# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - September 28, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 28, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4355 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4355?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-09-28 - **Last revised**: September 28, 2017 - **Length**: 20,450 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on September 28, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Bill Wilson presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, all of which were approved by the board. The meeting included consideration of one final subdivision plan for Greer-Hancock Farm, LLC and three zoning map amendments for various properties throughout the county. The commission conducted five votes throughout the proceedings and heard one public comment from a community member. All agenda items resulted in favorable outcomes, demonstrating a productive session focused on development and zoning matters within Fayette County. ## Attendance The meeting on September 28, 2017 had nine members present and two absent. **Present:** • Bill Wilson • Headley Bell • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Frank Penn **Absent:** • Carolyn Plumlee • Carolyn Richardson No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included five roll call votes on various planning matters, with four passing unanimously and one passing with one dissenting vote. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Karen Mundy motioned to approve the minutes of the August 24, 2017 meeting, seconded by Mike Owens. The motion passed 8-0 with one abstention. Voting in favor: Bill Wilson, Headley Bell, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, and Mike Owens. **PLN-MAR-17-00031** [timestamp: 01:30] Mike Owens motioned to approve the zoning map amendment for SCW NEWTOWN, LLC, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed unanimously 9-0, subject to four conditions and prohibited uses noted by staff. All members voted in favor: Bill Wilson, Headley Bell, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, and Frank Penn. **PLN-MJSUB-17-00050** [timestamp: 02:30] Mike Cravens motioned to approve the final subdivision plan for GREER-HANCOCK FARM, LLC, seconded by Larry Forester. The motion passed unanimously 9-0, subject to 10 conditions noted by staff. All members voted in favor. **PLN-MAR-17-00032** [timestamp: 03:30] Frank Penn motioned to approve the zoning map amendment for FRM LAWSON PROPERTY, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 9-0, subject to conditions noted by staff. All members voted in favor. **PLN-MAR-17-00033** [timestamp: 04:30] Mike Owens motioned to approve the zoning map amendment for CORE LEXINGTON 685 LIMESTONE, LLC, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed 7-1, subject to conditions noted by staff. Voting in favor: Bill Wilson, Headley Bell, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Larry Forester, and Mike Owens. Karen Mundy voted against the motion. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one speaker addressed the board regarding concerns related to a proposed development project. Jacob Wahlburn spoke on behalf of a client regarding water drainage concerns [timestamp: 06:30]. Wahlburn expressed specific concerns about stormwater drainage issues that could potentially affect his client's property as a result of the proposed development. He outlined how the development plans might impact existing drainage patterns and create potential problems for neighboring properties. The public comment period focused primarily on infrastructure and environmental impact issues, with particular attention to water management and drainage systems in relation to the development under consideration. ## Contested Items The commission encountered one contested item during the September 28, 2017 meeting that resulted in a split vote among members. **Parking Variance for CORE LEXINGTON 685 LIMESTONE, LLC** The primary point of contention involved a parking variance request for CORE LEXINGTON 685 LIMESTONE, LLC. Commission members engaged in debate regarding the adequacy of parking spaces for the proposed development project. The disagreement centered on whether the number of parking spaces included in the development plan would be sufficient to meet the actual needs of the project. Some commissioners expressed concerns that the proposed parking allocation might prove inadequate, potentially creating future parking shortages that could impact both the development and surrounding area. The debate highlighted differing perspectives among commission members about parking requirements and the potential consequences of approving a variance that might not provide enough parking spaces. Members weighed the developer's request against the practical considerations of ensuring adequate parking for the proposed use. This parking variance discussion ultimately resulted in a split vote, indicating that the commission was divided on whether to approve the requested variance. The split vote demonstrates that commissioners had substantive disagreements about the merits of the parking proposal and its potential impacts on the development and surrounding community. The contested nature of this item reflects the complexity of balancing development needs with practical infrastructure requirements, particularly regarding parking adequacy in urban development projects. ## Final Subdivision Plan for GREER-HANCOCK FARM, LLC [timestamp: 02:00] The commission considered agenda item IV.1.a, a resolution regarding the Final Subdivision Plan for GREER-HANCOCK FARM, LLC. Tom Martin presented the item to the commission. The subdivision plan presented unique circumstances due to the property's location spanning both Fayette and Bourbon counties. This cross-county positioning created specific requirements and challenges for the development approval process. Two waivers were required for the project to proceed: - A waiver related to the size of the lot - A waiver due to the lack of Fayette County frontage The plan included standard procedural requirements, specifically the posting of a sign and the submission of an affidavit as part of the approval process. The commission approved the Final Subdivision Plan for GREER-HANCOCK FARM, LLC, granting the necessary waivers to accommodate the property's unique characteristics and location across county boundaries. ## Zoning Map Amendment for SCW NEWTOWN, LLC [timestamp: 01:00] The council considered agenda item V.1.a, a petition from SCW NEWTOWN, LLC requesting a zoning map amendment to rezone property from Highway Service Business (B-3) to Wholesale and Warehouse Business (B-4). The proposed rezoning would allow construction of a 12,000 square-foot warehouse facility. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting information on this zoning petition. The request involves changing the current B-3 zoning designation, which permits highway service businesses, to B-4 zoning that allows wholesale and warehouse operations. The proposed warehouse development would occupy 12,000 square feet and requires the B-4 zoning classification to proceed with construction. The B-4 zone is specifically designed to accommodate wholesale and warehouse business activities, making it the appropriate designation for the petitioner's intended use. Following discussion of the petition, the council approved the zoning map amendment for SCW NEWTOWN, LLC. The approval allows the property to be rezoned from B-3 to B-4, clearing the way for the proposed warehouse construction project to move forward through the development process. ## Zoning Map Amendment for FRM LAWSON PROPERTY [timestamp: 03:00] The council considered agenda item V.2.a, an ordinance to rezone property owned by FRM Lawson from Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) to Light Industrial (I-1) zoning. The petition seeks to incorporate the property into the existing Leestown Industrial Park. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting information about this zoning map amendment. The proposal would change the current residential zoning designation to allow for light industrial uses consistent with the adjacent industrial park development. The rezoning request represents a transition from residential to industrial land use, which would align the FRM Lawson property with the surrounding Leestown Industrial Park zoning pattern. This type of amendment typically involves considerations of compatibility with neighboring uses, infrastructure capacity, and compliance with the community's comprehensive planning goals. The council approved the zoning map amendment, allowing the property to be rezoned from R-3 to I-1 and incorporated into the Leestown Industrial Park. This approval enables the property owner to pursue light industrial development opportunities that would be consistent with the existing industrial park uses in the area. ## Zoning Map Amendment for CORE LEXINGTON 685 LIMESTONE, LLC [timestamp: 04:00] The council considered agenda item V.3.a, a petition by CORE LEXINGTON 685 LIMESTONE, LLC to rezone property from a Planned Neighborhood Residential (R-3) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone. The proposed rezoning would allow construction of a mixed-use building containing both residential and commercial space. Traci Wade served as a key speaker during the discussion of this zoning map amendment. The petition represents a change from the current residential zoning classification to a business zone that would accommodate the applicant's plans for mixed-use development. The rezoning request was approved by the council, allowing CORE LEXINGTON 685 LIMESTONE, LLC to proceed with their mixed-use development plans under the new B-1 zoning classification. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of the minutes of the August 24, 2017 meeting - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00050** — passed (9-0): Approval of final subdivision plan for GREER-HANCOCK FARM, LLC - **PLN-MAR-17-00031** — passed (9-0): Approval of zoning map amendment for SCW NEWTOWN, LLC - **PLN-MAR-17-00032** — passed (9-0): Approval of zoning map amendment for FRM LAWSON PROPERTY - **PLN-MAR-17-00033** — passed (7-1): Approval of zoning map amendment for CORE LEXINGTON 685 LIMESTONE, LLC --- ## Full transcript Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be There's a shadow hanging over me Oh, yesterday, suddenly Why she had to go? I don't know, she wouldn't say I said someday well now I love for yesterday Yesterday Love was such an easy game to play And I need a place to hide away Oh, I believe in yesterday Why she had to go, I don't know, she wouldn't say I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday Yesterday, love was such an easy game to play And I need a place to hide away Oh, I believe in yesterday Sitting in the morning sun I'll be sitting when the evening comes Watching the ships roll in Then I'll watch them roll away again Sitting on the dock of the bay Watching the tide roll I'd like to call to order the Urban County Planning Commission meeting for September the 28th, 2017. I'd like to welcome all those in the audience, welcome commission members, and welcome to the staff. We have the approval of the minutes for August the 24th, 2017. Our secretary is not here. I understand she's on a beach someplace, so someone else will have to do the honors. Mr. Mundy moves. Can I get a second? chair i move approval of the minutes for the august 24 2017 meeting as recorded okay it's been moved by miss monday seconded by mr owens that we approve the minutes of august 24 2017. any discussion on the motion hearing none would you please vote when it comes up on your screens ayes have it motion carries are there any postponements or withdrawals Okay. And we shall move along. Then I guess the first item on our agenda is the final subdivision plan. That's 17-50. We're ready. Mr. Chairman, this plan requires the posting of a sign and an affidavit to that effect. Yes. The applicant's representative is not here in order to document that they have done that, which for your information was the reason they postponed last time. If they cannot document that they have fulfilled that part of the ordinance, and of course you cannot hear this plan today, they may be on their way. Honestly, we don't know. We spoke to them earlier today, thought that they understood that they were to be here. So I would recommend perhaps that we move on, and if they show up, we'll... Without objection, then we will... Well, just in the nick of time. How about that? Well, we'll, in conclusion. In conclusion. I'm getting ready to rule him out of here. He's going to go get the affidavit and return. Okay. Well, we'll still move from that one to the zoning items. We'll make on page 2 SCW Newton as the first item on the agenda. and Ms. Wade are you going to help us out with the abbreviation on that? I will. Chairman Wilson, members of the commission, there are two items today that do qualify for abbreviated hearing. The first one appears on page two. It is SCW Newtown LLC and it is a request to rezone property at 757 Newtown Pike from a highway service business B3 zone to a wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone for 0.44 net and 0.6 gross acres. The staff would ask if there's anyone present in the audience today that would like to speak regarding this particular case or object to this case. Seeing none, I believe this item can be taken in an abbreviated fashion. fashion the second item appears on page three it is frm lawson property pln mar 17-32 and that's a petition to rezone property at 300 alexandria drive 0.71 net and 1.14 gross acres they are requesting to rezone from a planned neighborhood residential r3 zone to a light industrial i1 zone Again, the staff would ask if there's anyone present today that would like to speak regarding this case. Seeing none, this is the second item that the commission can take in an abbreviated fashion today. Okay, then are we ready to go with item number one, SCW Newton? Thank you. Ms. White. Chairman Wilson, members of the commission, our first item is PLN MAR 17-31. applicant is scw newton sorry newtown llc they are requesting a rezoning from a b3 which is our highway service business zone to a b4 zone which is our wholesale and warehouse business zone the subject property is located at 757 newtown pike it is directly across newtown from the lexmark campus and more specifically Freight Boulevard which was just recently approved and is under construction is directly aligns with an access easement adjacent to the subject property also in the general vicinity and look at the zoning a little bit to the south and west is B4 zoning and that subject property is bordered on two sides by an existing warehouse development owned by the applicant which is space center storage to the north is a gas distributor scott gross gas distribution it's located in a b3 zone and then further to the north our other b3 and b4 warehouse and business uses include including a gas station and some i believe a fence distributor further to the north is the imperial mobile home park and then further to the or to the south of the subject property beyond the warehouse use is an existing