sort of development to the

neighborhood. Very quickly, let me show you

two other things.

Staff is aware of the south hill historic neighborhood to the south of the development.

We wanted you to see it and it

is right there it is hard for me

to see anyway, just that up,

that purple area is the neighborhood and you can see it

covers several blocks.

It exists in a relationship with

the university of kentucky.

It exists in a relationship with downtown, with rupp arena, the

surface parking associated with rupp arena.

You can see if you look, the lex

in this area, you can see center court, you can certainly see the

university of kentucky and the

many large structures that

dominate the university of

kentucky as well as downtown. That's part of the relationship

that exists in this entire area. If you see the blue line, that's

jersey street and you can see

the parking lot and as you look. I think this particular

photograph compliments the photographs in the character

study that was provided and show

s the massing and height of

other structures in the area and

this is one reason staff submit

ted that we have recommend

ed, not only apro. Of the development plan, we do

believe that the character study

demonstrates this form-based b-1 request is justified in this

area and does meet the

requirements of your form-based

requirements in your b-1 of your zoning ordinance. There is one recommendation that

they provide a revised area

character and context study that illustrates the supplemental

landscaping. I believe they have one.

Staff does not. But because you are going to incorporate that in part of your

findings, it needs to reflect it and what we are talking about is

the landscaping, the public

areas and these aspects of tying this development at a pedestrian

level into the surrounding

neighborhood.

And staff again, thinks that the

student housing adjacent to U.K. Is a good place for student

housing.

And so with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you May have.

>>

>> any questions?

>> Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm dick murphy and I'm very

pleased today to be representing core spaces which is the

proposed developer of this property.

Jeff our architect is passing

out to you our contact study

which Mr. Martin alluded to I think that we've already made the change that he suggested in

our latest submission.

I wanted to introduce you to tom

harrington, and -- from chicago,

their headquarters. Our architect.

And chicago as well.

And antonivich does almost all

of core's university oriented houseingprojects.

They have done about 22 of them across the country.

Also, here our local team is

kevin warner, john carmen has

been involved here along with kevin.

Eddie and brett malloy have

integrated in here, our traffic consultants would be happy to answer any questions that you

May have about.

That kevin philips from andrus engineering is our surveyor.

Kevin is not here was. Chas works with me and he's here as well.

As I mentioned you to, core

spaces is specializes in constructing and operating

high-quality student-oriented quality projects in cities

across america.

They currently have 22 projects

madison wisconsin, west

lafayette, indiana, and tucson,

tempe, arizona, oxford, mississippi, and columbia south

carolina and about 15 more projects across america.

They their goal is to be close to campus.

They suply a high-quality, high-end resident with

amenities. For instance, in our development

here, you probably saw in our

plan, there is a roof top swimming pool on this

development. They have succeeded, I think, in

providing a high-quality

development on this property.

And as we're -- as Mr. Martin mentioned, we are basically

right at campus here. We're oriented to the university

of kentucky. And we are much closer to the

core of campus here, much closer

than many of the new dormitories

that U.K. Has built out sports center drive which goes out to

cooper drive.

we'll be in much closer walking

distance to the core campus than

many of their own new dormitories. And as has been discussed, this

is a mixed use project.

We have a we were under a

confidentiality clause in our

negotiations with our retailer. We under a confidentiality

clause we cannot reveal who the retailer is.

But we can say that we're very close to an agreement with a

national retailer the that has a grocery component, a grocery

component on the first floor 20,000 square feet space.

It is a compact very compact version of the national

retailers plan. They have done this in a couple

of other cities.

But we are close to that, but, not quite finalized.

And on the background is to how

core got this property,

Mr. Martin mentioned land swap with U.K. You probably saw in the paper a

couple of months ago, the U.K.

Trustees approved a land swap

with core, and that is because core had gotten a contract to

purchase kennedy book store, and

also, the fazoli's restaurant next to kennedy book store for a

project similar to this. When U.K. Got notice of that,

they were concerned because they felt that the kennedy book store

site is the keystone to their

central campus. Core would get this upper street

jersey street parking lot and also tracks down at the corner

of virginia avenue and south limestone street and you'll be seeing that later on.

We have this under contract with

university university of kentucky, and I'm real excited

about this development. Us a know, I have been attending

your discussions of the cam present hennessy plan over the

last few months. People come can't speak unless

you're a member of the planning commission but I've been hearing

the discussion about making new

development pedestrian friendly,

and bicycle friendly, and

transit friendly there can be

upgrades to lex tran and stop

just 50 feet away from her going

in both directions and also, the discussion, the important

discussion about putting greater

density along corridors.

Which we, do making use of underutilized property, which

this certainly is, it is a parking lot. That's all that there is on the property.

No buildings on this property at

all. It is parking lot. And, also, having density near

to our major corridors.

So when I hear that discussion, and I've been working with core

for a few months on this, I'm

thinking, wow, we have what the new comprehensive plan, the new

goals and objectives that you

voted on last week, we have

exactly what is being proposed on the new comprehensive plan.

