# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - October 12, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 12, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4368 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4368?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-10-12 - **Last revised**: October 12, 2017 - **Length**: 25,485 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 October 12, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Chairman Wilson presiding. The commission addressed two main agenda items during the session, taking a total of six votes throughout the meeting. The commission heard two public comments from citizens regarding the matters under consideration. Of the two primary agenda items, the Stephens & Winslow Subdivision received approval, while the NDC Property, Unit 5 item was postponed for future consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the October 12, 2017 meeting: • Bill Wilson • Will Berkley • Mike Cravens • Karen Mundy • Carolyn Plumlee • Headley Bell • Patrick Brewer • Mike Owens • Frank Penn Two members were absent: • Larry Forester • Carolyn Richardson No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included six motions, with five items postponed and one approved [timestamp: 00:00]. **PLN-MJSUB-17-00055 - NDC Property, Unit 5**: Frank Penn motioned to postpone to November 9, 2017, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 9-0, with all members voting in favor: Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Headley Bell, Patrick Brewer, Mike Owens, and Frank Penn. **PLN-MJSUB-17-00048 - The Garden of Hartland, Unit 3**: Karen Mundy motioned to indefinitely postpone, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously 9-0, with the same nine members voting in favor. **PLN-MJDP-17-00058 - Henry Clay Subdivision**: Mike Owens motioned to postpone to November 9, 2017, seconded by Patrick Brewer. The motion passed unanimously 9-0, with all nine members voting in favor. **PLN-MJDP-17-00070 - Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties**: Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone to November 9, 2017, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously 9-0, with all nine members voting in favor. **PLN-MJDP-17-00094 - Leestown V.A. Housing**: Karen Mundy motioned to postpone to November 9, 2017, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee. The motion passed unanimously 9-0, with all nine members voting in favor. **PLN-MJDP-17-00088 - Stephens & Winslow Subdivision**: Mike Owens motioned to approve with conditions, seconded by Mike Cravens. The motion passed 8-1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Bill Wilson, Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Carolyn Plumlee, Headley Bell, Patrick Brewer, and Mike Owens. Frank Penn voted against. The approval included 12 conditions provided by staff and adoption of the character and context study. ## Public Comment Two community members addressed the board during the public comment period, both raising concerns about a proposed development's impact on local neighborhoods. **Jean Scott** spoke about the South Hill Historic Neighborhood [timestamp: 00:00], expressing concerns about how the proposed development would affect this area. Scott emphasized the importance of preserving the neighborhood's historic character and warned about potential negative impacts the development could have on this established community. **Alan Bartly** also addressed neighborhood impact concerns [timestamp: 00:00], focusing on the unique aspects of the proposed development compared to other projects in the area. Bartly specifically highlighted the development's proximity to existing residential neighborhoods as a key differentiating factor that warranted special consideration. Both speakers appeared to be advocating for greater attention to neighborhood preservation and the potential residential impacts of the development under consideration. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contentious item that generated significant debate among board members. **Stephens & Winslow Subdivision** The approval of the Stephens & Winslow Subdivision proved to be the most divisive issue of the meeting, resulting in extensive discussion and ultimately a split vote among board members. The primary areas of disagreement centered on two key concerns: the potential impact on the surrounding neighborhood and questions regarding compliance with existing zoning ordinances. Board members engaged in substantial debate over how the proposed subdivision would affect nearby residents and the existing character of the area. Additionally, there were disagreements about whether the development proposal met all requirements under current zoning regulations, with some members expressing concerns about compliance issues. The contentious nature of this item was reflected in the final voting outcome, which resulted in a split decision rather than the unanimous or near-unanimous approvals typically seen for routine subdivision matters. The split vote indicates that board members remained divided on the merits of the proposal despite the extended discussion period. The debate highlighted the ongoing challenges local government bodies face when balancing development interests with neighborhood preservation and regulatory compliance concerns. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, vote tallies, and individual board member positions were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## NDC Property, Unit 5 [timestamp: 00:00] The commission discussed agenda item PLN-MJSUB-17-00055 regarding NDC Property, Unit 5. Key speakers during this discussion included Frank Penn and Karen Mundy. The primary focus of the discussion centered on unresolved issues related to the closure of Vincent Way, which appeared to be a critical component affecting the NDC Property development. The commission determined that these outstanding matters needed to be addressed before proceeding with consideration of Unit 5. Due to the unresolved status of the Vincent Way closure issues, the commission decided to postpone further consideration of the NDC Property, Unit 5 agenda item. No final action was taken on the development proposal during this meeting. The postponement allows time for the relevant parties to resolve the Vincent Way closure matters that are impacting the project's progression through the approval process. ## Stephens & Winslow Subdivision [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-17-00088 for the Stephens & Winslow Subdivision during this discussion item. The proposal generated debate among commissioners as they weighed the project's compliance with local zoning ordinances against concerns raised by neighboring residents. Key speakers during the discussion included Mike Owens and Mike Cravens, who presented different perspectives on the subdivision proposal. The commissioners examined whether the project met all applicable zoning requirements and development standards. Neighborhood concerns were a significant factor in the commission's deliberations. Residents had raised issues about the proposed subdivision's potential impact on the surrounding area, though the specific nature of these concerns was not detailed in the available materials. The commission ultimately determined that the Stephens & Winslow Subdivision met the necessary requirements for approval. After considering both the technical compliance aspects and community input, the commission voted to approve the subdivision application. The approval allows the development to move forward in accordance with the submitted plans and applicable municipal regulations. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00055** — postponed (9-0): Postpone NDC Property, Unit 5 to November 9, 2017 - **PLN-MJSUB-17-00048** — postponed (9-0): Indefinitely postpone The Garden of Hartland, Unit 3 - **PLN-MJDP-17-00058** — postponed (9-0): Postpone Henry Clay Subdivision to November 9, 2017 - **PLN-MJDP-17-00070** — postponed (9-0): Postpone Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties to November 9, 2017 - **PLN-MJDP-17-00094** — postponed (9-0): Postpone Leestown V.A. Housing to November 9, 2017 - **PLN-MJDP-17-00088** — passed (8-1): Approve Stephens & Winslow Subdivision with conditions --- ## Full transcript Feeding other guys you've been with, but be a lady with me. A lady doesn't leave her escort. It isn't fair, it isn't nice. A lady doesn't wander all over the room And blow on some other guy's dice Let's keep this party polite Never get out of my sight Stick with me, baby I'm the fella you came in with Huck the lady tonight Look, let a gentleman see Just how nice, how nice a dame you can be I know the way you've treated other guys you've been with, hey look, be a lady with me. A lady doesn't leave her escorts, it isn't fair and it's not nice. A lady doesn't wander all over the room And blow on some other guy's dice So let's keep the party polite Never get out The love is so fun, I feel weak And he loves me If he loved me not If he loved me Oh, if he loved me not Hey, if he loved me If he loved me not Oh, how will I know How will I know How will I know? Hey, how will I know? How will I know if he will love me? I say a prayer with every heartbeat. I fall in love whenever we meet. I'm asking you to know about these things. How will I know if he's thinking of me? I try to fall but I'm too shy Falling in love is all that I see The love is strong, why do I feel weak? How will I know? How will I know? How will I know? How will I know? I'll stay apart How will I know? How will I know? I fall in love How will I know? How will I know? United for one another They will join our hearts eternally And this moment I'll always remember All the words that mean so much to me And you're my only love My holy love And I can thank Lord God For you each day I can't believe the way I feel You're so special, you're so real And I know you'll always be my only love Listen closely to the words I'm saying I know I'll never make them more For your love only I've been praying You and I are what this love is for And you're my only love My only love And I just thank Lord For you each day I can't believe The way I feel You're so special You're so real And I know you'll always be my only love I know you'll always be my only love Thank you. The heat is on, on the street Inside your head, on every beat And the beats are right, deep inside The pressure's high, just to stay alive Cause the heat is on Woo! Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Caught up in the action I've been looking out for you Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Tell me, can you feel it? Tell me, can you feel it? Tell me, can you feel it? The heat is on The heat is on The heat is on What's on the street The heat is on Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, heart of the reaction, I'm looking after you. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, tell me, can you feel it, tell me, can you feel it, tell me, can you feel it? The heat is on. The heat is on. The heat is on. Burn it, burn it, burn it. It's on the street. The heat is on The shadows hide On the darker side Behind the doors It's a wild ride You can make a break You can win or lose That's a chance you take When the heat's on you And the heat is on Oh, oh, oh, oh Caught up in the action I've been looking after you Oh, oh, oh, oh Tell me, can you feel it? Tell me, can you feel it? Tell me, can you feel it? The heat is on. Yeah! The heat is on. The heat is on. Burning, burning, burning. It's on the street. The heat is on. I can feel the fire. The heat is on. The flames are burning fire. The heat is on. Baby, can't you see it? It's on the street. The heat is on. I can feel the fire. He is a home ¶¶ Amen. ¶¶ The End Amen. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome to all my commission members and welcome to the staff. First thing on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for September the 14th. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you Mr. Chair. Move approval of September 14 minutes as corrected. Okay. It's been probably moved and second that we approve the minutes of September the 14th, 2017 as corrected. Any discussions on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. And I'd like the record to reflect that how much I really appreciate our secretary reading the minutes. Ms. Plumlee goes through those minutes like you wouldn't believe. and so she makes us sure that we dot every i across every t postponements and withdrawals good afternoon mr chair members of the commission if i could turn your attention to page two of your agenda item b pln mjsub 17-55 i think those of you in subdivision committee will remember i speculated we were going to postpone this requesting a one-month postponement we're still having discussions on the closure of Vincent Way hope to resolve those in the next month. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? If not then we'll entertain a motion. Sir, Mr. Penn. I move for postponement of PLNMJSUV 1755 to our November meeting. What's the date on that trade? November the 9th. Okay. This is going to be an interesting day already. Do I have a second on that? Okay. It is moved by Mr. Penn, seconded by Ms. Mundy, that we postpone PLNM JSUV 17-55 NDC Property Unit 5 until November 9. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? The motion carries. Your 7-0, your wishes. Carried. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other postponements? Okay. Mr. Chairman, staff does have several items to bring to the commission's attention. On page one of your agenda, under final subdivision plans, item A, this is a major subdivision plan, 17-48, the Garden of Heartland, unit 3. we have received a request from the applicant for an indefinite postponement. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? I will entertain a motion on Monday. Mr. Chair, I move for indefinite postponement of PLN MJSUB 17-48, the Garden of Heartland, Unit 3. Okay, the motion has been made by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee, that we postpone indefinitely PLN MJSUB 17-48, the Garden of Heartland, Unit 3. Any discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to direct the Planning Commission's attention to page 4. Item 2, Development Plans. The first plan, Item A, Major Development Plan 17-58, Henry Clay Subdivision, also known as Dolly Land Company. We have received requests from the applicant for a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, Mr. Commissioners, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for a one-month postponement until November the 9th of Plan MJDT 17-58, Okay, Mr. Mike Owens moves. Mr. Patrick Ruiz seconds that we postpone for one month until November the 9th, PLN, MJDP, 17-58, Henry Clay Subdivision, Dolly Land Company, LLC, Adaptive Reuse Project. Any discussions on the motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, moving straight down page forward, Item B, this is Major Development Plan 17-70, Zandale Shopping Center and Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties. We've received a request from the applicant for a one-month postponement. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay, like a motion, please. Ms. Plumley. Mr. Chair, move postponement of a PLNMJDP 1770 Zandell Shopping Center until November 9th. Okay, Ms. Carolyn Pumley moves. Ms. Karen Mundy seconds that we postpone for one month PLNMJDP 17-70 Zandell Shopping Center and Greenleaf Motor Lodge properties. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Thank you. that motion also carries. And Mr. Chairman on page six of your agenda the very bottom item G this is major development plan 17-94 the Leestown VA housing project they are working through some issues with the VA and the school board and have requested one month postponement. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Get back to the Commission for motion. Ms. Mundy. Mr. Chair I move for postponement of Plan MJDP 17-94 Lee's Town VA housing until November the 9th. Okay it's been moved by Ms. Karen Mundy, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee that we postpone for one month or November the 9th, PLNMJDP 17-94, Leastown VA Housing. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Vote carries. Thank you. Staff has no other items. Okay. Ms. Waite. Chairman Wilson, members of the commission, we do have several items today that are eligible for our consent agenda, and your consent agenda is at your place. It's a tan sheet. We have seven items on the consent agenda today, four subdivision plans and three development plans. So I'll read through those and we'll see if anyone is present or if the commission would like to pull any of these items off the consent agenda. Starting on page 2, item C, PLN MJ Sub 17-56, Brookhaven Subdivision, Unit 1F, Block A, Lot 1E, this is an amended plan, for 2434 Nicholasville Road. next on page 3 item e pln mj sub 17-58 and this is for the sebastian property unit 2a located at 2944 trailwood lane and page 3 item f pln mj sub 17-60 parker's landing unit 4 lot 85 also an amended flat located at 1296 Cape Cod circle moving down the page page three item G PLN MJ sub 16-9 good Lowe's or killers subdivision lot 12 amended this is a reapproval recommended by the staff located at 140 Indiana Avenue the next three items are development plans the first two are recommended for reapproval by the staff and the first of those is dp 2015-6 richardson property and this also is an amended development plan the applicant has provided an affidavit showing that they posted and a photo showing that they posted the sign for the subject property i would note that our system tracks this as a property located at 150 and 300 charlesburg road but it is also known as 300 and 316 hannah todd place on page 7 item i pln mjdp 16-4 this is for newtown springs lot 1 and that's located at 1445 newtown center way and then directly above that there is a development plan recommended for conditional approval by the subdivision committee and that's page 7 item h pln mjdp 17-95 for bluegrass executive park unit 1c block d section 2 lot 1 amended and that is located at 2141 executive drive the planning commission may consider all of these items in one motion for conditional approval at this time unless a member of the Commission members of the audience or any of the petitioners are interested in having their item pulled off the consent agenda for further discussion and consideration by the full Planning Commission see if anyone seeing none the Commission can take this one one motion today any Commission members would like to pull any particular item? If not, we'll entertain a motion then for the consent agenda. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the consent agenda. Okay, Ms. Mundy has seconded. Mr. Patrick Brewer moves that we approve the consent agenda as presented by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens thank you the consent agenda has been approved with the Commission's approval I'd like to adjust the agenda just a little bit if you could first of all if you look at the very last page performance bonds letters of credit mr. Cravens yes sir mr. chairman move approval of the release and Call of bonds. All right. It's been moved by Mr. Mike Cravenseck, by Mr. Brewer, that we release the call of bonds. Any other discussion on that motion? All right. Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Thank you. The other item of adjustment I would like to make would be that the first thing that we do would be, as a part of the continuation of our previous agenda item. That's on page 5, PLN, MJDP 17-88, Stephens and Winslow Subdivision, and we would like to pick up there if we could. Before, if it's agreeable, if no one has any objections to that, just a couple of things. If you look around, we have several committee members that were not here during the last part of that hearing and i would like to ask you collectively or individually have you done your homework in the sense that you've been able to review the tapes the videotapes the audio tapes and any other printed materials that were presented i think mr pen i'll start with you yes or no yes mr owens yes sir mr healy yes sir mr brewer yes sir Okay, we're all here. We've lost a couple of members who were here who did hear that first part, and so we've picked up several, but they've done their homework, so we're in pretty good shape there. Okay, the way we intended to start off is to give each, give the applicant 15 minutes, staff 15 minutes, the objectors or citizens who are the attorney representing the citizens 15 minutes, and then have a rebuttal of 10 minutes. So we've extended the time somewhat, and we understand that perhaps it was not extended to the full extent where some people agreed, but we think that this is an accommodation as such. With that, let me remind the both attorneys that you can use this time in whatever way that you want to use it. So if there are some members from the committee or community that you feel that you'd like to have speak to be up present, you can do that but they will be a part of your 25 minutes and i say 25 minutes because you got an extra five minutes on the rebuttal in is that acceptable billy okay then we're okay then we're ready to move and then i might add that uh at the end of you all's presentation and this may cause you all to come back to the podium uh the commission members will have an opportunity to ask as many questions as they so desire i have not cut them off so they may have some additional questions that they may want to raise toward you all and that would be the case and we would accommodate that. I think we're ready to move. The first, the staff, who's making the staff presentation? Mr. Martin. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the plan, of course, that is currently before you is on page five of your agenda. We have, however, passed out to you at your seats the revised conditions from the previous hearing as well as a revised, I shouldn't really say a revised, but a supplemental staff report on the character and context study as well. We did receive a revised development plan as well as a revised character and context study. and you can see before you here's the original plan. Parking layouts, the residential, the six story building, and I'm not going to belabor that with the parking in this location. Of course, access onto upper and access into the loading area and trash receptacle area off of Jersey Street. The new plan, as you can see, they've altered the layout a bit just to demonstrate again the building. It's still a six-story building. They still have parking in this area. Access has not changed. What is significant in this plan change is they reduced the number of units by three, not a large number, but they have also reduced their required parking through that reduction. And in addition, they've added 18 parking spaces to this plan to address the parking issue as well as 12 tandem spaces. Now tandem spaces you all are aware you have a front and a back space those don't count for required parking they are a tool to help manage parking so that is something that has been added to the plan and with that That being said, staff would like to emphasize once again that parking really isn't an issue here today before you. They have applied to the Board of Adjustment for a parking variance. They have filed. They have officially filed. That variance will be discussed at the Board of Adjustment in a public hearing. It is a smaller variance, obviously. of 31% it's a 21%. But again, parking has been an issue for many of the people that are concerned about this development, and I know the Planning Commission as well, so staff endeavored to pull together some information. I believe that has been distributed to you as well on how permit parking works. I think there was some concern about you all don't have that. We do have it. There is a procedure, and I don't want to belabor this at all, but I will tell you that any neighborhood can petition the government for parking permits designated in their area. And it's a very involved and evolved process. And a study is done. And once they are awarded this status, then these parking permits are issued to the residents. There's approximately 41 or 42 districts in the city, in our community. the historic South Hill neighborhood is such one and we have a little bit of information it it impacts South Mill Street Lawrence Street Cedar Boulevard parts of Upper and Maxwell there's 70 properties involved in this area with 83 spaces that they get a permit for spaces. So again we just wanted to there was some concern about that and request for information and again we assemble that information for you and wanted you to be aware there is a very involved process to address permit parking in our community and it has been availed by by quite a few areas, 40-some areas, as I stated, including this adjacent neighborhood. I really covered the significant issue on the revision of the plan with one exception, and that is the, again, with reduction of units and the reduction slight change in parking, the context study, the character and context study, and that is, as you all are aware, a requirement of your B-1 zone for a form-based study, that you adopt this study as part of your approval of this plan. And with that, staff, of course, prepared an additional report that was