single-family residential neighborhood on Haskins Drive and then a little bit further to the south is another residential neighborhood the Arbor subdivision the AU zoning in the vicinity that shows up on our notice map here AU to the west is the Douglas Park there is an elementary school and a public pool located within that park and and then the au zoning to the southeast of the subject property is the bluegrass technical college and again the aerial photo can provide a little bit more information for that area the subject property is currently occupied by a closed car wash it was a self-service car wash the applicant is proposing to reuse the property for a warehouse they are proposing a 12 000 square foot warehouse on that property with access to continue to be shared with the existing warehouse facility in this area that's the access in the rear of the existing structure and then looking from their access easement adjacent to the subject property directly across towards freight boulevard which is on the lexmark The applicant did mention in their proposed or in their justification that they felt this requested rezoning was in agreement with the comprehensive plan. As well, they mentioned the central sector small area plan. the staff couldn't find that it was in agreement with either of the two plans but they also cited that the proposal was the proposal to rezone to b4 this location was appropriate and the b3 zone was no longer pro no longer appropriate at this location and the staff did agree with that justification for for really for two reasons the adjacent uses and zoning in this area are b3 and and B4 and that this subject property can be incorporated into the B4 warehouse facility that's currently there. So it's compatible and consistent with the existing zoning and use in the area. In addition, although subject property is B3 currently, it doesn't, and has frontage on Newtown, it doesn't have direct access to Newtown. The access is shared and specifically shared on the adjacent property, which is the warehouse use. so that makes it a little less likely to be developed for b3 uses in this location additionally the staff believes that a b4 locate or b4 warehouse at this location is less intense than some of the other uses that might be permitted in a b3 zone especially nearby residential and an elementary school so the staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning because we feel the consistent with the applicant's justification that the proposed zone is inappropriate excuse me the proposed zone is appropriate and the existing zone is inappropriate at this location the staff did review the adjacent property in terms of its conditional zoning restrictions and recommended very similar conditional zoning restrictions for the subject property and those should be on your staff report in the binder as well as on the agenda today the zoning committee did review this three weeks ago and also recommended approval be happy to answer any questions about the zone change any questions from this weight thank you okay uh the development plan oh miss golf thank you okay we're looking at the little powell property um located on newtown pike this here would be currently a new town pike and as tracy explained this was across from lexmark they're right now putting in the new light right here on newtown pike so that'll make this very accessible going into this warehouse area they have fences so that it kind of gates off so nobody can come in and out this is the proposed building that they have the access to this proposed building will come through their gates and come around so they will be putting their parking and their access behind the gates within that area as you can see we just have a few few sign off conditions we have this being a preliminary development plan they will come back with a final development plan to get a little more detail into there's a couple items they need Royal Springs aquifer approval and so that's one of our conditions is that this plan be reviewed at the time of final development plan with the Royal Springs we also added one condition to this plan because Tracy explained that there are conditional zoning so we ask that you add one condition that you denote the conditional zoning as approved by the planning commission on the plan also. With that, it's really simple. Is there any other questions? Any questions? Okay, applicant. Good afternoon, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. When the staff says this is simple, lawyers should shut up. I have nothing to add, but I'm happy to answer questions. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? If not, then we'll close it and go to the commission for additional discussion and our motion. First, we'll have two motions, actually one on the zone first, and then we'll go to the development plan. Mr. Owens. Mr. Sheriff, there's no other questions or no questions. I'll move for approval of Plan MAR17-31 SCW Newtown, LLC, noting the four conditions recommended by staff, as well as noting the prohibited uses. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLNMAR 17-31 SCW Newton Newtown LLC with the four conditions identified by staff along with the prohibited uses as a special note. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, motion carries. the development plan, Mr. Owens. Yes. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the plan MJDP 17-86 Little and Powell property with the eight noted conditions. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Owens and seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLN MJDP 17-86 Little and Powell property with the eight conditions noted by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, motion carries. Thank you. That takes care of that. Let's move on to FRM Lawson property. Chairman Wilson, our next item appears on page three of your agenda. It's also item 2A on the agenda and then tab 2 in your notebooks. This is PLN MAR 17-32. The request by FRM Lawson LLC. The subject property is located at 300 Alexandria Drive. And the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from an R3 zone to an I1 zone. the subject property is located on the southeast side of alexandria drive it is located across from mayor haven subdivision and it is within i guess bound on the other three sides by portions of the lees town industrial park the lees town industrial park is accessed and i'm going to use the bigger map to show you is accessed through an intersection on Lee's Town Road with Trade Street and then the subject property can be accessed along Overdrive through an adjacent lot 2433 that's the proposed route to get there once it is developed for industrial but the existing frontage is along Alexandria Drive. The use of the subject property was as a some sort of research facility and maybe storage by the University of Kentucky historically. I'll show you a picture of the subject property there, but the property was transferred to the petitioner in April of 2017 and they wish to rezone the property in order to utilize it for light industrial use. Their development The plan that goes along with this zone change shows it as a storage lot, a parking lot, associated with the use, the existing use at 2433 Overdrive, which is a vehicle repair facility. From the photograph, you can see the subject property is encumbered with some utilities on the frontage it has on Alexandria Drive, specifically a transmission power line and its associated tower. And then on the plan, it's also visible that there's a 75-foot wide easement along this frontage of the subject property along Alexandria. If we go back to the zoning, again, the residential zoning occurs on the north side of Alexandria in this vicinity and then light industrial on the south side again the subject property this is looking more towards the lees town industrial park back towards the southeast a little bit and this is the existing access onto alexandria drive across from mayor haven subdivision the petitioner contented that the existing zoning is inappropriate at this location and the proposed zone for i1 is appropriate in this location and the staff agreed with that assertion the fact that there's an electric transmission line and tower and the easement that occupy approximately half of the property makes it unlikely that it would be developed for residential this location in addition it's bound on three sides by industrial use and zoning and there's There's a KU substation just immediately to the southeast of the subject site as well. The site is also, would be considered vacant and underutilized since it's not being used currently. And then the staff believes the right-of-way of Alexandria Drive is sufficiently wide to provide a bit of a boundary between the industrial uses on the south side of Alexandria and the residential on the north. but the staff did believe that a buffer should be established along the Alexandria Drive frontage the intention is to utilize overdrive for access to the subject property or that's the desire of the planning staff and traffic engineering staff but we do believe that buffering the parking lot would be a plus for the visibility from Alexandria Drive sort of buffer that the staffs recommending a conditional zoning restriction although there's no power line in that vicinity the staff felt a hedge six foot hedge would be appropriate no trees so that wouldn't conflict with the power lines in this in this location the zoning committee met three weeks ago and also recommended approval of the proposed rezoning. I'm happy to answer any questions about this request. Any questions from Ms. Wade? Thank you. Who's doing the development plan? Okay, Ms. Gallup. Thank you. Come right on back. This is Lee's Town Office Park. Since the majority of this was Lee's Town we renamed this to be part of this whole office park here as you can tell this is overdrive going into the existing building that they are occupying for their use and the adjacent property they have created an access easement that'll go from overdrive into this property here so that they can use it as a parking lot that was what their proposal was With that, the staff and the subdivision committee had recommended approval with this. There's just a few sign-offs, and we ask that they denote the conditional zoning restrictions that Tracy has set forth with the landscaping along Alexandria Drive. we had two questions that were discussed and we'd like to see that they resolve at time of final development plan because this plan is a preliminary so they will be back in front of us we had some concerns over the access to Alexandria Drive so we asked that to be resolved at time of the final development plan and we also asked they were wanting to use it as a gravel but there were some issues that were brought up about water quality so we asked that that be resolved also at the time of final development plan if there are any other questions and miss go by this being a preliminary development plan this doesn't limit the access to Alexander Drive if they shouldn't need it for the development plan and we're leaving that till the time of final development yes sir but it still leaves it on the table yes thank you traffic engineering was not in favor of it so therefore that's why we ask that this be resolved at time of final development right thank you any other questions thank you applicant good afternoon i'm justin jury with 2020 land surveying um representing frm lawson the applicant developer owner um just to reiterate this we started with a final development plan then downgraded to a preliminary at this time due to the access issues and change in the people that were leased in the property next door so those issues will will be heard again at the time of a final development plan okay any questions any other questions thank you anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular agenda item if not then we'll close that part of the hearing and bring it back to the Commission for additional discussion in our emotion okay mr. Penn mr. chairman I move for approval of PLN MAR 17-32 for the reason provided by the staff. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Pence, second by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLN MAR 17-32 FRM Lawson Property. With the conditions noted by staff, any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. That motion carries. Go ahead if you'd like. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 1790, East Town Industrial Park, conditional approval for the nine noted conditions. Second. Second. Okay, Mr. Frank Penn moved and Ms. Karen Mundy seconds that we approve PLNMJDP 17-90 Leestown Industrial Park. With the nine conditions noted by staff, any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries, thank you. Thank you. Okay, are we prepared to go back to the very first agenda item now? Okay, then we'll go back to the very first item, I think. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission. The final subdivision plan that you see before you today is on page one of your agenda. It is a subdivision plan 17-50, the Greer Hancock Farm. This is one of those interesting, you all heard me say that before, one of these interesting lotting situations that we occur in the rural area at times. We bring them to you occasionally. Sometimes we're handling them on minor plats, and we see these interesting situations. And in this particular situation, on this plat, it is an area off Muir Station. Stewart Lane would be in this location over here, Bryan Station further to the west. One of the unique situations about this is it sits on the Fayette County-Bourbon County line. In fact, several lots in this area are actually separated by that jurisdictional line. It's interesting to note that in this area of the county, there have been a lot of plats. Crescent Farm is how they were known. The plats were. This is one of those instances where the land was created by deed. It's over 12 acres, just over 12 acres in size. For years, they were under the impression that it was all in Fayette County. Now, it was created by deed when the 10-acre rule was in effect prior to the 40 acres. Subsequently, they had work done and a survey done, I believe, for the PDR program, and they discovered that 7.2 acres is in Fayette County and a little over three acres is in Bourbon County. So it is an interesting situation. The owner of the property, of course, is trying to straighten things out and get his affairs in order for his family, and he was under the assumption that he had a buildable lot. Well, without going through the subdivision process correctly, he did not have a buildable lot in Fayette County. You all had a similar one of these out in the rural area not long ago on that property next to the women's facility that the state has out where a piece of land had been created by deed and not following the subdivision regulations or KRS. So there is a provision, as you all are aware, under KRS 100.292 that requires them to come back through the subdivision process when it had not been followed originally. In addition to this rather interesting and unique situation with the size of this property being separated on a county line, that creates the need for two waivers. and we have submitted for your review a waiver request. And again, the important aspect of this lot is that it totals on the deed 12 acres. Fayette County, it's less than 10. That's waiver number one. Your subdivision regulations require 10 acres for a septic tank. Obviously, they don't have 10 acres in Fayette County. They have been working with the health department. In fact, they called planning and asked us, why are they talking to us? That was prior to the plat being filed. So they're working with the Board of Health to ensure that this property will, in fact, perk correctly. And again, no building permit will be issued without a functioning septic system. The other aspect of this that requires a waiver is the fact they have no Fayette County frontage. And of course your ordinance requires lot frontage on an approved street when you create a lot. In this case, what's interesting is they have access off Grissom Lane, which is a Bourbon County road. So they do have access to the property. And in fact, as I stated, they have been working with the Board of Health to verify that the land will perk. So with that in mind, staff has reviewed this waiver request, and we are recommending approval to you today of these two waivers. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Pan. Mr. Martin, these 12-acre lots that were out there, were they just platted and not deeded? Is that what happened? In this case, this was deeded and not platted. Oh, okay. And that's the issue, and that's why 100.292 of KRS comes into effect, is that they did not follow the required plating process. And without a subdivision plat, they won't get a building permit. So the deeded record doesn't show the county line? They would have to address how that was depicted. It's my understanding that they thought it was all in Fayette County. Okay. All right. Mr. Hollins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, I'm just curious, this piece of property here, I guess it was a part of an original track that had Muir Station Road frontage? Yes, sir. A much larger track originally. Muir Station is not that close to it anymore. No. It definitely doesn't have any frontage. As I stated, when staff was reviewing this, we looked at the plats in the area for the Crescent Farm. And this area and the lots adjacent to it are not part of that plan. Okay, thank you. Originally, I'm sure it all started out as part of a larger farm. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you Mr. Martin. As you said, this is unique. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, members of the Planning staff, my name is Mike Robbins and I'm here representing the client. We are in agreement with the conditions for approval, but before I can ask for a motion To do that, it looks like items 9 and 10 require that the Planning Commission grant these two waivers first. So should I wait for you all to attend to those two waivers before I ask for the approval of all the conditions? What we'll do is, first of all, we'll approve the final development plan, and then we'll ask for approval for the waivers. Okay. And those two elements, 9 and 10, are contingent upon the conditional approval of the waivers anyhow. So all you have to do is just answer any other questions that may come, and then the commission will take it from here. Does anybody have any further questions? Mr. Tien has. Did you have the option to go to Bourbon County and do this instead of Fayette? We have had to go to Bourbon County as well. But since we are working on getting them to do the same thing on their side of the county line as you're being asked to do on this side of the county line. What's your address going to be, Bourbon County or Fayette County? Well, the one right now, we have this odd address for a street that's way away from us. I would suspect to be up to the 911 department division to tell us what they want the address to be. That's the reason I brought that up, because Muir Station obviously can't be an address for that. And if you had the option to go both places, I'm just wondering how this is going to resolve out as far as public safety is concerned. You know, my assignment was to get this drawing done and get it before you all. I had no inkling that I would be dealing with whether their mail was delivered by Bourbon County or by Fayette County. I'm not concerned about the mail. I'm concerned about the fire department or the police. Well, I guess I'd have to talk to the fire marshal, ask him how he wants to deal with that. I've just raised the question. I don't know the answer. I mean, all I know is it was a much larger tract of land. The PVA has been giving it a Muir Station Road address for decades, apparently. And it just got whittled down to where it was kind of, you know, the orphan kid up in the corner half of Fayette County and half in Bourbon County so we have a condition I'm sure that the the addressing has to be approved by 9-1-1 I would have to defer to them to tell me what address they want me to use you may have some help here sir we've got the Yep, Mr. Martin. I was just talking with our public safety representative, and he did recommend it would be best if they had a Bourbon County address for emergency response. That being said, depending on how someone called, if they called our people, our people can get there. They can take Stewart Lane into Bourbon County and down if they have to get there. But it would be best if they would arrange to get a Bourbon County address. And it's our understanding, again, there has been some discussion with the planning office in Paris Bourbon County. That's fine, thank you. I just had a question about that. Thank you. Are there any further questions? Any other questions? Okay, thank you. from the Commission this is a final development plan have a motion or additional discussion okay mr. chair I'm gonna move approval of plan 17000 50 for the reasons by Those 10 reasons down there. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Mr. Larry Foster that we approve PLN MJS SUV 17-58 Greer Hancock Farm LLC for the 10 conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, let's now go to the waivers. Okay, Mr. Chairman, move approval of the waivers. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Craven, seconded by Mr. Larry Foster, that we approve PLN MJSUV 17-50 Greer Hancock Farm with the waivers as identified by staff and with the conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Thank you. Oh, it did crash. Okay. This is for approval. Okay. Any abstentions, objections? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. I like the sound effects. That was kind of neat. Okay, the next item. Okay, Coral Lexington 685 Limestone is the next item on the agenda. This is a full hearing on this. We have, to our commission members, we've had a request from the applicant for some additional time, and that time has been allotted, but we've heard from no one else, including staff, for additional time, so we have allotted or granted Mr. Murphy as a representative for 15 additional minutes to make that presentation when it's that time. Okay. the next item on our agenda is on page four it's item 3a and behind tab three in your notebooks today this is pln mar 17-33 an applicant is core lexington 685 limestone llc they are requesting a rezoning from planned neighborhood residential which is our r3 zone to our neighborhood business v1 zone for eight parcels and the addresses are 119 121 and 123 131 virginia avenue so four parcels on virginia 665 685 693 south limestone and then 662 maxwellton court the subject property is located in the north west corner of the intersection of limestone south limestone in virginia avenues the subject property does have frontage on max welton court approximately 30 feet to the rear as well as access on hester alley perhaps i'll show for the overhead hester alley runs parallel to south limestone as does max welton court max welton court curves around and does have a signalized intersection with south limestone approximately 1,000 to 1,500 feet from the intersection of Limestone and Virginia Avenue. The zoning in this area is a little bit hard to read on the overhead, but is primarily residential and business. It's R3, R4, and R5 in the residential areas, which are the University of Kentucky across the zoning anyway, across South Limestone, as well as in the Prawl Town area, which is to the north of the subject property and then along Virginia Avenue is also residential and then directly across Virginia Avenue from the subject property is a B3 zone and if we go back to the aerial the Peraltown area is to the north and west of the subject property and that is primarily multifamily residential in that area apartments that are geared towards the University of Kentucky students and then the other three corners of this intersection with Virginia South Limestone and Hugelette Drive are owned by the University of Kentucky so we have several medical and administrative office buildings and also laboratories in this general vicinity the applicant is asking to rezone the subject property look a little bit more this gives a little bit better feel for sorry the aerial of the intensity of use in this general area many of the structures on the University of Kentucky campus are six and seven stories tall including the Lexington clinic and the laboratory across line across Virginia from the subject property and then the units or the residential development in and prawl town is mostly two and three stories this is a view looking to the south so it is the corner virginia's on the top of the photo and limestone on the left side the property together is comprised of 1.36 acres the applicant is proposing to rezone to a b1 zone in order to develop a mixed use project they intend to provide over 11 000 square feet of commercial space on the first floor of their building and then residential units above that 190 residential units and then also an attached parking structure on the site with their application for this zone change the petitioner did submit a detailed area character and context study as mentioned in the zoning ordinance in terms of the justification for the requested rezoning the applicant contends that the request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and specifically the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan they mentioned theme a growing successful neighborhoods and the emphasis on expanding housing choices with an emphasis on sustainable mixed use and high density developments in certain locations. They cited supporting infill and redevelopment as a strategic component of growth with a focus on context-sensitive design, providing well-designed neighborhoods through mixed use, in this case, multimodal transportation connections, and then also minimizing the disruption of natural features. In terms of meeting theme B, protecting the environment, they cited goal two objective c which would which mentions reducing the community's carbon footprint through sustainable and transit oriented development which their project is in line with and then also under theme e maintaining a balance between urban uses and rural safeguarding rural land the applicant cited goal 1a and 1b which are to encourage the consumption of underutilized land and then also building in a compact contiguous and sustainable manner the development will provide sustainable development in the form of an urban mixed use project near the university of kentucky which is one of the community's largest employment areas the petitioner proposes a project that will provide additional housing options for the south limestone and Virginia Avenue corridors in a context-sensitive manner and also offer multimodal transportation connections. Vehicular, in this case, bicycle, pedestrian, and then as well as transit, which is accessible from the frontage of this corner. The comprehensive plan strongly supports the type of mixed-use development now envisioned for the site by this petitioner. b1 zone is one of several zones in our ordinance that can implement a mixed-use project besides the downtown business zones and our mixed-use zones the b1 zone provides really the most flexibility through use of the form-based neighborhood project there's an incentive for the applicant to provide additional information in terms of their proposal like architectural renderings and then the planning commission can offer some flexibility in terms of the lot height yard and setback requirements for within the b1 zone this allows for the flexibility to design a signature building at this intersection which will complement the university of kentucky's campus the staff agrees that the proposed rezoning to b1 is in agreement with the comprehensive plan specifically the goals and objectives from the plan but in addition to that the b1 zone is an appropriate zone at the intersection of two corridors within our community the staff does recommend conditional zoning restrictions for the subject site to for the property to remain in agreement with the comprehensive plan and to encourage that mixed use the staff is recommending prohibiting five uses and that would be automobile repair service station and gas pumps automobile and vehicle refueling stations which is the compressed natural gas animal hospitals or clinics self-service car washes and drive-through facilities and then the staff also suggests a conditional zoning restriction that there be a residential component on the subject property that would ensure that there is a mixed-use project at this location i understand from the zoning committee discussion three weeks ago that the applicant will be asking the commission to possibly strike at least one of those prohibited uses from the staff's recommendation and i'll let them address their desire for that but the staff is recommending approval and the zoning committee also recommended approval of the requested rezoning three weeks ago and I believe on the agenda it cites the staff's findings for that. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning to B1 at this location. Any questions for Ms. Wade for the rezoning issue? Okay. Okay, thank you. Who's doing the development plan? Mr. Martin is. Oh, Mr. Martin is. Okay, they always keep me in suspense on these things. And who's doing the variances? This way. This way. I hope you're not disappointed, Mr. Chairman. I would never find that you are disappointing. You are an epitome of professionalism. You're infinite in faculty. You're noble in wisdom. You're the quintessence of all dust. Okay. You better take it while you can. The preliminary development plan that you see before you today is located on page six of your agenda. But we have circulated to you on this lovely yellow paper, revised conditions, because we do have a revised plan for you today. the property as you have been informed is located on the corner of Virginia Avenue and South Limestone here in this location they are proposing a massing of the building over the entire lot and they've given us inserts to show the layout of the interior building along with the parking garage. We have 11,800 square feet of retail being proposed with a lobby. There is 180,000 square feet of residential. It is six stories and 76 feet tall being proposed. There is considerable open space being proposed in the form of courtyards, as well as a pool and a pool terrace on the roof of the building. In fact, it's over 45,000 square feet of common open space. The garage is over 77,000 square feet, so it's a large building. It is covering the majority of the site. The access is being proposed. They're proposing a full access off Virginia Avenue, which will not only allow use of the garage, but primarily to allow trucks to get into the loading dock area and to maneuver. Now, it is 250 feet, give or take a couple of feet, from the center line of South Limestone to the center line of this entrance. That's the distance. That would be, by the way, the minimum distance on local street spacing. So they have shifted this back as far as they can from the intersection to still allow it to function internally with the truck traffic and the garbage pickup in this area. Here's their trash area for the entire building. There's a full access point out here on Maxwell, which will, in staff's estimation, serve to be a relief valve in heavy traffic. And the people, no doubt, residents will learn to use that alternative route as opposed to during rush hour trying to compete with the traffic in this location. They have also agreed to construct a turn lane, which staff believes is a very valuable improvement on South Limestone for a right turn lane onto Virginia. In conjunction with that, you can see large pedestrian areas, large sidewalk areas being proposed. As Ms. Wade mentioned, there is a context and character study required at the time of a final development plan. This is a preliminary. They have submitted one. Staff did not prepare a report. We weren't going to burden you with a lot of analysis. These are design issues in the B-1 with the form-based. They deal again with the massing, the size, the characteristics of the architecture, the incorporation of the pedestrian area in the common space. These are all things that you heard in the previous presentation for where the Jersey Street hub as well with the character and context study. Should you approve this B1 zone change then at the time of the final development plan you will hear the results of the analysis of that study. That being said you're going to see that study no doubt from the applicant today. I believe that they're going to want to show you what they intend to do and with that one of our conditions you can see on your sheet is that they will comply substantially at the time of final development plan with the study that they submit to you today but we'd also like to make the point that because they're asking for B1 zoning but their intent is to have a form-based development that condition 14, as you can see, denotes that the lot and setbacks are contingent upon this becoming a form-based project. Otherwise, they would just have to meet your standard B1 setbacks, which is not the intent at this time. There are variances with this project as you are aware. Primarily in this area right here, Ms. Wade is going to explain to you the need for a variance. And again, this has to do with the full access point into this garage. And the parking spaces. There required 202 spaces for this development. development there are 190 units with 574 beds being proposed in this development utilizing the bus transit stop which is located right down in here along with the bicycle deduction that reduces their requirement to 202 spaces they are providing 167 so one of the variances that will be presented to you today is a parking variance for 35 spaces and that will be elaborated upon on you here shortly. We have several clean up items that you can see. They're delete a setback that they're showing on the property that's not necessary. That's on the side of the property, on the adjacent property. We need the record plat and owner's information for adjacent property. They need to denote their meets and bounds description of the property. add dimensions to the trash and mechanical areas in the loading dock that were demonstrated on the plan. And with that, staff is recommending approval. I have a question for clarification on my sheet here. It says requested minimum street parking is 205 spaces to 160 spaces. Now that would be 35. all that would be 45 and you've indicated it's 202 167 which is 35 which is it the numbers that i'm using are from the development plan oh okay well miss wade will take care of that i think she's gonna cover for you i bragged about you too early i think any other questions yes mr owens thank you mr chair uh tom you were talking as far as total build out on the lot is is that all six stories will any of those six stories be set back in any sort of way and not total build out no sir no okay they they have architectural renderings and obviously there's architectural relief and that sort of thing but they are not actually stepping back as they would be required to do for instance in a mixed use zone where your upper stories actually are required to set back. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Mark? Okay, thank you. Ms. Wade? The variances appear on the Planning Commission's agenda on page five. The applicant is asking for three variances with their project. The first is to reduce the minimum off-street parking requirement from and when they filed, they believed that their minimum required was 205. They've adjusted a few things on the site plan to reduce the commercial space, so that adjusted their number a little bit. But they did ask for the Planning Commission to approve a variance to 160. So their development plan may show a few more than that, but their requirement would be set at, they're asking for the requirement to be reduced to 160. So I think it's correct. The development plan shows 167 provided, but their request is to reduce to 160. So, okay, let me get my math straight here. Is it 160? And how many spaces? Is it 202 or 205? I'm going to go with 202. You're going to go with 202? Okay, if you're going to go with 202, then they're requesting 45 spaces. 42. 42. 42. Okay, 42. that's right 42 okay go ahead I just want to get the math straight so the parking variance is of course included within the parking garage which I believe is two and a half stories of the of the building the other two variances are mr. Martin indicated on the development plan in a particular area And the first is to reduce a yard, which is meant to be along the rear of 135 Virginia Avenue. Because the B-1 is that they're asking for, their proposal would be to reduce the side yards and the rear yards to zero. the staff informed the applicant that they actually had to mimic the adjacent zone requirements and that they couldn't go to zero without a variant. So in this location, at the rear yard of an R3, they were required a 10-foot setback, and so they're asking for that 10-foot setback to be eliminated. And then the second part in this same location is to reduce the zone-to-zone perimeter requirements, requirements, the screening requirements from 15 to zero and eliminate the shrubs and trees that would normally be required there. In terms of the parking variance, our initial assessment was that was an 18 percent reduction. It sounds like it would be slightly less than that. Instead of asking for 45 space reduction, it's 42. The three main factors that the staff considers with a parking variance are what is the real parking generator for the use what's the walkability of the immediate area and then if there's availability of other parking areas in the immediate area generally the applicant has told us that their residents that live in these types of developments which they've developed 22 across the nation utilize the residential parking in a long-term setting they don't move cars daily or multiple times a day it's more like once or twice a week but because the student the development is student oriented and near the University it's attractive to residents who have a lower vehicle and parking need also the residents will not necessarily need a vehicle to get to campus or around campus and then many services and amenities are nearby and including possibly within the building itself so that reduces the parking demand or the necessary generator somewhat and also we think it has increased the walkability in the area to and from campus as well as the other commercial areas nearby however there are not really any other parking options or at least they're limited many of the other parking garages or spaces in the area are owned by the university of kentucky or there is some on street parking but again it's it's limited on maxwellton and in the pearl town area overall the staff did find that this variance the granting the variance would not alter the general character of the area or adversely impact the public safety health or welfare and would allow not allow a circumvention of the ordinance we believe that requiring the applicant to provide excessive parking would actually be a hardship for them in addition the other two variances because they're located in the same spot, we'll kind of group those two together. These are two aerial views of the location of that variance. This is 662 Max Welton, that house, and it's a 28-foot linear distance where the variance is requested. It's currently at the rear of 135 Virginia Avenue, which is occupied by a parking lot. so the zone to zone screening between a building and a parking lot the staff doesn't believe is necessary as it might be between the commercial use and a residential use between the two parking areas the screening isn't as necessary as it would normally be and the setback in addition the restricted width of max welton's frontage there is 30 feet for their property 25 feet of it is is within the building and provides that safe access point both in and out of the parking garage and another five feet is provided along where there is an existing residential residential structure and parking area for the adjacent apartment complex and that doesn't leave enough room to provide another 10-foot buffer or 15-foot 10-foot setback or 15-foot buffer so the landscape review committee did meet on the 19th although there was no quorum but they did agree with the staff that eliminating the landscaping in this area would have very little impact on the area there's only the loss of one tree in that area and that it they even agreed that it relocating the tree wasn't necessary on the site. So the staff has concluded that adequate access to Maxwellton is a higher priority for the project than is a setback of 10 feet or the landscape buffer in this location. And so the staff is recommending approval of all three of the variances and this related to this, the two related to the setbacks. And those three variances were collapsed into findings for all three so the staff recommends approval of all three of the requested variances when we find that it again granting the variances won't adversely impact the public health safety or welfare or alter the character of the area they're not circumventing the zoning ordinance the special circumstances related to this area the width of max welton's frontage and also the pedestrian oriented project related to the parking variance. Strict application could cause a hardship for the applicant and the circumstances are not the creation of the applicant. They've applied for these variances before continuing with their project, which is appropriate. Be happy to answer any questions about the three variances at this time. Any questions? We do have one more presentation related to the traffic study and that's going to be from Max Conyers today. Thank you. Mr. Conyers. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. Max Conyers, Transportation Planning Section. I'll be presenting today for Jimmy Immons, who worked with the developers, court, and consultants and prepared this traffic impact study review for you today. So, I won't go over the things that's already been mentioned, but just to say that this area is, I think traffic of all modes is a pretty big deal. there's a lot of traffic and just to give you some of the kind of the volume of traffic you have like about 20 I'd say probably in a 2017 you have around 29,000 trips a day on that section of limestone just adjacent and then further further south it bumps up as you get closer to the university to about probably over 40,000, probably 41 or 42,000. Virginia Avenue in a 2017 estimate is probably around 19,000 trips a day or 20,000. Very high level of vehicular volume. At the same time, we have a very high level of pedestrian volume, you can imagine, with all the students and all the pedestrians. So it's very about multimodal in this particular location, as you can imagine. As far as the trip generation for the development, you see it's about 1,138 trips a day, according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, latest data. And then with the peak hours is what we're looking at, AM, 123 PM, a little higher with 193. You see the splits there, entering and exiting. several assumptions were made by the consultants i gotta say they did a pretty good job very thorough job at their traffic impact study and they had to make some assumptions with traffic counts because they did it when school was not in session so they adjusted based on other counts that have been made in session and then we were lucky enough to have some very recent counts from the university itself to check and validate their assumptions and they were very very close so we thought they did a really good job with that and so the traffic study traffic growth and traffic count assumptions with the in school condition was very good. You see all the intersections here that were analyzed by the consultants. So they didn't just do the intersection of the site, they did the whole area. And these are several key, very key intersections. There was one to the west at Harrodsberg Road. You have another critical one at Cooper. And then you have the one down there at the split of Upper and Limestone. And that enabled us to kind of key on the general vicinity right there, which is the key ground zero, if you will, for the traffic. And so when you look at the basics here, you're talking transit, you're talking pedestrians, and you're talking bicycles. Tom mentioned that there is two bus stops. There's one on Limestone itself right there at the site just down from the corner, and there's one around the corner on Virginia. There's three bus routes that come through here, bus route 5, 14, and 15. So it's a pretty significant transit juncture point. So it's very important to make sure transit facilities are adequate. We did, in working with traffic engineering and so forth, the state, the right turn lane there on southbound, limestone's going to be critical for operations, not just now but in the future. We see a BRT system, bus rapid transit system, in a future for Nicholasville Road. so that system would utilize right turn lanes to get around queues of car traffic and give the bus priority around for express movement around the traffic. So that is really a good thing to get now as we move forward. So this is one of the busiest pedestrians, as you can imagine. So the state had done a HSIP study, which is Highway Safety Improvement Study, and they looked at several things better markings cross hatching all kinds of things that right turn lane southbound and extending the right turn lane on Virginia headed south on to South Limestone so it's a lot of safety improvements that are coming in this intersection to try to get good as the traffic increases at this critical intersection. So as far as, to sum it up, as far as the staff's recommendations, that right turn lane is critical. It'll have that long-term benefit for our systems operations. We definitely agree with the consultant's recommendations to make the entrance and exit exit entrance and exit to the primary off of Virginia to the development. Very ADA compliant with really good entrance and exit markings because there's going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic crossing that point. Also with a flared driveway to be able to allow people to turn right if one vehicle is blocking. So basically if you're going to turn out of there you're going to be looking at a queue a lot of times, that right turn queue. So good operational designs to get around there, plus the back way out, kind of a relief valve, very good. These are Jimmy's, there's the site. So moving that as far west as possible gives you more room to operate along the bus routes, the pedestrians and everything. So basically, I think to sum it up, there's been very good coordination. There's going to be a lot of coordination to come with traffic engineering, Lex Tran, KYTC, engineering, and the University of Kentucky. It's going on now. We've got a meeting tomorrow to follow up to talk about it. But there'll be ongoing as the development is built and as we implement some of these HSIP projects. In the long range plan, transportation plan, we do have a project, but it is, as you can imagine, access management, multimodal improvements, safety improvements, and just to make everything balanced along there. We're not going to tear down houses and widen the road on this corridor. And then Virginia Avenue has plenty of capacity, bike lanes, sidewalks, and so forth. So final thoughts is basically just to have good coordination as we go forward. That's important. And everybody, I think, is working together in this case. So balance is the key here for all modes. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman, and if you have any questions. Any questions? I'd answer. It's not right now, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, it's time for the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here on behalf of Core Spaces, which is the developer of this. Our architect, Jeff Solisco, is passing out to you our contact study. We'll be getting that to you, getting to that in just a minute. But I wanted to introduce who we have here. In addition to Jeff, Jeff is our architect from Antinovich Associates in Chicago. They have designed most all of Core Spaces projects around the country. Also with me today is Chad Mattese from Core Spaces in Chicago as well. Our landscape architect, of course, is Kevin Warner here from Carmen Associates here in Lexington. Brett Malloy is here, our traffic engineer from Integrated Engineering here in Lexington. Kevin Phillips of Endres Engineering is our surveyor. Kevin is not with us today. Chaz Height, who works with me as well, is here today. We're very excited to present this to you. It's a very exciting project. Core Spaces specializes in doing high-end student-oriented housing developments. They're in 22 cities right now. Madison, Wisconsin, West Lafayette, Indiana. In Arizona, they're in Tucson and Tempe. They're in Oxford, Mississippi, Columbia, South Carolina, and about 16 other communities around the country right now. Their goal is to be close to campus. They supply a very high-quality residence with amenities. As Mr. Martin mentioned to you, this has a swimming pool on the roof, as did the one you discussed two weeks ago up on Upper Street and Jersey Street. This development right here, they've succeeded in being close to campus because this is university-owned property right now. I don't think you can get any closer to the core of campus than this property is. And a lot of you know this, but this is a zone change, and there's going to be minutes going to the council, so I want to explain how CORE has obtained this property. they have a contract to purchase it from the University of Kentucky. As you all probably read in the newspaper about six weeks ago, CORE originally had a contract to purchase the Kennedy Bookstore property and the Vasoli's property right next to it. And UK wanted to discuss that with CORE because UK had always felt that the Kennedy Bookstore property was the keystone to the development of their campus, and they really wanted the Kennedy Bookstore property. So what resulted from their discussions was a swap where CORE swapped their contract on Kennedy Bookstore and Fazoli's to UK, and UK would swap to CORE the property at Jersey Street and the property here at Virginia and South Limestone Street. If you've been by there recently, you know that what UK is using it for right now is a temporary gravel parking lot. It's right there. You access it off of Hester Alley. Can't really get there from South Lima Virginia Avenue right now. But as I've sat through your comprehensive plan discussions, I get more and more excited about this because the discussions you all have had about having higher density development on major arterials, near transit lines as Mr. Mark mentioned there are two or Mr. Conyers mentioned there are two bus lines going right by this property pedestrian accessible and utilizing vacant or underutilized properties that more I've sat through your discussions the more I thought this is exactly what the 2018 comprehensive plan is advocating development exactly like this, higher density along corridors with transit lines, pedestrian accessibility, and right next to major employment and educational centers in Lexington. And as you all know UK is the major employment and educational and medical center here in Lexington. This development, as I said, will be oriented to students. It's open to anyone, but it's it's sort of oriented to student life. We have retail on the first floor. That retail, we think, will serve the residents who live here, many of the students who live in the general vicinity of this and can walk here, and also probably patients' families who are visiting the University of Kentucky Medical Center. They are in the last stages of negotiating a contract with a major national retailer to use the space on the first floor of the building. As you all know, this is a forum-based neighborhood business project under Article 816-0 of your zoning ordinance. This is only the third one you all have had. The first one was Thistle Station, which you approved a year or so ago. Second one was the one you heard two weeks ago and we'll hear next month. And the third one is this project. We know we were not required to do our context study at the preliminary development stage. It's actually required at the final development plan stage. What you have is a preliminary development plan in front of you. But we also knew we did not want to present this two-dimensional development plan to you without you seeing how it fits in the rest of the area. So we wanted you to see that before we got to the final development plan stage so you'd note exactly what we're doing here. We actually met with the staff two or three times before we even filed this development. We were very excited because Brandy Peacher, your design planner, was involved in that, and I think it's fair for me to say she was very, very supportive of this, very excited about this, and we met with her before our architects put pencil to paper to start designing this, so we could make sure our architects were on the same page with your design planner. And I can say from the discussions that they are absolutely on the same page. I know Ms. Peacher is not with the Division of Planning anymore. She's moved to the mayor's office to coordinate the town branch project through downtown. But we appreciate her input and her guidance on this project because what you're seeing reflects that input and the guidance that we've had from her and from the rest of the planning staff that was very helpful through the process. As I said, we're not required to do a context study, but we have one, and this time I'd like to get Jeff Zalisco, our architect, to come up. He'll briefly go through that with you here on that. Jeff, if you could come on up. I think he's passed that out to each of you previously. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, my name is Jeff Zalisco. I'm a senior principal with Antunovich Associates. We're the architects working with core spaces on this project. Very, very excited about this project. As Mr. Murphy had mentioned, I would like to use our area character and context study really to describe the project from a design standpoint and from a planning standpoint, how it's working within the context of the site and the neighboring property. So with that, I'm going to go through that. And I'm going to point back at this one, so I'll kind of be turning around a bit. on some of the other presentations you've already seen some of the context within the site at the corner of Virginia and limestone so I'll move through this one as we did our character area character study we looked at a lot of the neighboring buildings you know to help us determine what we were going to do with our design there's a lot of different type of buildings obviously the university buildings the hospital buildings and then the neighborhood that's to the north and to the west so these are many of the these homes that are along next Melton and along limestone a lot of different character brick homes bungalow clapboard homes there's some stucco buildings a lot of different character not a real consistency with that but you know like a neighborhood homes done at different times so a lot variation actually lovely homes most of them and then the the more the the university buildings these vary from up to eight stories down to two but they're generally in that range in between between two probably most of them are in the four to five story range so the building that we're proposing is really a transition building in relationship to that neighborhood and as that being the case we did want to really think about the elements that existed the more the university I'm sorry the the hospital buildings are of a more modern character the university buildings are transition building so are more traditional some more modern the homes are generally more traditional in character however they did have some components all of them had components we thought that we could pull from many of the homes have multiple materials materiality we thought that that was something we could use same thing on some of the hospital buildings so as we started to look at this design we wanted to meld some of those things in and also because this is a bigger building and it's long especially long along Virginia we we saw that we could use materials materiality to help break down some of the mass so you'll see that as we run along the street we have masonry which we actually have go towards that portion of the residential neighborhood the apartment buildings over here and condominium buildings we've also used a couple of other interesting elements we have a stucco product here that's fluted and then we've used corrugated siding or natural metal corrugated siding so there's a really interesting contrast to those materials with each other also with that brick you'll see we we looked at there's a wonderful traditional campus building right across the street from us on limestone and we thought that that was a great brick it's softer and and not as dense as some of the red bricks that are in some of the hospital buildings. So we thought that that was a great material to use as a base material as we transition to the residential neighborhood. So looking at some of the other renderings we have, we made a real focus on the residential to have a very strong residential corner, in particular at the corner of the building and then along limestone, we wanted to make that very prominent. Also you'll see that we've increased the sidewalks significantly from where they are now. In fact, along limestone, we've set back 18 feet, and that's going to allow for the future right turn there. So there's plenty of room for that to be accommodated when that takes place. We've also set back significantly along Virginia, and actually we're not required to have setbacks on that street, we are required to have a 10 foot setback on limestone, but we've exceeded those. And that's because, especially with the retail, we wanna make sure we have a proper sidewalk, And those are sidewalks that will be used quite a bit by students. They'll be very active. So we wanted to have a really great sidewalk around this building and do that right. And we feel that we've really done that. Also, you see we have some of these renderings that just depict how that sidewalk would feel. Very important part of this building. You know, we look at the building then and some of the other views, and we've looked at that in comparison to some of the other buildings, the bigger university and hospital buildings. and again scale is similar we're using multiple materials to kind of tie in with the residential buildings and these buildings and having a nice contrast and to help reduce you know some of the mass where there are bigger elements of this building and we feel that the soft brick material with these other components really has worked very nicely with that I want to go back on one we've um this is an element we've used we have some really wonderful synthetic wood products which are maintenance free and we use those as we start to move down limestone towards the residential buildings we've used this one that has a very soft character to it grayish character and then we use this other material also and you may be able to see this better when you're looking at your books this element that we use as we go up the building and we thought that those are something that creates a kind of a very interesting soft character to those portions of the building. Those some of those elements too I want to point out we create this really strong design element along limestone and we really wanted to have an emphasis as we're at that corner of the building also that that acts as a very interesting sort of canopy element up at the roof that's or at the pool that's up at the corner of the building so that creates sort of a signature element that provides some shade up there also see I think this is a great view because you really see the context of where we're at compared to these you know the larger hospital and then university buildings in actually I think our site should be showing shown a little bit further along along Virginia in this view however you can see that the footprint to some of these other buildings are enormous compared to ours even though ours is a a fairly big footprint there are buildings here that really are and from a footprint standpoint significantly bigger that way and as we've mentioned we are fairly similar in height to many of those