I'll give you more details about this as you know, this is a

form-based project and the b-1 zone. You all passed an ordinance two

or three years ago allowing form-based projects there has

been one before us.

And that was this thisle station development at newtown and

fourth street.

As you probably recall that was a 15 story building.

15 stories up at newtown and fourth. This is a six-story building in

the south part of, a five story building in the north part of

this property. But, I want to emphasize, it is

already zoned b1.

There has been some we're not rezoning this property. It is already zoned neighborhood

business and in a zone which allows exactly what we're

proposing to you

four or five story parking structure.

Go to the next one, and we -- this is center court which is

across upper street. We're going to the other side

now and across upper street from us.

This is the four story section of center court and this is

again to the west, closer into the areas than we are across

upper street, four stories there.

Going to next slide.

We on the south part of center court, interest is five stories.

One, two, three, four, five stories farther to the south.

So that transitions four to

five, we transitioned five to

six. On the closer side to U.K.

I want to mention the kennedy

faz oli's lot. That's between us and U.K.'s

parking structure so if we are

trading the kennedy fazoli's lot

to U.K., obviously, U.K. Will build something on there I asked

U.K. About this and said, well what are you going to build on there?

they said, we don't know yet.

I said, can you give me an idea

of what the size or the massingwould be?

We think that it would be in keeping with our parking garage

since it is directly adjacent to our parking garage.

That's the seven story parking garage I told you about.

So it is likely that we'll have

a building comparable in size. I don't know what the use will

be in size, to that parking

garage on the kennedy fazoli's lot which is just one lot

separated from us and as U.K.

Seems to like seven stories. They have seven story parking

garage and two seven-story garages. We're transitioning down from

that on the west side of the campus. The other thing that we wanted

to mention to you also, is what

if core does not build on this site?

What will be built on this parking lot that we're -- we

have before you today?

And if you go to that slide with

the U.K. Does not know that -- they sent out in I think

November last year, at an rfp for a ppp.

Rpf request for proposal request

for proposal for a public

private partnership to develop

this lot that we have before you today. This was before core came in to

the picture. And, I was just trying to get an

idea of what the plan was. So the next -- the page that I

have got in here describes what

their requirement was.

It would retain the property tax exemption on the property.

doing it that way.

But, it would be a private public partnership on the property.

And it was also, retained zoning

exemption as you all know, U.K.

Is exempt from zoning requirements.

What were they looking for? Down there, you can see it says

the university requires the development of the jersey street

lot consists of ground floor

retail, commercial and/or office

use with four or more, four or more levels of supported parking

above. Also, they said the university will consider a mixed use development that supports the

overall objectives of the university.

So what that says is, when they

set out the request for

proposals, before core got

involved, they required a minimum of a five-story

building.

Not maximum, a minimum of a five-story building on this

property.

We are proposing five, as I

said, on pine, and six to the rear.

So, this would be totally in keeping with what the request%

for proposals would be. But, with the swap to core, it

is no longer exempt from taxes,

and it is no longer exempt from zoning. You have the review.

I mean, U.K. Might come in with their -- one of their public

facility reviews like the school

board does, but as you all know, even if you vote down the school

board proposal, they can still build it anyway.

Same thing with U.K. On this. so I needed to point that out

because we're not dealing with

the situation where it is either a parking lot or a one-story

building versus what we're

proposing.

A minimum five it could be parking structure and retail, or

it could be a mixed use building

as we're proposing with you today.

But, this way, you all have review power, over us and our

development plan. Mr. Chairman, I need tuque

about parking here. But before I get into that I

want to know if I'm allowed to talk about patienting today

because our parking request is going to go to the board of

adjustment.

And, the board of adjustment has

the control over what parking we do. >> I would prefer that we hold

on that we have no control over

that but as questions come up later on, we might want to address that particular issue. >> all I'm going to caution you

is that, I May need more than

the normal three minutes to respond to, describe to you what

our parking situation is on this property.

>> okay, if the question comes up, I will caution my colleagues

here again, once again, you have got to go before the board of

adjustment for that. And they have got to give you a

waiver and of course, in some instances, you would have gone

there before you came here to begin. With I mean, it is kind of like

they tell me it is like a chicken and an egg kind of thing

but we'll hold off if you don't mind and we'll get, if we get to

the questions and you need to answer more fully, we'll give

you that ample opportunity.

>> we wanted to come to you first because when we come you

to, then we know how many units that we have, and all of that

sort of thing. And then, we can go to the board

and say, this is exactly what we

have been approved for. Unit-wise and size-wise, and now

we need to talk to you about

what our parking is.

But as he mentioned, core knows

what they need, and the parking requirements are closer to

campus that you get, the less parking that you need because we

are geared toward students who

know they do not need a car to

get around campus. There have been questions raised

to us about maintenance of the building, and I want to point

out as I mentioned at the

beginning, ore is in the

business of developing,

operating and maintaining what

they develop here in the communities around the country.