submitted to you with our recommendations. We have done this supplemental study. And there's several things staff would like to emphasize with you again. And first and foremost, this is an area context and character study. And it's an area, and they are required to examine buildings massing and height in an area around the property. And I believe if you would, on page three of the study, you can see a detail of an area where they looked at some very specific structures. And in the left hand, my left hand corner, there's a diagram on that page, thank you, that shows that they reviewed an area a quarter mile around this Jersey Street lot as part of the area of the study. And staff wants to emphasize with you again how important it is to understand this is an area study. As we stated before, we're fully aware that there's concern with historic neighborhood in that relationship, but we want to make sure that it's understood this property is not in an H1 overlay, it is across the street from a historic district. There's a hundred and fifty-five feet right here that they share on Pine Street with an H1 overlay district. And the H1 overlay district itself of course has boundaries and it has relationships in other areas and not just with the Jersey Street lot. Obviously it extends all the way up to Maxwell Street, it extends to Broadway so there are relationships that exist with this neighborhood as well as relationships that exist with this proposed development and might add that within the area there are various buildings of various heights and mass which they studied and looked at there are a lot of surface parking lots there's a lot of surface parking lots in the historic area as well. Interesting enough, on Broadway, within the historic district, next to the Blue Bank building, there's a two-story parking garage with an eight-story residential structure on top of it that happens to be included in the H-1. Not a contributing structure, no doubt, but again, it just goes to show the variation that exists in the entire area. So staff thinks it's important to stress that's an area context study. It's not just defined by one relationship. If we could go to page four of the study please. You can see where they looked in some detail at the immediate surroundings just to give you an idea of the uses and I would stress again that this is a final development plan available to anyone in a B1 district. The uses are settled. This study is not predicated on uses whatsoever. It is a massing and height and setback evaluation. That is the purpose of this study. Now, if we could move on. One thing I do like about this one, and there's another one, there's, well, if you would move on, please, I'm sorry, page seven of the study. The most important changes, this is an area, once again, a nice aerial view, you can see the red that shows the parking lot that is proposed for this development, and you can see the various structures that all surround this particular area. And if you would go to nine, please. This is a top-down picture, picture which we want to stress two things to you these are the important changes to the context study in response to the concerns that they heard the applicant has stepped back the building along Pine Street originally it was only one story the sixth story was set back they have now set back the fifth and the sixth story and you can see this when you look at this you're looking straight down and if you look at the pine street frontage there and then that's the fourth story set back through there thank you and then the fifth and then again you can see their pool and all that that's the sixth story so they have stepped it back further along the pine street frontage also another item they've done which was actually i believe you can see on the page 12 Well, no, again, that shows you the setback, again, of the building height, which staff believes is a significant change to the plan and one that does show consideration for the relationship with the historic neighborhood. We would add that they have changed the facade, and it is predominantly brick. They are going to have brick all along the walls, the exterior walls, all the way down the columns to the street level where they'll be defining the commercial area. They are utilizing brick. In addition, they are proposing window treatments that will be similar to the types of architectural features that you see in historic areas. This is, in staff's estimation, a good approach to addressing concerns that have been expressed about the context and the character of this particular development to the surrounding area. And so again, with that, and summarizing some of the changes in the plan, and with presenting to you the changes in the context and character study, staff, as I stated, has submitted to you a supplemental staff report. And our conclusions are similar as they were in the first report, and that is the applicant's proposal does meet the intent of the form-based project in a B-1 zone. We believe it's supported by the significant street frontage on the site that helps mitigate the impact of the proposed building on the immediate area. The height of the building does allow a significant residential density, and a commercial retail component will also complement the area and the neighborhoods nearby. And I would add, again, as you all are aware, your B1 zone requires that commercial component on the first floor. is a requirement and the proposed architecture massing and varied building height is very respectful of the area as well I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff any questions for mr. Martin mr. Monday I'm sorry I have I think I have three questions for you one you mentioned the window treatments are those just along Pine Street or are those going to be throughout the building it's my understanding they would be throughout the building but I would like for the applicant to specify that for you okay then I'm going to combine my my next question is two I mean my next two questions is one and that is is there a bus stop and a shuttle stop anywhere close to this there are transit stops very close yes ma'am and I believe there is a shuttle a uk shuttle stop as well okay mr berkeley tom i i don't think i didn't see the like you were you talking about the lex park information earlier for the the neighborhood permit i don't believe the residential parking permit yeah you haven't we assembled that i have it i thought it was okay i didn't see it so i'm i got a just a couple quick questions on that Oh, yeah, there's the memo. There's a lot of information, actually. Okay. The neighborhood does have a permitted parking, or permits now, right? Yes, sir. Okay. It's enforced from 7 in the morning until 5 in the evening. Okay, that was going to be one of my next questions. I understand that maybe there are a 24-hour type permit. You are correct. Is that possible? Has that happened? You are correct, Mr. Berkeley. They can request any hours they choose. There are several that have 24-7 restrictions. All right. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Brewer. I was trying to catch up with the numbers and got backed on this. You said they reduced the number of units by three? Yes, sir. which decrease the parking requirements by how much? By a very small amount. What would the current parking requirements be? The revised plan proposes 159 units. There would be 210 parking spaces required normally. They are proposing 166 spaces along with the 12 tandem, as I stated. those don't actually go towards their required. Okay, and I think I wrote down here they increased the number of parking spaces by 18. Yes, sir. Does that include the tandem? No, sir, it does not. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Thank you. I will underscore one thing at the last meeting. I remember I asked the attorneys representing both the neighborhood as well as the attorney representing the applicant to refrain from the parking issue as such because it has to go before the Board of Adjustment. But I also found out by listening the community had a lot of questions about parking as such. And I think we even had a commission member or two to do so. So to that end, I know that in that light, when people bring the issue up, then what I should do, and rightfully so, to give Mr. Murphy the opportunity to respond to that, and likewise, Mr. Billingsley, the same. But it's your call, Mr. Murphy. You can either address that or whatever you've got the time frame as such indicated. But you're up next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be continuing to be representing CORE spaces. Tom Harrington is with us. He's on the third row from CORE. Jeff Solisko of Antinovich Architects is right to my right. He's handing out some of our ream of exhibits to you. Kevin Warner from Carmen here in Lexington and Landscape Architects is handing out materials materials as well. And we have Brett Malloy here from Integrated Engineering, our traffic engineers, and Chaz Height who works with me. Kevin Phillips of Endress Engineering is our surveyor on this as well. I did want to discuss parking a little bit, Mr. Chairman, because I know it was a major issue. In the month since we met with you, we've met with the staff, we've met with the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association. Unfortunately, were unable to come to an agreement with them, but I think we have substantially modified our plan, as you can see from Mr. Martin's presentation. I did want to talk about parking. If you could go to the handout that just has a white sheet of paper, additional exhibits on Core, Lexington, and 500 Upper, I have done a real brief summary of where we're at. If you could go to the first page of that, we summarized the changes to the plan. As you can see from this, when we first started out in July, we had 169 units. When you saw us last month, we were 162. We're at 159 today. Similarly, our bedrooms, 507 down to 489 last month to 473. that's a about a three percent reduction in one month just from september over here the stories we started out with a six story structure much like the one you approved two weeks ago on on virginia avenue that's a six story structure uh last month it was a five story with a setback to six this is four with setback to five with setback to six now here's the parking when we started out we had 135 when we went before you last month we had 148 parking spaces 148. What we have now is, as we counted, 178 total, 30 more spaces physically. We cannot count 12 of those as spaces because they are the second half of the tandem parking spaces. So we have 166 spaces plus 12 more for 178 total parking spaces. So that's about a 20% increase in parking spaces, 3% decrease in bedrooms, 20% increase in parking spaces. If you go to the next slide there to summarize again, I just wanted to build in the one you approved two weeks ago. in that chart I gave you two weeks ago. You can see Upper Street has 159 units. The one at Virginia had 190. Our parking ratio, we actually now have more parking spaces here than we did on Limestone. Our parking ratio is 31%, much more than we've compared some of the other ones I compared last two weeks ago with you. Mentioned that UK's parking ratio, our parking ratio is 31%. UK's dormitory parking ratio is 12%. We're 31 percent. They're 12. UK also has students who park out at the stadium in the K lot. 30 percent of their students park out at the K lot in the stadium. Our students will have, if they wish to, they have just as much right to get a parking sticker in the K lot as a student who lives in a dormitory. So they have that opportunity too. And Ms. Monday, you asked about transit stops. There are, I think, six bus stops within a one or one-and-a-half block radius of this property. I think two of them are the UK Blue-White Shuttle stops. I think four of them are Lex Tran Transit stops on here. So they have the ability to get out to the stadium if they should choose to do that, like 30% of all UK students do who live on campus. I wanted to point out to you too, if you look at the parking report we did for you, Andrew Widner, who was here last month, did a parking study based upon a number of factors. I hope you've had a chance to read that over. That's the best study I've ever seen on parking done, the best study I've ever seen. He points out a few things, that this is a transit-oriented development, TOD. It has lesser reliance on personal vehicles, relies on Uber a lot. It's based a lot on the Federal Highway Administration right-sized parking project five years ago in 2011, which found that there was overbuilding of parking spaces. Our property here at South Upper Street, they scored it on walkability and bikeability. We're in a biker's paradise. It's 90 out of 100 or more. That qualifies you as a biker's paradise here. and we do have parking in our units you can rent a unit that has in unit bike parking you don't want that they have separate locked off parking for the residents for their bicycles if you want to come to the store you can we have a third option that's the bike racks which are open in the in the parking area as well so we have three three options on parking your bicycle here the our walking score is 84 very walkable we scored poorly and the walkability score on only two items not poorly but moderately one was food store availability groceries and the other noise schools those are K to 12 schools how close we are to an elementary school well people living here aren't going to have kids but the people living here will have access to groceries because that's what we want to in the first floor of this building. So we anticipate once this is built, we will move the walkability above 90. It'll be what they call a walker's paradise as well. So we feel very strongly that we're coming in. We're doing extremely well with both our parking and walkability. As I said to you before, UK on this lot has 150 parking spaces now. I won't go into it. Last month I explained to you that they have created or freed up 215 spaces in this immediate area to meet the loss of their own parking on this property. We are having 178 parking spaces, counting our tandem parking spaces as well. And as you know, this is a very pedestrian-oriented development. I'm going to ask Jeff Zalisco to come up. He's going to talk about the changes in our design. We're making this a more traditional design and in the context study that you had as well and the massing of the building. So Jeff, if you'd come on up here, appreciate it. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, For the record, my name is Jeff Solisco. I'm a senior principal with Antunovich Associates. We're architects representing core spaces. For my portion of this, and I'll try to move fast because I think time is moving fast, I'm going to cover a massing study that we provided for you. You'll see that up on the screen right here, and you have that in your hands first, and then I'll go through the elements of the area character and context study. So the important thing, and I think this first image really tells a lot right here, The first version that you see is what we proposed originally to the South Hill neighborhood, six stories all the way across the building. That was 76 feet at that location. We then, what you saw when we first proposed this about a month ago, was six stories at Pine at that end of the building. I'm sorry, five stories at this end and then six stories at the western end. The updated plan that we proposed, and you'll see the plans, we went to great lengths to make further adjustments based on discussions that we've had with the neighborhood. we brought this down to four stories at Pine Street that's 54 feet six inches so we brought that down 22 feet at that end of the building and I think that is very much the most important location relative to that neighborhood so we made a big difference with what we've done with the layout and that one we went to great ends to make that work I also want to point out as we're looking at this there's a masonry element that continues down the building and it continues that height of 54 feet and that's a line that I think is what you really read as as part of the building so that was a very important element that we introduced to this i'll talk a little bit more about the design as we go on we've already talked a little bit about the numbers and um and mr murphy had pointed those out but we went from 169 units originally to 162 to 159 more importantly we went from 705 beds to 680 789 beds sorry 489 beds to 473 so we lost 16 beds and I think the important point with that is that when you add in the the tandem spaces we've added 30 spaces that's a 20% increase or 20% increase however we have lost an additional 16 beds so when you add that all in it starts to really add up we think to a significant difference so that's the original building that we had proposed this is what we had showed to the neighborhood group originally in May of this year then