buildings so I want to talk a little bit in detail about the the site plan so this setback that I mentioned earlier significant setback or setback 18 feet that right hand turn there's room for that right hand turn to to take place and what it does is we'll still have an 18-foot sidewalk so it will really be quite significant was mentioned earlier the retail space and then this movement we would have moved this entry even further up but this allows for a truck to pull in back in and be able to move out so we've done geometrics to ensure that the trucks can move in and move out of that location so this is the location for parking for entrance to parking off of Virginia also the max Milton entry along the rear here it was described carefully about how we need it to be right on the property line and that was really to create a safe entry and exit point on the max melt and if we had not taken that five feet it would have been really too narrow and and would not have had worked properly so that was very important we've also located the lobby so that's really closest to university for walking down the street or making it to the corner but seemed like that was really the great spot and right spot to have that located in addition I don't have the plans indicated here you'll see them in a section but we do have a lower level parking and that in part takes care of the slope of the slot it really falls quite a bit it's 12 feet 12 or 13 feet lower here than it is up at the street so having that lower level parking helped take advantage of that and then we did have to rise up quite a bit actually Max Melton is a bit higher but we have figured out how to deal with the adjustments and grades to make that all work properly so this is showing a footprint a roof of the building there are courtyards within the building and this is also important mr. Martin had mentioned earlier that we do not have setbacks we actually do we are set back along the north side of the building so we are set back from the property line with the portion of the building that really goes up in the air above the first floor parking garage we're set back ten feet from the parking garage and five feet from the base of the building and the same occurs on the west side of the building so we are actually set back 10 feet with with most of the building as it faces towards the north and to the west and then as I mentioned earlier we don't have setbacks but we are already set back we're not required and more than required along Virginia and in limestone so those are important I just want to make that point because really three most of the building on those sides are set back 10 feet I mentioned about sections of the building so that's the lower level parking the main parking the retail essentially is two stories the two parking levels nestle in behind the retail to have the proper height for that and then we then have five levels of residential above the building is 76 feet tall a primary portion of the building is 76 feet we are a little bit higher where we have the pool that's up higher because of the depth of the pool and that's up at 80 81 feet but that's only a small portion of the footprint of a building so that gives you an idea how we got to the height and where we're at with them and then this is interesting context so along the streets are you're seeing along Virginia the height of the buildings our building being a bit higher but not significantly than these and then actually a good deal of smaller as we kind of move across Virginia from us and then down to the home so it does seem like a reasonable transition point from those buildings down to the residential buildings and with that that's my portion of the presentation if you have any questions for anyone on our team this would be a great time for us to to respond to those thank you very much thank you any questions thank you I'm sorry mr. Bell's got Yes, sir, on page 10, you might have expressed this. Is that coming out on Virginia Avenue, is that right turn only? It is a right in, right out, and left in, left out, right, both directions. We think that the Max Melton is a very good safety valve if people want to get back out to limestone from that street, And that's why we have that. I think as Mr. Murphy had mentioned earlier, the movement of these cars does not happen all that often. It's a couple times a week, but we thought that that was a pretty important point. And I think everyone with the city felt very strongly about that also. Thank you. You're welcome. Yes, Mr. Penn would like a follow-up. Yeah, as you look at that, you're going to have cars coming off limestone and turning right into your parking lot. you're going to have cars coming out of there turning left to try to go to limestone and you're going to have cars coming out of there turning right to go down Virginia Avenue. So you're going to have that wide enough for three stacks? Or two out, one in? I think that we don't have three stacks, although actually it is a 30-foot wide opening and that's to allow for the trucks to get in and out. So that is something that we could provide. We would work with the city to set that up, but we definitely have the width to accommodate that. understand the width I'm following up on Mr. Bell's question. To me, the people that are coming out of there trying to turn left going to limestone are between a rock and a hard place. Correct, right. And that's where that rear exit off of Max Melton will allow someone to go on to limestone. So you're not going to allow that left-hand movement out of there? There is that movement. That movement is presently allowed, yes. The left in and left out off of Virginia, yes. So you are going to allow it. Okay. Yes. sorry would you mind just clarifying that um so coming out of there you are able to take a left yes to cross over to cross over into the yes into the park into the lane here and again that's that's where this rear exit will allow someone to come out over here and get to limestone if that's their intent so um if you live there and you find that that's a difficult movement you would probably by default goes back to the other that's um yeah that's that seems challenging to me i don't know how many cars you know at the stoplight there you can get in before but it's it's backed up it seems to me um that it's going to be right now and and that's that's part of the reason why from the intersection we're 250 feet back so it is a significant amount during rush hour i'm sure you're right that will be a difficult movement if it's stacked up even further so again would you just remind me how you can get out through the back there if that's so this entry point that's max melton right there and to scale that comes around to about here and then you can make that movement down to limestone where there's a left and a right turn so then you could go from there go left or right onto limestone as a just a normal movement thank you sir okay thank you Mr. Cravens has a question for you. What are the parking, your widths on your parking? Is it all compact cars, is it mixed or what? Well, the maximum we could do is 25%. We have significantly less. I believe we have about 13% compact cars. And the balance are the standard required parking spaces. They're 9 by 18. So if you had more compact cars in there, I mean, could you almost get to your required parking? You say it was all compact car. I've looked at this exercise recently, and we pick up another like eight spaces. The issue is that within the column spacing, you'd have to rejigger that quite a bit, and then those bays get a little bit big. And then if you end up having to make it smaller, so you end up having more columns, which then takes up more space so we we would get more but what we would not get we would not get to the 202 if that's what you say eight more maybe eight more yeah mr. Collins thank you sir since we're talking traffic and everything I think I heard on limestone you're going to put in the right turn lane to turn on to Virginia we've provided the space to allow for that I believe that that's worked I maybe I shouldn't be the one speaking to that but I think that's work that's going to be done by the city my question I'm just not seeing it depicted right we did not show that on this particular picture but the right turn actually you know um I have a development plan I think I can go to that and that children there we go it's a little bit light and if you can look at that in your book but that is shown that movement and that the curb line is right on the property line and as I mentioned earlier we had set back 18 feet behind to accommodate that so then you still the sidewalk is this the sidewalk would even once that that that turn lane is in we still have 18 feet thank you sir mr. Bell yes sir um you might or might not be able to answer this but with with the residents do y'all offer parking or how is that structured with regard to what each of the residents is going to be allowed parking wise so the they would purchase or rent their space and they would have an assigned space within the building so they're assigned it's not you know open parking where you park anywhere if they're space 41 that's where they park which is helpful for a parking lot because it you know people come in and know where they're going thank you very much Any other questions? Okay. And do you have enough spaces for the residents? I mean, I can't quite remember the numbers of bedrooms. I'm going to go over that. Thank you very much. And Mr. Murphy, I'm adjusting your time upward because of the question, so you're in good shape. Okay. And just to reiterate a couple of the things, there was discussion just now about the turns out of our main access point. And, yes, during rush hour it's going to be very difficult to turn left. And we anticipate that the people living there are going to learn that pretty quickly, that at 5 o'clock on a weekday afternoon, you don't turn left out of our access point. You just don't do it. You can turn right or you can go back to Maxwellton Court. And as you all know, Maxwellton Court circles back around, and it comes out to South Limestone where the Lexington Theological Seminary, which is now owned by UK, is, and there's a traffic signal at that intersection. So if you come out this back point right here, you can go back through Maxwellton Court, go to Limestone, and turn left with a traffic signal during a rush hour. But many times when we're out here in the evenings, weekends, you can make that left turn pretty easily. So it'll be available for those times when traffic says it's available and when traffic is too heavy, we do have the way going back in and out of there. One interesting thing I found in working with people in CORE is that they found in their other developments that the frequency of using cars is very low. When we do traffic studies and we count trips for a single-family home, it's 10 trips, which means a car is coming and going five times per day at a typical single-family home. You leave five times, come back five times. That's ten trips, but it's, as I think of it, five in and outs. Here, they found that people will move their car one to three times, not per day, per week. They will move their car one to three times per week. And that's part of the big attraction here is because of the traffic which we see here and all over campus, people want to live here because they know they don't have to get in their car to get to school. Basically, they can fall out of bed and be in class in five minutes living here, as opposed to any place else, even some of the newer dorms on campus out on Sports Center Drive. They couldn't be at their class in five minutes to save their lives. It's a much longer walk, and finding U.K. transit, which is very good, but it still takes much longer to get to class than you will from from here so they appeal to people who do not want to be dependent on a car maybe a lot of them don't want to bring a car to start with or maybe they do want to bring a car and have it available on weekends or whatever they want but there's not a lot of in and out traffic on on on the daily basis for these students As far as our parking variance is concerned, I've got a table that, if you could put that table up right now on the overhead to explain our experience in other places. Because we're concerned, and my court is concerned, which has never been a concern to me in previous cases, is that if we build more spaces than we're proposing, they won't be used. they'll be building spaces which will actually stay vacant. Again, it's an interesting analysis, but based on their experience, this is the top line is what we have here. We have 190 units and 574 bedrooms. That's probably a more critical number to consider when you think about traffic, how many bedrooms we have. Now, I've used 133 parking spaces, And that's because I've taken what we're supplying, 167, something like that, and subtracted out the required parking for the retail. Okay? So I didn't want to use that. We are, with this number of spaces for residential, we are supplying all required parking for the retail, even though the retailer doesn't want all their required parking either because they're going to be pedestrian-oriented. But we have 133 spaces available for our people who live here. In addition, we have additional spaces for the retail. But that's 133 spaces. So what that means, this is my parking ratio, 23% of the people living in this building can bring a car there and park it in the building. Almost one out of four students living here will be able to park here. Now, how does that compare with CORE's experience in other cities? Here's Tucson, Arizona. They have more bedrooms, 594. They have fewer spaces, so that means that that development of Tucson, 16% of the students who live there can bring a car. Tucson, Arizona, second one, again, 311 bedrooms, 65 spaces. 