They do it. The questions have raised about

security. What is the security?

These are largely going to be

students, now this is not

limited to students but we recognize with the location that we're in, it is going be

oriented to students and probably have a great appeal to

students and the majority of our

residents will be students, so,

what is the security at this property?

And, core has an office here

which is staffed every day in the building.

also, they have a policy that

the employee, they have employees that live here.

So they will have their

employees living at the site,

obviously 24/7 to know what is

going on, and be able to be on

top of any issues that come up.

And, in addition, they have high irinsecurity on an as-needed

basis for events or whatever is going on and in addition, they

have many security cameras all

over the place. And I have found that in working

with student oriented housing,

the most important thing about

maintaining things is having

strong onsite management.

If you contrast this with houses

in the state street area, other

areas like that, where the owner May come by, some of the owners

are very good. They go by once a day.

Some of the owners come by once a month to pick up the rent check. There is varying degree of

security but here, with core, it

is -- they are there every day, they have people who work for

them living there 24/7.

And, in conclusion,

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of people here who can answer questions that you May have

about our facility. But, we're very, very pleased to

do it.

We have people who have a track

record of doing high-quality, high-end student oriented

housing and university

communities and that's what core does.

They do housing, and university communities like lexington.

They would like to come here. They do a very good job with

this. And as I said you to last, at

the beginning, the -- I'm

excited about it because, this totally meshs with what

everything that we have been discussing about density, with

the staff, we met with the staff before we started with this.

And said, hey, are we on the right track? What do you think we ought to be

doing? And we have listened to them

every step of the way. And we're -- this again agrees

with the goals that we have of

making pedestrian bicycle friendly transit development increasing density and also not

only along corridors but

increasing density, major employment and educational

centers in the community and

this is the, as you all know,

the major employment and educational center in lexington.

So we're very pleased to bring

this to you. Question thank you for your time

and we would be pleased to answer any questions that you all might have.

>> okay.

Please stand back. As you probably will be.

I guess that you're the person

who would speak to this. >> if you could pull the powerpoint up. There was a report passed out,

the study is that the same one that you sent me or is that a

revised one? >> we we passed out to same.

>>

>>

>> that's what I thought but I wanted to make sure that there

wasn't a second revision. >>>> thank you for the opportunity

to speak to you today regarding

the proposed hub project 500-519

south upper street. I want to first address two

things that Mr. Murphy said in his presentation that are probably really important.

The first one, there was a lot of discussion about what U.K. Has. The problem is, this developer

isn't U.K. This developeris a private out

of state developer, who has to

comply with our city zoning and subdivision regulations. They are not exempt like U.K.

Is.

So while U.K. Might be used for

some import for architectural detailing, the heavy reliance

upon U.K. Building structures

and setbacks certainly is not dispositive and I submit to you

shouldn't be weighted in

considering your decision today.

Second is at the end, Mr. Murphy referenced the rfp

from the university of kentucky

with respect to the size of the building. What Mr. Murphy didn't tell

you and I May have time to get

to it later on is that, in that proposal, U.K. Met with the

neighborhood association south hill in the process, and through

a process from last July through

at least April of this year. And in that process, they agreed

to a four-story height limitation and those proposals

and plans were given to this developer when they entered into

the land swap.

Unfortunately, we have asked for

copies of those architectural rending that U.K. Said they will

not release under an open records request because the rfp

is not closed and therefore

we're not able to show you them

today. The neighborhood association met

with U.K. With respect to and U.K. Did an admiral job of

engaging the neighborhood association and at the end an agreement was reached that it

would be a four-story structure with retail and offices on the

first level.

And, if you look at the language there, it said supported parking.

And it was going to have a

three-story parking garage to adequately support the use of

the project. With respect to your decision,

you're governed by zoning

ordinance 21-4d which was presented earlier, you must

modify or disapprove the plan if it doesn't comply with the

requirements of the zoning

ordinance or there is existing

this plan falls under 8-16 our b-1 ordinance and specifically

for a form based neighborhood

business project under sub section 0 3. This is the second time this has

come before the planning commission.

I didn't go back and check the minutes to see how many of you

all were at that hearing. As you know, that might have

been a 15-story building but as you also know, the developer

folded the project and it is not

going anywhere. In this case I believe that at

the end of the hearing, you

should deny this project or dis approve this project for three reasons.

Number one we actually evaluated the form based provisions of the code.

We don't think they comply with the minimum standards and

they're vague.

I won't deal a lot with that. Even if it is not vague, the

study they produced to you does

not comply with the requirements it requires a deep level of

analysis.

It doesn't have even if it did have the analysis, it wouldn't

justify the approval of the building. Here is another way to say that.

If you are a fifth grader and

the teacher assigns you a five- page paper to write and you

turn in a one-page paper, you fail.

Even if you turned in a five page paper and it's really,

really bad, you still fail because although it's five pages

, it doesn't meet the teacher's standards.