our next this is what we proposed as part of our area character and context study again that went down from 76 feet to 65 feet at that end of the building and then what we're proposing today this end of the building is at 54 feet six inches compared to those and again there's you see it better now this element of the masonry and I'm going to talk a little bit about the design here that masonry element we think that really carries the mass of the building down it's a it's a long building along upper street we think that has a huge impact on it also we looked really carefully at a lot of the buildings in the neighborhood and started to pick important we thought cool design elements from that from those buildings so as we looked at it we we made more of this building masonry we even brought the masonry elements in a traditional manner down to the street it has almost a loft feel and a loft appearance which we thought was very appropriate for a building this of this scale more elements go along that way wide plan being as canopy which we think you know again brings that element it almost brings an outdoor room character around the corner of a building so we think that that's very important other elements that we've carried from the neighborhood are clapboard elements so as you get above the brick there's clapboard siding and with windows all these windows are black mullion and they have mullion subdivisions again very similar to many of the buildings in the neighborhood as we kept off the vertical elements in the building which play in our juxtaposition towards the horizontal characters those are all capped off with arched elements at the top of the building so you see that that element run down the building we think that that's a really great element and again something that you see along in these lovely homes in the neighborhood additional design elements you see traditional railings there's dental elements you know that run along the top of the building so we baked a lot of elements not too many you have to be careful about trying to get too many into it but we feel like we've really drawn a lot of elements from the neighborhood in a way that we're very happy with this and we feel like it's a great neighbor to these buildings so this is the building again the building that was originally proposed six stories all the way across 76 feet across then you see as we've taken half of the building down this is what was proposed and presented a month ago and And then this is where we're at now. So now we've stepped down that third time. We think it's compelling. And I'm going to go back so you can see that like so, then back. There's a big difference. We've stepped that building down 22 feet there. That's two stories. It's a big difference. What's the percentage of that? 40%, 30%? Don't hold me to those numbers. I was doing them in my head. So this is the plan, as you originally saw it, six stories across, the overall residential plan. and then this is where we had stepped it back a month ago for what you saw a month ago and this is where we're at now where we step back again for 54 feet 65 feet 76 feet at the rear and then with sections that's a section of what we proposed a month ago and then there's that step back where we do that again against near pine street so tracy can we go to them so those are the elements in our massing study we thought that was compelling to be perfectly honest to see the differences in the changes that we've made this is that second file so you saw portions of the area character and context study many of the things that we did that really were huge improvements on the site the sidewalks as we move around and i'm going to to focus on certain elements because there's many things about it that have not significantly changed so we see the neighborhood the elements in the neighborhoods there are some retail and then residential along in that direction um so here we are at the sidewalk the sidewalk previously or presently is quite small we've provided generous sidewalks set the building back beyond what's required by the zoning we have 18 foot sidewalks essentially around every side of the building on pine on upper on jersey so we've provided great sidewalks and we've created really wonderful landscaping and little seating areas that wrap around on pine and on upper so those are little areas for people to let's say they're coming out of the store the wonderful store that's there or out of the residential lobby there's places for them to wait for someone it creates a space and a place and we think that that's worked out very well then you get to see as we've looked at some of these renderings along the street that's that canopy i was mentioning to you it creates cover in the summer it creates a sense of place you know here's our lobby so obviously this is this is Kentucky it's Kentucky from below when you're above we plan this so when you see it from above it's you see when you're in the units or for a plane you see the state of Kentucky in that in that canopy area above the entry so these are some interesting things that we tried to bake into the building again the great streets great feeling along the street with the masonry elements that feel very traditional from the building bring it all the way down to the base at a significant expense to be perfectly honest and then you know this is then along this is on Jersey and upper so really not a backside for this building really fun out of our way to make this thing feel feel great more renderings and then I think this gives you an idea of the context with with homes with the parking garage which is a very nice building with center court and then with the neighboring homes again the character is very similar to what you've seen what you see in the neighborhood and when you see in the surrounding building sir you've actually your time is up but if you'd like to continue mr murphy you can make the call if you'd like to take some of the time off okay all right go ahead honestly i think i've i've said everything i need to say about what we're proposing here um so thank you very much for all of us to present. Mr. Murphy, did you want to... That's fine. Okay. Thank you very much. Well, just a minute now. If it's not on your time now, do we have any questions from the commission related to the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Billing? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Ms. Wade, Mr. Martin, Mr. Murphy, and members of the Corps, and ladies and gentlemen of the audience. As you know, my name is Nathan Billings. I'm with Billings Law Firm, and I'm pleased today to represent not only Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association, which was the client group at the initial hearing a month ago but as well center court the south hill lofts and what wasn't referenced earlier is that there have been a number of other letters sent in to staff i didn't see them introduced in the record during the staff presentation but i assume they will be made apart that include letters from numerous individuals and also the south hill town homes i just want to make sure those are into the record um if you will look at the packets we have laid on the chairs in front of you at the at the beginning of the meeting today, contrary to perhaps what would have been expected today, I'm here to ask for your approval of the core proposal. I'm here to ask you for approval subject to some conditions, but I'm not here to ask for disapproval, which we did last time. You have seen over the last 16 minutes or so a discussion which is largely couched as the following. What we have presented is better than what we presented before. I agree, it is better. It doesn't mean it complies with the ordinance, however. What I'm going to do in the next few minutes is walk you through the second packet that I laid on your chair, which is tabs one through 17, and give you additional data, which is relevant data, not stuff just printed from a random website, or statistics in other cities regarding parking. Respectfully, our position is that parking does matter in this case, and it is not as simple as saying you should press parking to the Board of Adjustment. this board should first make a decision whether any adjust any variance should be permitted at all an endorsement that says a variance that this plan is conditioned upon a variance sends a message impermissibly and wrongfully in my opinion that a variance is appropriate it is our position that this board should