21% of the students living there can park in the building. And all four of these are, by the way, all four of these projects are farther from campus than ours is. Madison, Wisconsin, 961 bedrooms, 160 spaces. That means 17% of the people living there can park in the building. Again, second one in Madison, Wisconsin, 850 bedrooms, 144 parking spaces. That means 17% of the people living there can bring their cars. And this is what they need based upon other projects they've already done, that these numbers work and work well for their projects in other cities. Because, and I found this with my own kids, the kids today don't want a car as much as I wanted one when I was in college. Now, what's UK's experience? I wanted to get UK's experience as well. As you know, they've built, I don't know how many new dormitories in the last five years. I don't know the number, that's a lot. but overall they have and I got this from George Ward who you are familiar with from from working with the Coldstream development and other things there are 6,712 undergraduate residence hall beds are occupied right now as of two weeks ago these are not their final numbers but these were after school started two weeks ago now what's their percentage if I put them in this column here, what would their parking ratio be? Their parking ratio would be 12.11% because he said 12% of the students who are living in the dorms have a parking space within walking distance, within easy walking distance. I think none of the dorms have parking on site, but about 12% of them have parking which is within easy walking distance. So Even at UK's dorms, this is the number, 12%, that I would fill in in this column here as far as can you park, well, not in the building, but close by and get to the building. And I said, well, what about everybody else? Well, an additional 30%, 30.65% of their residents have a K sticker, which means Kroger Field. I guess K is more appropriate now since it's Kroger Field. They get to park out at Kroger Field. Now, which is exactly the same ability that our students have, say for some reason somebody didn't want a space in our building they are also eligible as a student at uk to get a k sticker and park out at the stadium as well so if they wanted it that is available to them just as it is available to any other student at uk but i thought that sort of put things in perspective that in other developments and they they've done another 17 but all the numbers are generally the same for what the parking ratio is here and what they need we're coming up higher than the ones we're showing you in tucson and madison wisconsin for a number of people available so that's why and we're we're higher than the number of the uk dorms themselves and less I think a total of about 42 percent of UK students have even have parking stickers and of those it's a 12 and 30 breakdown between those who can park within easy walking distance of their dorm versus parking out at the stadium out there so we're totally consistent with that and that's why we're asking for the variance because core knows what they need and their their concern is that if they build more than that those spaces are going to be vacant on here and this one i think that as we mentioned to you appeal is going to appeal particularly to students who don't want to have to use a car they're living here because they want to be so close to campus they're right near everything that they need to be within easy walking distance and they're going to have a store down on the first floor as you already call if they want a car they can have a car but all our our our studies are traffic studies we want to point out to you our traffic studies are based upon standard institute of traffic engineers figures for a standard apartment complex which has much more turnover and trips in and out we use those numbers because we wanted to take the most conservative numbers possible but I think as you can see this works well and this is best use for this property wanted to discuss the height of this as well if you could get the those three pictures up there mr. Zalesko showed you aerial photographs and when I was out on the site I just wanted to I think, well, okay, what's across the street from this? Well, this is obviously a little dark picture. I took it myself. But right across, directly across Virginia Avenue, this is one of the new health science buildings. This is about six and a half stories here. A much taller building. The floors are taller, more floors than we have. And as Mr. Zulisko showed on his cross section, much taller than we are. If you go to the next photograph, this is a center-on picture of that complex, which is, again, doesn't really show what it is, but it shows the new building under construction to the right, which is seven and a half stories. If you go to the next one, that may show it a little better. That's a seven and a half story building, which is also across the street just to the right from us. There's one story obscured by this wall, but there's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, plus all this area on top of that. So I was thinking, okay, well, if CORE doesn't build on this property, what is the most likely building that's going to go on there? And I think it's what's going on across the street with UK. UK has built buildings like that, seven to eight story buildings up and down Limestone Street. and this is again a size of lot which that would be available as well so I think we're putting a building in here which is absolutely in keeping with what's already there as Mr. Zalisco said it transitions down from south of Virginia to us to lower buildings on the north but the other point I want to make up too is that UK seems to be buying up all the buildings along South Limestone Street. I even checked Maxwellton Court. There are 19 addresses on Maxwellton Court through the whole of Maxwellton Court. UK already owns 12 of those 19 on Maxwellton Court, and I think they buy when they become available. So I think we will eventually be surrounded by even taller buildings. That's just my speculation. I have no inside knowledge of what UK's plans are, but I think from where they're buying you can see they want to own that they recently purchased the lexington seminary building across the street as well so i think we're appropriate with height i think our parking variance is is supported by core's experience in other cities and even uk's own experience with their dormitories i want to point out too we do have a lot of pedestrian traffic here don't think mr conyers told you our our study thought we had about 2 000 people a day on the on the corner here walking by here uh you the study that uk did which they provided to this staff showed that there's 4 000 people walking by there every day on foot by our building here so our retail on the first floor will cater to that pedestrian traffic the probably pedestrian traffic coming up from the hospital center down here as well and from other students living nearby there's some just to the west you know and some in dormitories around the campus so it'll be well supported probably by pedestrian use and we'll get some automobile use in here too i'm not saying we won't have any we'll get some but we think it'll be well supported by the pedestrian uses that come in here so the setback miss Wade mentioned we're only the old when we first came in on our first plan we did perhaps need a setback all the way around here but we've moved the buildings all the way back and the only variance we need is that little stretch right there 28 feet of frontage there so we can get a 30-foot exit and entrance point in our parking garage for safety purposes but at all other points we're meeting our spacing requirements adjacent to the nearby residential uses wanted to discuss the conditional zoning restrictions a minute as at the zoning committee i mentioned that we may want to discuss whether we could have a drive-through window in here and one other use and talking to my clients they say no don't we're okay banding drive-through windows that's fine they they did mention to me that the animal hospital they have had inquiries in the past at other colleges about having an animal a veterinarian come in in a building like this and they said well we'd like to be able to do that the ordinance here does require it to be soundproofed and they would require it to be soundproofed so they would ask that you strike from the restrictions the veterinary clinic and animal hospital i think it's c i don't have the agenda right in front of me here but i think it's item c on the agenda of the conditional zoning restrictions they we would ask that that be stricken yeah animal hospitals or clinics item see on the conditional zoning restrictions but overall we as i said i think i'm very excited about this and we thank the staff very much for they they took the time before we even filed to meet with us i think three times my folks came in from chicago three times with them they've sent their architects down they've hired some of the best local designers here to do this as well they are experienced in doing this they know what they're doing they know how much parking they need and they want to have everything they need and we feel this does supply all the parking that we need on this property but they want to be close to campus and this is as close to campus as we can ever get we want to do a building that's in scale and again it is in scale and we think that if they didn't build here probably we'd end up with a taller and bigger building on this property that's again that's just me speculating i don't know what uk's plans are but i think it's likely that a larger building would end up on this property and i hope i hope you can see from our presentation that they put a lot of thought and a lot of design in this before we come to you even with a preliminary development plan and again i will emphasize this is a preliminary development plan and before they start doing any building, they've got to come back to you to get your approval of a final development plan, and we'll have to do a revised context study to show you at that time, because it is required when we come in with our final development plan that we have a new context study. So overall, again, we're on a corridor. We're doing higher density on a corridor. We're doing a higher density where we have transit lines, where we have pedestrian accessibility. We're utilizing a vacant, underutilized parcel right now. All is called for in the comprehensive plan. And we're real excited about this, and we hope that you will vote in favor of it. And we'd be happy to answer any questions. I think we have several questions here. Mr. Craven, are you? you're that was from last time oh that was the last time mr. Karen Mundy then I was one well okay then if you want to take your option go ahead I wonder we I've kind of wondered why the swimming pool on the roof I mean it looks like the students are gone about May come back till you know August last of August looks like that would be a lot of expense that that you wouldn't need that you don't need this is Chad Mattese from core who's answering this you are correct it is a tremendous expense especially putting them on the rough of our buildings but from us it's all about marketability and those few a couple of months in the beginning of the year at the end of the year we feel that it helps us to lease beds in the long roads. It's really a rocky decision on our part. Well you could turn it into a skating rink. We have done that in Madison actually. Okay, Miss Mundy. Okay, I'm reflecting back a little bit on my daughter's experience at another university and her parking the second year she was not allowed to have a car the first year. Second year parking was away from the dorms and away and there were shuttles provided is there any opportunity I know UK provides shuttles from the dorms out to the K lot is there any opportunity for shuttles or is there a shuttle stop nearby this building that would help ease that a little bit it's my understanding and I don't know the exact routes of UK shuttles but they their students so they can use the shuttles just like any other student does and they run from central captains out to the K lot and all around with stops all through here. Mr. Bell. Yes sir I appreciate y'all statistics very very well you know I believe if I understood it correctly the UK residences don't provide parking so I was trying to get apples to apples and and you do provide parking so how do you determine who gets a parking place parking is first-come first-served basis okay we do retain a waiting list so that's how we're kind of able to judge across the nation historically what the true demand is from a campus to campus standpoint and you know on average you have a very small waiting list in the majority of our properties some don't have any but you're talking you know maybe 10 or so people on those waiting lists and it's additional cost on top so historically near other sites you say that your waiting list has been minimized etc so okay thank you sir I think I know the answer this but I want to confirm it so if you're going to have a vet clinic in there i assume you're going to allow pits in your rooms we try to prohibit pets in our buildings it's a maintenance nightmare for us students as of recent years have become very crafty as it relates to special needs and things of that nature yes motion pets so those types of pets we cannot prohibit so you know that we do end up with a small percentage of pets in the building even though we have a no pet policy so that begs the question why the vet unit uh it's really from our standpoint um just future marketability of that retail space you know we are putting a significant investment in there with uh the 12 000 square feet of retail go ahead and should our current tenant uh decide to move out 20 years from now we would want the ability to have the broadest spectrum of possible tenants to come in i guess my question is other than a pizza place what else people do you attract to come into that retail space what type of people our typical tenant base i would say on average is probably about 75 percent restaurant use fast casual things of that nature once in a while we get a bar we get barber shops tanning salons really anything in between doctor's offices Any other questions? I have a couple, just a couple. Let me ask you this. Okay, Mr. Berkley. Go ahead. Just a comment. I'm probably going to have some other follow-up questions, but I don't know that using the UK parking ratio is exactly apples to apples, and the reason I say this is the majority of the people, at least it's been my experience, that live in the dorms, they're freshmen and sophomores. And I think what happens is they get older and are juniors and seniors. That's when the demand for a car is more important. And I think you're at a price point on these units where you're going to have tenants that can't afford that. And it's a little concerning to me that you all have to operate a wait list. I mean, that to me does not seem that there is excess parking here. I had a couple of questions. The parking in this complex would be by ticket only, in other words, sticker only? Correct. It's permitted parking. All right. What if I wanted to visit someone there? Because most of the ratios that you're providing are primarily the people who live there. But if I've got someone who's there and I want to come and visit and what have you, how does that ratio from your experiences balance with people wanting to come and visit and park and all that kind of stuff? We typically do not provide visitor parking spaces. We do have, we will reserve a few spaces, one or two, for leasing purposes. So those spaces are kind of set aside for future tenants that are visiting the property, parents that are in town visiting to come to the property. But from a friends and local family visitor operation, it's kind of, they figure it out. So let me, so the retail area then is primarily for walk-in traffic as well. In other words, if I drove to, if you hypothetically put in an animal clinic and I lived across town, if I wanted to drive over there, where would I park? We have 30 dedicated parking spaces for the retail. So those will be specifically designated, not permitted to any of the tenants, signed appropriately. So that number of parking spaces was specifically requested by the retailer that we're in discussions with. Okay. Any other questions? Yeah, Mr. Jones. Actually, Tracy Wade. Oh, I'm sorry. Wrong Tracy. Ms. Wade. With? Tracy with? So I guess on the agenda