In this case. To accommodate neighborhood

shopping facilities it must orient to the residential

neighborhood which is key and

have a system adequate. We don't think it satisfies the

comprehensive plan goals.

Is we don't think it adequately addresses the intentions.

There is a 20,000 square foot re tail center.

Why it actually doesn't address

the commercial needs of the area

and it certainly doesn't analyze

the commercial needs of the area and this is just sort of a pre

view but similar mixed use projects in this area basically

have failed to attract and

sustain meaningful commercial re tail or restaurant options. The orientation to the

neighborhood, if you look through the presentation, they

spent very little time on the residential areas.

As I counted it, about a minute. They spent about 10 to 12

minutes on U.K.

That's not being oriented to the neighborhood.

The roadway system, we already

have some additional issues on congestion it will cause.

You all know traffic problems on

limestone and upper street, inevitability is that this will

likely lead to a red light at the corner of cedar and upper

and there is a new one on upper street. I'll deal with more specifics as

we go through.

So we don't think it meets the intent of the b-1 zone just to start out.

If you look at what the b-1 zone requirements would be, which

which are here and what they proposed, except for the form

based provision at 0 3, they

wouldn't be able do this.

Essentially this allows them to

circumvent the b-1 provisions by adding 20,000 square foot of are

y tail on the first floor which May never be occupied to

get a five and six story residential structure with park ing that would be the

subject of the board of adjust

ment, of course. The first argument is that 0 3 is vague.

I won't go into details other than the research we've done

does not require the elements

necessary for a form based code or set fords the minimum

standards for a form based study

and therefore that has one of the.

it doesn't comply with the elements.

Even if it did have the elements , it junt justify the

form based project. What is a form based code.

This is something you haven't seen a lot of before you.

Lots of development plans, lots of zone changes, lots of

subdivision plats and plans.

Here is what is important.

It has predictable built results that are high quality.

This is from the form-based codes institute.

The intent is to ensure that the public's preferences are

expressed and realized.

And to enhance the neighborhood

the public in south hill are not unreasonablable.

They met with U.K. And came to an agreement regarding the park

ing garage.

Phase one and phase two actually submitted a letter in support of

the four-story 50-foot height at center court because they

believe that it was going to be adequate at the height level to

not be excessive.

It will not... It was scale, it's mass and size were

complementary to the neighborhood. The developer in that case

realized that, went in and gaug ed the neighborhood and got

their agreement.

South bell town home -- south mill town homes is similar.

South hill's objectives is not

that it is a mixed use project or dense project.

It is that the scale and mass of

this building does not complement the character of the

neighborhood area and I'll

define what area is in a second and that contrary to its rel

iance upon a couple of U.K. Buildings when you do an

analysis of all of the other residential, commercial and mix

ed use, this project doesn't

fit with the character of those. You don't here the folks support

ing this project. There are a bunch of articles on

line if you read public

comments, we have prepared two and three binders of data of

articles, photographs which I will not have time in 30 minutes

to go through. We submit that into the record

for additional support for the

bullet points in here. We have letters and emails in

opposition at 12:30 today

walking over here, bluegrass

trust has opposed the project.

Across broadway apposed this.

This isn't hub's first zoning fight.

This is one example of flagstaff arizona.

Most of their projects are not next to historic residential

neighborhoods. Most of them are in areas that

are either already high density multistory eight, 10, 12, 15

story buildings or they're out

in residential -- or out on college or university campuses

with vast expanses of land and

you'll see pictures later on to show their buildings have park

ing garages all around them and open field.

They're not near historic residence. Flagstaff is one of those and

they had significant open ition.

There the battle raged into

court system finally.

And other implications. The public's preference is that

this project as it is currently proposed, not the concept but

proposed is too massive and doesn't have enough parking

which is another issue and is not consistent with the

architecture of the surrounding area. So what is the intent?

It has to... Not to remove the

appropriate elements but to instead engage the area as built

in a complementary way.

We have some resources. But here is what the study should include.

It needs to look at lapped use,

zoning, public policy, socio economic conditions, open spaces, public and private, historic and curl resources,

urban design, shadow lighting transportation noise.

None of these have been evaluat ed thoroughly in the study.

They have some conclusion collusionary statements but none

have data, or analysis. So what should an area character

in context study include?

So this is what is required

under 618.On 3 we believe to comply with the ordinance if the ordinance is valid.

Have you to document the architectural and urban design

character of the area. They have one page of photos

that does that. Demonstrate through graphic

materials how the project will enhance and complement the area

's character.

I'm going to show you there are

four conclusionary sentences and show integration with the

surrounding neighborhood by

using positive design features

the that May be their strongest point is that they included some pedestrian sit down areas which

happened in the last two weeks.

In order to identify the, the

there is information about why character neighborhood matters.

So our belief is that the hub's stud fails to define the actual

area.

It relies on pictures of 21 adjacent properties with two exceptions.

The two non-adjacent properties are U.K. Properties.

It skips where they want to go and ignore other data.