adopt a plan that requires parking in accordance with the ordinance you you don't have to adopt a plan that sends it to the Board of Adjustment. Without going into significant detail, but in order to preserve the record, I do want to make note that we received a revised plan approximately 24 and a half hours before the hearing today concerning a revised drawing and other information. Now, we had had a heads up about some of that information, but we didn't have the drawings. We don't think that complies with the ordinance. I'm not going to go further into detail, but it's hard as the opposition with 24 hours notice to adequately prepare. But we've done as best as we could. You'll see it enclosed at tabs 1, 2, and 3 information that just identifies the ordinance just for your reference, should you want to have it in your deliberations. Going on to Exhibit 4, parking is important. We actually did a survey of 117 students at UK. not hypothetical students at Tempe or Tucson or Clemson or Milwaukee or somewhere else, students at UK. I'll introduce those surveys directly. Here's what the student survey data show. This is a tab four. That's of that percentage, 84% of all of the students surveyed have cars. UK's numbers, if you'll look at on tab five, is that 44% of their students have parking permits on campus. If you look at our study, our survey of students, of those who live off campus, so those who live off campus, 95% of those students have cars. Of those 95% who live off campus, 97% of those have cars on the site where they live. Only two of the 117 students have a car that they had to park somewhere else. Here's what this shows me. The data that we have is irrefutable. It's localized, it's relevant, and it's actual based on UK students. From both UK itself and the student population itself. The information presented by CORE in their study, through the parking study yesterday, not only relies upon information from other sites that are irrelevant, but they also seem to extrapolate information that's not supported by factual data. Second, if you'll turn, or next if you'll turn to tab six. Tab six shows information regarding the actual student population using things like rail, I mean, ride hailing apps, if I can spit that out. Things like Uber or Lyft, and what you'll find in there is that there's actually 15% of college students actually use those rides. right now if you turn into tab 7 they use a walking score this article actually shows the fallacy of that website and that the walking score is great but it doesn't adequately capture all of the information relevant to walking specifically one of the things that core noted in his presentation is that walkability is tied to the location of a grocery store as As you all may know, and I will quickly point forward because I don't have time to go into it in detail, if you like at tab 14, these are articles regarding the Lex. It was done by a company called Shelburne Plaza along South Broadway. They made promises to this planning commission and promises to the city of a grocery store that has never developed. Why is that relevant? One, it's relevant to show there's not a grocery store within walking distance down here, for lots of reasons. Number two is to show that any data regarding walkability in this area is necessarily flawed because there is no grocery store in walkable distance. If you look at tab 8, you'll see a chart of parking from the hubs, projects across the country. These are really broken down into two categories. At that chart, you'll see the top that says currently in development, and there's projects in Lafayette, Tuscaloosa, Minneapolis, Flagstaff, and Ann Arbor. On average, their new projects coming online have 41.1% parking ratios. If you look at those that they have built in the past, they're already in operation, which includes Seattle, Tucson 2, Eugene, Madison, Tucson, Columbia, Oxford, and Tempe, their parking average was 27.3. What's happening? We believe it's very clear. The trend is they're realizing they made projections that they only needed a couple of parking spaces for projects. And as they built them, the old projects, they realized their parking ratios were wrong. And their new projects that are coming online, they have increased by 50% with the recognition that they're incorrect. Next, if you look at tab nine, this is our analysis of Lexington's mixed-use project. Now I'm going to hit pause here because staff has made some comments about the area. If you recall during our first conversation, we defined the area with much more specificity than what CORE did. Specifically, the area in this case is really bounded by residential, which includes historic and non-historic. It includes commercial, which are largely one- and two-story buildings. It includes the University of Kentucky, and this is not the university. It doesn't have the powers of the state government that get to do what they want without complying with the zoning codes. And you found, importantly, a number of either mixed-use or high-density projects along the border of UK, downtown, and the western edge of UK. The data shown in Tab 9 shows that for every single project that has been approved along UK, none of them have sought a variance for parking all of them have met or exceeded the minimum parking requirements by the ordinance some of them you'll see if you look at are well over a hundred percent here's what we're suggesting today which you'll see in our proposal we're suggesting that that a variance isn't needed. Their current proposed parking of 178, if you eliminate a floor, which is essentially what we're asking, gets them the exact parking that they need under the ordinance to meet the number of bedrooms and commercial space. Again, there's no historical support for allowing variances for parking in mixed use projects or high density projects along UK. Going on to tab 10, this is excerpts from form-based planning guides, specifically the form-based code regarding parking. And what we think it shows is that they only include 61% of the spots that the step-by-step guide would require. And that if you were to follow the form-based codes guideline, they would need 271 spots. Going on to number 11, this is the mixed-use height chart. This is relevant because our proposal is actually acknowledging the urban service boundary issue and suggesting that while we have said center courts four stories should be a benchmark, we're suggesting that a five story building with step backs not only along Pine like they have done, but an 18 foot step back along Upper with a five story total cap is appropriate and is supported by all of the prior projects. You notice the only project that was referenced is one that staff referenced on the other side of Broadway that enters into a five lane major corridor in Lexington, not a two lane, one way street. Further, the buildings across from that condominium complex on Broadway are commercial in nature and not residential. There's a two story apartment complex and there's probably about five or six businesses there. Next, tab 12 shows safety issues from hub projects where their pool roof decks have led to deaths. Tab 13 talks about is our prior data, how retail has failed in mixed use projects in Lexington. I'm not blaming CORE for that, but I'm telling the planning commission to please be mindful of promises of retail from developers that hasn't panned out. Specifically, a developer shouldn't be permitted to add an apartment building simply by making an empty shell on a first floor that they call commercial space that they never use in order to meet minimum density and parking guidelines. We talked about tab 14, which was the Shelburne Plaza promises. Tab 15. This is the information from West Lafayette, Indiana, regarding the target that was promised to that area. Now, the Corps has been very careful here not to promise any retailer publicly. My guess is it's because they have had prior exposures of talking about who their tenant would be. We simply don't have a guarantee of who or if it would be at all in this project. Tab 16 looks at how they have taken sites in other areas, and I want to give credit where credit is due. If you look at what is proposed today, it is much better than what was originally proposed. The brick facades, the canopies, the flower boxes do a much better job integrating with the neighborhood. But that's not the only component you're required to look at in the area and character study. Because my time is limited, I can't go