page five under number four, you've got prohibited uses and then other use restrictions or residential components shall be required to create mixed use development on the subject property. Can you explain that statement? It seems kind of obvious. Well, I think it's insurance. If the project doesn't go forward, the staff believes this is an excellent location for mixed use in a B1 zone. so that would ensure that in the future again if this project didn't go forward that there would be a mixed use development on this corner that there would be mixed use okay the the residential component is what just threw me yes okay why are you there okay mr yeah i was gonna Go ahead. You got it. In our booklets here, under availability of other parking options, when you make, or when the staff makes a conclusion, it says, in addition, having to build excess parking that is not needed or is desired could create an unnecessary hardship. how did you all make the determination that there's excess parking at 205? We took the information from the applicant that they don't utilize all of that parking in other developments. So their experience is what we are basing that on. Any other questions? While you're there, Ms. Wade, one quick question. How do you all feel as staff that is about striking that animal hospital or clinics? Well, the staff generally wasn't concerned, but I sort of expressed the same question Mr. Penn did. If you're not allowing pets in the building, why would there be a need to have a veterinary clinic in the building? That was an interesting answer, I thought. the staff generally would be okay with striking that. Ms. Bundy. Because I do property management, I do know how the students can, for lack of a better term, manipulate veterinarians on occasion to be able to get the permission or the permits, the permitting that they need by federal law to have pets in a building. Even if you can't, if you say you can't have pets, they can go and get the paperwork that they need to have them for a comfort animal. And so, again, I'm not on the vet side of it, but I understand they don't want to have pets. I don't want them in the properties I manage either, but there's nothing we can do about it. So there is an opportunity for people to have pets. Even though you say no pets, I have some friends who've been in court over that. So there are ways to, and these kids are smart kids. They're in college, and they know how to get around that. So, again, not to say yes or no on the veterinarian side of it, but I just do know that it happens. Okay. I have one other observation for the people there, And I don't know, this is just an observation. I was reading in the paper the other day, the university is experimenting with or getting ready to do what they call a scramble, which means they stop traffic on all four corners. And then allow the students to manipulate and move back and forth. I don't know whether this would be a good place to do that scramble because it might help if you're still trying to make that left hand turn out of there. You might have a shot at it if in fact all the traffic was stopped on all sides. that's just a general observation they have loaner cars oh my gosh okay any other questions for the african okay thank you is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak to this issue yes sir mr walbert good afternoon mr chair members of the commission jacob walburn i'm here today on behalf of south limestone studios we own property at 659 south limestone it's actually one building between us and the proposed development i'm here to say that we do not necessarily oppose the rezoning we do have a concern we want to bring to your attention in the hopes that as this project continues as you see the plan again that you will keep it in mind the property sits on the corner of an area that essentially drains into my client's backyard the low point of max welton court area south limestone in virginia kind of pools at the end of hester alley when uk removed those houses on the corner where this development is proposed and replaced it with gravel it may stun you to learn that we started having some issues with flooding when you replace yards with impervious surface that can cause problems with water now i work into i work in front of you all the time the team that's assembled here is an outstanding team and i'm confident they will do an excellent job but we just want you to be mindful of your neighbors who've been here for a very long time we're a 14 unit apartment building we're not a large-scale operation just hope that you will help us with the water situation and be mindful of those concerns just wanted to raise that to put it on the record we don't necessarily object to the rezoning so wanted to let you know that thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak to this particular agenda item If not, then the petitioner has an opportunity to rebut or make comment. I just wanted to respond to that comment. We are aware of the issue that has come about since the houses were removed. I'm actually working with the university on the new research building going up across the street there and talked with the university personnel when they did that removal and grappling of that parking lot. No measures were taken at that time to address stormwater. And we are fully aware that this development will need to handle stormwater at the rate that it was before they tore the houses down and put a gravel parking lot there. So that will be addressed, and it should alleviate any flooding issues that have popped up since the university did that. Could we get your name and address for the record? Kevin Warner with Carmen. Okay, thank you. Just had a couple other items on things that came up. there is a UK bus shuttle stop right here at Virginia and Limestone so they can catch the shuttle. They can just fall out of bed and catch the shuttle if they want to go catch the shuttle someplace. About the swimming pool, these are 12-month leases and they do have a lot of students who stay 12 months on campus so it's not like the building or the pool is abandoned during the summer months. There are still a number of students who are there. I wanted to emphasize, too, that we do supply a lot of bicycle parking. It's so important that they do have units that have in-unit bicycle storage, as well as the big sort of collective indoor bicycle storage as well. That's a real emphasis with students on campus, and they do supply that. I'm not going to fall on my sword on the veterinary clinic on that. I just said that would be nice to have, but that's where we stand on that. On the parking issue, I just did want to emphasize that the chart I gave you was an assumption that we meet all zoning ordinance required parking for the retail component of it. And our retailer doesn't even feel they need their required parking. So if that's the case, there would be additional available for students as well. But we were trying to give you the most conservative numbers on parking and demonstrate to you that we are on a par with their other developments in other communities based on their experience. I mean, the one good thing, one of the many good things about the fact that they've done 22 of these is that they do have a level of knowledge built up and they know what they need to have in order to make the development successful. So I just wanted to give you those three or four points. Good enough. Thank you. Does the staff have any final comments? Okay. Do the commissioners have any other questions related to the applicant? If not, then what I'm going to do is close that part of the hearing, and then we'll bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our emotion. I have a comment. Okay, you have a comment, Ms. Bundy. I have a comment. I think what we're looking at here is a whole different animal than what we're typically looking at as far as apartments and that. Again, my recent experience with a university in another state and then with Montella and a college in northern Kentucky where she was in law school, I saw the difference in a typical apartment complex and this kind of complex that is more for student housing. The only thing that is way, way back in my mind is if this turns into a regular apartment type building. But at this point and they're looking at being in the heart of the campus I can't see that happening so I personally don't see that the parking situation is as big a deal as it would be on a a different type of product so that's my fault anyone else have any other comments mr. Penn For a person who loves animals, I'm not anti-animal at all. We have tremendous small animal vet clinics all over the city of Lexington. In fact, we have a $4 million one going in on Richmond Road. So there's no shortage of vet clinics, and I just personally don't see the need to take that out of the prohibited uses. That's just my opinion for what it's worth. Any other opinions? about that because i was going to ask the commission to begin with as to how they felt about that particular strike and of course i was trying to get the staff's input as well do you feel strongly about it or do you accept mr penn's position we'll find out i guess go ahead mr owens you know i i would presume i could live with it either way i really don't see a vet clinic on the corner of Virginia and South Limestone with the other uses that's going to be going there. Could an employee, professor, doctor bring his cat or dog and drop it off? Maybe, but I really don't see it. So I could go either way. But as far as the rest of this, it's kind of exciting to me. I'm going to be much like Mr. Murphy when I went to school there. One, there was not a K lot. And two, I wanted my vehicle. But I think you do have a lot of students now. And you've got a lot of people that are willing to walk. And I think you're seeing that on campus now. Personally, I've always been a proponent to do away with the minimum parking requirements. That hasn't happened. But I can definitely support this. Anyone else? If not, then we are ready for if someone would like to make a motion. We would entertain a motion, and then in the motion you could even make a motion with or without the... I'm feeling like my colleagues here. I'm conflicted over why anybody would want an animal clinic there, but what do I know? I don't own a pet anymore. With that, anyone like to make a motion? Okay. We're going to take them three, actually three motions. We'll need the first for the zone change, then we're going to skip over then, do the development plan, and then do the variances if that's necessary. Go ahead. Okay. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MAR 17-33 Corps, Lexington 685 Limestone, LLC, for the reasons provided by staff and under number four, leaving all of those, namely the animal hospital and clinics, as a prohibited use, and also noting the other use restriction. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owen, seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLN MAR17-33 Coral Lexington 685 Limestone LLC with the conditions noted by staff with the prohibitive conditions listed as is and also the special note with the other use restrictions. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen. That motion carries. If you could push over to page six, then we'll pick up the preliminary development plan. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 17-89, the hub at Lexington No. 2, the revised staff recommendations, which was on the yellow sheet of paper, the 15 noted conditions. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Michael and seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve PLN MJDP 17-89 to Hubbert Lexington with the revised 15 conditions as noted by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, it passes 8 to 1. Okay, now we'll go back to the... Mr. Sheriff, I've got a question as far as variance. Yes. The staff's report had postponement recommendation, I believe, on the landscape buffer. Is that still in play? I thought I heard something they met but did not have a quorum. The landscape review committee did meet, but they did not have a quorum, so they didn't technically have the ability to make a recommendation to the planning commission. The staff incorporated their ideas and their comments into our revised recommendation, and there's a supplemental variance report in your notebooks. So one page, brown sheet should be at the back. And that includes findings and then four conditions for all three variants. Okay, okay, thank you. Mr. Alley. Yeah, Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval. The variances associated with Plan MAR 17-33 core Lexington Limestone 685 LLC. It's the three requested variances for minimal off-street parking, minimum yard along the rear of 135, which is from 10 feet to 0 feet, and then also reducing the zone-to-zone perimeter screening requirements from 15 feet to 0 feet and eliminating the requirement for trees and shrubs. So moved. Okay, it's been moved. For the reasons provided by staff. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens and seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer that we approve the requested variances associated with PLN MAR17-33 core election at 685 limestone. Mr. Owens read the three and they're listed here under the requested variances note so we'll just note that as a fact and it's three variances as such if you have any discussion on the motion we'll take it now if not would you please vote when it comes up on your screen motion passes six to one that takes care of that thank you In fact, I think that's about all. Now, one of the things that my colleague gave me, is she still here? Yes, thank you. Miss Cathy Moore, I understand that she serves on the Board of Adjustment. I'd like to welcome you here. I didn't recognize you, but my colleague Mr. Owens did and he indicated that at the end of the thing to recognize you and your, I think you had some law students here. You just have one now. He gets the A. But thank you and welcome aboard. And we thank you for coming and we hope you learned a little something today as a part of this particular process. Mr. Duncan, anything that... Mr. Chair, just to bring to your attention a couple of things coming up for you all. Your committee meetings are next week, next Thursday in our offices. and then to update you on the status of the goals and objectives that you all approved earlier this month. The Urban County Council has taken up their review of those, and they had their first meeting this week, and they'll continue for several more meetings culminating in a public hearing later in October. I wanted to let you all know what the next meeting is for that in case you're interested in following that. They will be meeting on Tuesday, October the 10th at 11 o'clock in the council chambers. Those meetings are televised and open to the public, of course, and they will be continuing to deliberate the draft goals and objectives that you all sent to them. Okay. Anything else to come before the commission? If not, without any objection, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. If I could tell you something You can be anyone who's got a great boy Well, if I could do something Can you do something out of the world?