They ignore south hill

residential neighborhood area which is supposed to be oriented to. It doesn't include architectural

or analysis and has conclusion ary statements.

Page 5, it says the project seeks to actively engage the

south hill neighborhood through

creative architecture dynamic re tail presence along pine street.

That sounds great what does it mean?

How does it engage the question

unless it is towering over it.

Center court reduces the height. What is the dynamic retail along

pine street? I don't know if you walk add

long pine street. It doesn't have any retail.

There is a restaurant at the

corner of pine and upper and there is a restaurant at the

corner of limestone and pine but pine doesn't have any retail.

There is retail long upper.

There is retail along limestone. But not along pine.

We think this shows and a short shrifting of the analysis to

figure out what is going to work

for this area.

There is another example of page

seven, conclusionary. I'm going to come and talk about some of those in a minute when I

do the analysis of the

historical area. The study May look good but when

you actually do the analysis

they're not supported by the data.

So let's compare this to the fiscal station study.

Page 7 or 10, the materials over there. They have a lot more analysis of

local structures of neighborhood buildings and area context than

this study does. So what is the area?

U.K. Study, the hub study define

s this as 21 adjacent properties U.K. Dorm and parking lot.

We think there are four areas, there are four components that

comprise this area. The first is single family

residential which consists of historic and non-historic.

Commercial aspect along upper and limestone.

There is mixed use, if you think

of a boundary everyone knows where city court is on south

martin luther.

I have a map. This is the area over here.

Down here city court.

Centre court, south mill town

homes, the lex. If we would walk through the

area, we would actually see that

there is an engaging line of mix ed use properties all along

the border of U.K. And the rest of lexington that this totally

ignores and finally we do have to admit U.K. Is one of four components of the area but not

the sole component.

This is their map. There are 23 total properties.

We don't think that even when

you look at the properties that they identified that they

support the height or the

density or the setbacks.

Here is an analysis of their properties, the setbacks and of

the height for the residential.

The analysis of the setbacks and

the height for the commercial properties.

You can clearly tell their

project dwarfs any of the neighboring residential

commercial they identified in

page 3 or 4 of their study.

The U.K. Property, a parking garage and residential structure

both have significant setbacks and height again they're uk.

They can do what they want.

This developer is not. We think if they did the

analysis, it would not support what they ro pose and again this

is where in 2004 southland neighborhood association engaged

by the centre court developers

agreed to a 50-foot height limit ation. We think that should be the

benchmark for this property to be developed.

It's what U.K. Agreed when they

put out the rfp, south hill neighborhood and they've said no

this is what they want. I wish that wasn't the case but

they're entitled to have a view

point different than ours. This is the parking lot.

If you look at the university colored in yellow and I

apologize, I'm not an attorney.

I don't have all the things to

make the drawings nice. Highlighted in red around here,

we have mixed use the pink

property and kim believe court. Low density residential and some

more higher density residential.

It consists of houses and we

pulled the historic inventories

for every property, it talks about when it was built,

structures, all types of floor

ing issues, materials, structure materials, alterations

, doors window, orientation to the street, set

backs, this study doesn't

have an analysis of any of that.

There is significant information that can guide.

It was ignored. National historic register,

photos about the neighborhood. I'm not asking it to look like this again.

That's not the point.

The point is to say there are other historical information

they could have looked at at the

study that they didn't. Secretary of the interior

standards for treatment of historic properties again it

instructs how historic neighborhoods should be interest

integrated into mixed use increasing density residential

areas and commercial areas.

You'll see for example, a quick

overvie, things like hip gable

roofs, clapboards, rick veneer

siding, rock stone face.

None of those architectural

features are in this project. Additional houses.

Then have you non-historic residential properties and here

you see this is the zoning categories for each of those,

the story's height. What this shows is again all of

the historic, all of the non- historic residential properties have a height limit

ation of about one and a half to two stories.

Here is key architectural features, windows and doors

vertically proportions, multi

pane, attached elements, information we pulled by

summarizing the data that the study doesn't look at. Number two, the second part of

the area is commercial.

Again area mainly on limestone

and some on maxwell with a

smattering of upper. We looked at the height of those

there is the height references

to each of those properties.

Again, the commercial with some exceptions are well below five

stories, all of them below four stories, most of them are two or

three. Mixed use area.

So here is a map that shows the mixed use area that forms the

line between U.K. Ands which is

here and the downtown and

residential areas.

South hill, crawl town kim ball

house, south broadway place, the

lex, and mixed use projects and

I include them for specific reasons. Other high density residential

like city core, south mill

commons and 524 and 525.

No analysis or recognitions that these properties could be

constructive to the character of

the area they're developing in

this is a parking issue for the board after justment. We have height issues.

Every one of these max much four stories.

And when I say that, where it engages the neighborhood.

This is example of centre court,

50-foot on the residential side.

s I can't overstate the importance. We have to oppose this plan.

It is not because they're oppos ed to mixed use in the

south hill area.

It is because this project doesn't take into consideration

and respect the integration with

the existing residential and commercial areas that are not

five and six stories in height.

Centre court, city court again

kim balance house, south mill commons.

The lex, the examples of the height. 500 on main.

This is a great example of one

that does not... Of the height

that engages a four or five or six depending how you count it,

road, right across from rupp arena. That's the mass and scale into

that type of space.

Not into a residential area.

Then we talked about mixed use

area. This is really important. They want to put a 20,000 square foot retail space.

As much as it sounds nice.

As much as we all wish it were

true, retail and mixed use in

lexington is a failure. If you think about any of the

projects along this line around

downtown, around the U.K. Area all of them have significant

vacancies.

The one exception is probably

main and rose but if you go, I had to come through and change

the conditional zoning

restriction on kim balance kim

ball house.

Three of seven spaces in centre court are leased.

The lex, they've never leased anything there. Two are open.

J.D.I. Closed. The restaurant in new town cross

ing, three different restaurants in there.

So while it May sound good to

have retail or restaurant in

these mixed use projects in practice we have a real problem

in getting them to fill up. I can't prove this but I suspect

that one of the reasons why is that the these projecs rely

upon people who live there seven or eight months out of the year

at most and they can't make it the rest of the year.

And so while they May survive a year or two, they eventually go

out of business or move location because they can't sustain re

tail in these areas. These are pictures of the

vacancies to support the claim that the idea of commercial May

sound great but doesn't work. Finally U.K. Area, there is just

a three, a height in stories,

the setbacks, you can see that

even U.K. When they build large structures, they provide

significant setbacks from the pedestrian right of way to

minimize the scale and intrusion% of that building into the public%

space and to the neighborhood. Essentially, though not exactly,

there is about seven to 10 feet for every height.

They step back. U.K.'s park ago national sis, 44

% of the students have parking

not asking you to resolve 9 park ing issue today.

It's not as clean cut as they think it is.

Before we approve the building with the density, we need to

think carefully on a plan that accomplishes or integrates a

parking issue. I just think it's unrealistic

when they come to parking to think that even if the retailer

says they only want 30 spots,

that they can't guarantee that residents don't take them over,

force the retail over or the re tail doesn't need more.

It's a just come believed mix.

The bottom line is zoning ordinance requires 75 parking

spaces for the retail regardless what the retailer believes they

want. Hub's other projects receive mix

ed reviews. They say they're a high end

developer. I'm not here to say.

When we look across and look at

their analysis of the bedrooms and information we can get, they

have a higher percentage of park ing in the ones we could

find data for than what they are proposing in lexington.

There is the next chart. A lot of these are still under

construction. One of the reasons is they put

five to six projects online a year so we think they have about

10 to 12 that are in construction phase right now.

So we can't get final data on

that. Also they're built in non- historic areas.

In those areas there isn't the

need to emphasize the distinct ive character of the area. I say the word area because

that's what our ordinance uses. The ordinance is not just residential.

The area is multifaceted.

It is complex but it should also be acknowledged and understood

and respected in all of those

aspects not just the couple U.K.

Buildings they want to emphasize more stuff from the problems

they had in flagstaff. Just research that says this.

They can come in here and sing a

great song, but a lot of the people don't agree.

Tenants say it's not as great as what they thought it was.

That's tenants. Some of them like it, some of

them don't. Safety concerns.

We've found stories where a

death at a property not too long ago.

Roof top deck with a pool, beer bottles then over.

Somebody jumped off or something like that, we don't know exactly

and fell to his death.

The other thing that concerned

us hub told us at subcommittee hearings they intend do well out

of state company that mans the property. They actually come in and like

to flip these buildings so

they're here for two years and sell it and they're out. What happens to the next owner?

Again the security isn't a

portion of this, but I think it destlesz into considerations

about how are we going to integrate this building and the

security especially in the neighborhood where residents are

already struggling the times with a

student population and out of control student population on

thursday friday and saturday nights. One of the other concerns we

have is that developers have

found a way to take what tip

their were one and two bedroom apartments and another one and

two bedroom apartment with two

kitchens and make them into... That's 27 minutes, and make them

into one unit, get rid of one kitchen and increase the bedroom

s by one. What that does for those of you

who have had college kids, if you have two kids living

together, the chances of security issues of partying goes

down significantly.

Once you put three or four, five kids together, those issues

increase significantly. We are concerned how they're

going to do the allocation.

We asked them for the allocation

they said they don't know. We are worried about that.

The neighborhood association, a parking permit in south hill.

Engage that to protect your problem. Here is the problem.

It's monday to friday 8:00 to 5:00, the very time the people

are at work is the only time their parking spaces are protect ed.

Does that make sense? Of course not.

But that's what it says.

It's not fair for somebody to say they have parking protection

we have explored changing that

and based upon the current

guidelines we don't think it's realistic it will occur. Here are some examples of other buildings, larger buildings.

Some of them are pretty.

I'm not knocking their architectural design.

I'm challenging the design in lexington doesn't fit this area.

There is another one.

There is another one.

S this is sinting from tuscon.

if they were willing to discuss

it, they knocked it down one

story. They could do a project in lexington whenner they started one level at three and then tier

ed it up to four or five on the backside.

There is a way that they could better integrate this project

with lexington if they had been willing to talk to us.

Here is another project that I

thought in my swru did a great

job of integrating a lot more

historical character like old

types of barn wood, vertical in

set, not modern steel clad windows but forms that project

outside which is a lot of the historical character so they can%

design this stuff.

They just didn't do it here. Finally, I've been concerned

about the rushed schedule on this. When they met with the

neighborhood association in July , this is what they said.

We are going to come to a trc in August. We are going to come back for a

second trc in September.

We are going have our

subdivision committee in October and final in November.

I got involved the first week of August and we asked to clarify

what we found out late August

they wanted to keep on a date to

get heard today instead of what they originally told the

neighborhood they were going to do.

Finally there is this air with our recent decision for infill

and redevelopment and not expanding the uban service boundary that we are going to

have to approve every single in fill project that comes in

regardless.

I want to disabuse the planning

commission of that notion.

That decision is a political and philosophical guideline.

Doesn't mean you should approve everything that comes through here.

You still have to follow 816.0 3

less than a mile away there are

three lots that are for sale and

for development, 840, I do don't

know if these two are. Developer backed out of these

two days ago because when he saw

the hub article, he said I can't build high density apartments if

they're going to build. There is land available to have

density with student housing that's appropriate.

We have land to do that. But this shows that in my mind,

that developer is also from chicago.

That they're worried about we

are overbuilding our off campus student housing in the multi- projects.

So in conclusion, I don't think their study complies with the

minimum requirements of 816 hnt 0 3 and even if it does, they

haven't justified or explained why it should be approved.

In conclusion, while I always prefer to get up here and ask

the planning commission to adopt something that has conditions,

because of the way this project

is set up under the form-based

code guidelines, I can't do that today because it can't be fixed

by notes or subtle changes;

therefore, although I'm disheart ened to have to suggest

against an infill project, I'm respectfully asking you all to

deny this application today, invite the applicant to come

back, discuss this with the neighborhood association, re

consider their project so that they can move forward on one

that is appropriate for the scale, the mass and integration

with the neighborhood that will

result in a better product for

U.K., for U.K. Students, for you all and for our community.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Duncan, how much time

do we have in this facility?

>> there is a 6:00 council meeting in here tonight so we

have 30 minutes. If you wanted to relocate we

have made arrangements to move to the phoenix building third floor.

We will not have any media. The secretary will have a

recording that she will continue to use for minutes but there

will not be any overhead or media at that location.

But that is available to us at any time now.

>> so we can stay here until 6:00?

Well, I would say for about 15 more minutes.

>> I would like to stay here for at least 15 minutes because if

there are people here that would

like to get their comments on

record. >> we will still have the record

just not the video record. >> I will give them a shot to be

on television we'll turn it over to the citizens.

Anybody want to speak in favor

of this project?

Anyone like to speak period? In light of the time and respect

to your colleagues about three

minutes each.

>> is it pots to -- possible to

pull up number 8 on the

character study?

My name is alan bartly, 353 south hill street.

I want to point this picture up

but I'll start briefly.

I'm an economist at translyvania

university, have a ph.D. From vanderbilt and I have been with

transy for 18 years. I also work for the state.

I do budgeting. I say all this because I have

been professionally trained and

paid as a consultant to conduct analyses of these types of

things.

I brought my son up.

To the right up there pacht the red, a lot of what we see in the

drawings is down here to the right. That little group of trees is

where the neighborhood is.

That's where he rides his bike. The group doesn't address the neighborhood.

The neighborhood is a neighborhood. We know as citizens what a

neighborhood is. It's not these buildings down

here. These are filled nine months out

of the year.

It's the neighborhood and so I bring that up because as an

economist I recognize development.

I've lived downtown for 18 years I love development.

When I moved here 18 years ago,

I lived 18 all downtown. Hardly anything to do. I'm.

Chad: we have development but as an economist I know the difference between development and suitable good development. And here what is I think the big distinction is. In this area and context study, the area character has been for the U.K. Buildings and all of the concrete. That little group of trees up there that is the historic neighborhood is the difference between the concrete of U.K. And the concrete of downtown. And if you have ever traveled or listened to other people who do like to travel here, people don't come for the concrete. They don't come for the high buildings. They come for the character of an area. And I think this is very important as an economist because I do study this a lot professionally; that when you have a difference between something like that the thistle station was brought up earlier, thistle station, I actually like the design. Thistle station was 15 stories next to new town pike which is just a thoroughfare to get in and out of town, massive traffic this is highly different. This is six stories of students and the students, my understanding, these rooms are individually rented. This is not a family of four living together like down in the rest of the neighborhood which is, again, directly right up to the right. That's very important. Economists talk about negative externalities. That's fancy economic language. I won't bore you. But basically what that means as an example, economists like development, economists like developers taking chances to fill up things for profit as long as it doesn't negatively affect others. Think of the smokers that we allow to smoke but not sitting next to you inside of a restaurant. There is a reason why we do that because we say people can smoke but not next to you because it is a negatively affecting you. This will negatively affect the area. On the rest of the studies they have the red and white around it we all know that a neighborhood is not the house directly across the street from you. It is the neighborhood. The only neighborhood is that little patch of green up there that as round there. So what I submit to you is that even though I know today we are not talking about parking. Parking is large. I say my son bikes on that street. He does not bike during normal working hours because traffic is terrible. There is going to be a major parking issue here. There is a parking congestion. There is the speedig. There is the vandalism, these are students. I think that's very important to note. For a character study, yes at scu U.K. They're... I love them but they're not the ones living in our neighborhoods. They're living on U.K.'s campus and yes it is close but it is not the same and they bring negative externalities. They bring positive. If we get a retailer, that's great but the four story limit is very important because as an economist, I recognize that if you match what is already there, you are expanding and I would say enhancing. If you get massive congestion jetion, massive parking that is not especially hansing and my understanding is the contact study requires that you enhance the neighborhood and that doesn't do it. Thank you very much. >> I'm jennifer kaufman, retired federal judge lives downtown south mill street in 2005. I say retired but I'm still teaching part time at U.K. And I walk to do that. My husband is a retired dentist% and he is teaching at U.K. And running their faculty practice clinic and when he is teaching he walks to U.K. Why did we move in part of the reason we moved was the architecture, the historical charm and the desire to, yes, walk a lot of places. Now as alan... And alan is my across the street neighbor and he has two children. I have a neighbor right next door 20 have a little boy who is elementary school age in montessori school street, joy moore who just had to leave, has two children. This is a neighborhood. We know our neighbors and I mov ed there for the walking and the charm, but I got a lot more. There are baby boomer empty nest ers like us. There are college students, there are young professionals. They range in age from burr and ruby, all the way to people in their 70s. I walked to work every day to the federal courthouse and I still walk to U.K. My home is part of the historic architecture. In fact one of those pictures, I didn't know you took it, but that was my home. But we looked to move downtown a year and a half before we actually moved. I felt it was a little scary in parts because south hill cross ing, those south mill town homes weren't there then and my husband thought he had found some great places and I just said I wouldn't feel comfortable with all that empty space across the street and then came south hill crossing. Developed by the same developer who did centre court with respect for the surrounding area built structures that complement and enhance the neighborhood. That's my first point. This is a unique neighborhood. That is, that does have some good infill and development. My second point is I want infill and development. I love the fact that the uban service boundary was not expanded. I want this development but I want good development. Look at centre court. They respected the neighborhood. Look at the agreement we came to with U.K., really in April or so o o o o o o o talk more about that. But they knew what enhanced the neighborhood. that's my second point, that we want infill and development if it's right and my third point is this: this is a precedent. You don't have to approve just anything somebody brings to you. This form-based study is important. This form-based concept is important. I hope you will consider our arguments. And our concerns. >> thank you very much. >> my name is daniel brazil. 358 south upper a block and a half from this development. I have lived there with my family since 1978. I've seen a lot of changes in the south mill area and never seen the prospect of a change which was as threat toing as to the character of the neighborhood. I won't add anything because the points have been made but I simply wanted to second the points that have been made. Thank you. >> bill johnston. I'm President Of the bluegrass trust for historic preservation and I'm here speaking for the trust and for myself. I'm going to condense what I scribbled down to say because it has been said so well. The trust is absolutely in agreement with the opposition to south hill has expressed. We are very concerned about the mass of the building relative to the neighborhood that it is being set down into. I think the picture on page 13 really summarizes that very well page 13 of your handout from... Some points I wanted to make, core spaces is its hub projects are oriented for providing hous ing for students as everybody has stated, including them. Their website defines their hub projects of which there are several, in existence are quote flag ship, brand offerings that best in class, student housing, designated designed for every aspect of student life. This sounds a lot like a student dormitory. The zoning ordinance on page 16 calls for dormitories owned by the school to consider each bedroom as a separate dwelling unit. Elsewhere the zoning ordinance consistently calls for one park ing space for dwelling unit. Providing 173 spaces instead of three each per 162 units or 486 spaces is only 36% of what the zoning ordinance calls for. It's like 64% reduced from what it should be. Dumping several hundred cars on the surrounding streets when they're already packed with park ed cars, is hard to comprehend. South hill does not consist of many private driveways and homeowners are often dependent on street parking by their house with an increase in density and possible lack of available park ing, south hill neighborhood association will become less desirable. Bluegrass trust because of the negative impact that the hub at 500 south upper will have on south hill's contribution to the city of the historic district bluegrass trust for historic preservation cannot support core 's plan for the off campus apartment complex. thank you. >> we are now going to move over