back through the 30 minutes of data we presented in the prior study regarding historical structures, commercial structures, and other architectural detailing. But needless to say, this shows that CORE has done this in other areas by limiting the height of their buildings, and they can do it again here. The last and final tab is 17, which I think is perhaps the most important. Several times, CORE has promised us that they're a long-term neighbor. here to stay that they build these to own and they operate it for safety less than a week maybe 10 days after the last hearing core announced its partnership with american campus communities to sell seven of their projects to a large publicly traded campus um multi-family ownership entity on average they're selling these for a hundred and fifty six thousand dollars a bedroom of those seven units, only two of them have been completed. Three are coming online this year, according to the article, and two are coming online next year. We don't approve a project or disapprove a project based upon its ownership structure. What I do believe, though, is that when they say they're here to stay, that's a matter of integrity. And when the next day they admit they're going to sell a bunch of units, that's also a matter of integrity. Here's what it also shows insinuations that they can't afford to do, a five-story building like we're suggesting you all approve, I find onerous and perhaps untrue. $156,000 a bedroom multiplied by the project size that we're recommending makes this project not only doable, but makes it profitable. Again, that's not the standard by which you approve a project, but it's an analysis that shows implications that a project's not feasible because of a story shouldn't be the reason to approve a project that doesn't comply with the area and character study. Finally you'll see a chart and a motion before you. I don't know if I'll need much more of my ten minutes and Mr. Murphy is welcome to take as much of that as he wants to unless there's a member of the public who'd like to take my extra ten minutes Mr. Chairman. I have a motion in front of you that ask you simply to do this. We have a proposal that is reasonable, that is based upon the ordinance, it's based upon the data. Specifically, we're asking you all to approve a five-story building that has 18-foot setbacks along Pine and along Upper. That is a height of 65 and 54 feet, respectively. That's the data out of their study for those, the four-story and the five-story with the offset. Using their data, this would be 380 bedrooms, and using their data of three bedrooms per unit, that would be 127 dwelling units. That would mean they would need 182 parking spaces. Their current plan has 179. I understand the tandem issue. I'm here to tell you that if they can do what we're suggesting here, although the ordinance may require 182, but they're able to get 179, including the 16 tandem, we'll agree to that. What does this plan essentially do? It reduces their plan by one story. it meets the benchmarks of all of the other properties that have been approved with parking and Fayette County for 20 years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Billy? Just a minute. Don't leave. This is not on your time. This is our time now. Ms. Mundy. When you were doing the traffic count, the cars and parking spaces and all that, In those numbers, did you take account for the pool cars that UK is now providing for students? Did we take account for the what? The pool cars. UK now has a program where kids can reserve a car. They don't have to have their own. No, those numbers are not included in this. So we have two statistics from the UK. The first is the student survey, and those are students' cars, not shared cars, not Uber, not Lyft, not ride shares. It's a car that they own that is either on campus or that they live in an off-campus apartment that they have. So it doesn't include the pool share. UK's data was how many permits have they issued to students for parking on campus. Their number is 43.6%, just under 44%. I don't know the answer because I didn't ask them, does that include that? My assumption is if UK is providing the car, it is not included in the permit that we ask for. Right, so it's probably not in any of the data. Which would actually mean that the number of cars on campus is actually greater than 44%, because if there's the 44% of students that UK reports on campus have cars, and UK is providing additional vehicles I don't know how many they issue but it's higher than 44% but they're loaner cars so they don't count as my point is it's it's additional cars that are present if you have 44% of students have a car and you have four more percent who are doing ride share you actually have 48% of students who have a car four percent of share some way it's greater than 44% Regardless, their data came up somewhere below that. What we've shown you is the open records request from the assistant general counsel from the UK when we asked for that information and what she provided to us. It's not below 44%. Okay. Murphy. Oh, okay. Well, then Mr. Brewer. Yeah, I'm actually going to take a step in a totally different direction here because I'm quite disturbed by tab 12. Why do you bring in somebody's tragic suicide into a hearing like this? One of the things that came up in the discussions with CORE is the issue of safety. And what they promised us is that their projects are safe. And what this shows is that that's not necessarily true. One of our concerns has been a rooftop pool in a project that is not like anything we have really in Fayette County. And I don't do it in order to take any light of a tragic situation. I do it to show that there's a safety issue in putting a pool on the roof of an apartment complex intended for college students. So because they're college students, you think they're more apt to jump off the roof? I think that there is very reasonable assumptions that can be made that college students engage in behaviors that people who are mature and older don't do with college students. I don't think anybody in here would dispute that college students tend to drink a whole lot more. That college students are much more likely to throw beer bottles or other things than other people. I'm not saying that they're bad people. I'm just saying that, in my opinion, college students are much more likely to engage in risky behavior than non-college students. It doesn't mean that non-college students can't do stupid things, too, but it's to show, in our opinion, what they have touted to us as this is a risk-free, safe environment is not necessarily true. Well, I don't want to engage in a debate over this, but I don't think there's any place to be risk-free. and the idea of bringing in suicide to this type of discussion I think is inappropriate people commit suicide anywhere that make a pool rooftop pool any more likely to be a location for suicide than anywhere else that one I think you should have left out anyone else have any questions for Mr. Billings okay then we'll move to the rebuttal portion mr. Murphy you're up and at the end of the rebuttal we still may have some additional questions for you so yeah there's a number of items to hit on rebuttal here the I'm not going to say anything more about the suicide I think mr. Brewer mentioned that many, many developments have pools on the top of them. It's a recognized part of this type of development, not only CORE, but other developments around the country done by other people. As far as the survey of 117 students, the UK has 28,000 students. I think I took a statistics class in college and as I recall, as much as I can recall things back then that was such a small sample size that it is not significant. I'm sure I could have done a survey of 117 students and come up with figures equally supportive of my position on this. I could have found 117 people who don't have cars. But what we did, we tried not to come up with numbers that we create or that are biased in our favor. We tried to come up with the numbers that others gave us. For instance, UK, when they reported that 11% of their students have parking within walking distance, as opposed to 31% we will in this building here. And if that wasn't enough for UK students who come to live in dormitories, 31 or 32% more get parking stickers at the stadium, which our students can as well. is that we start with 31 parking here uk starts with 11 parking within walking distance of their dormitories we went on their numbers we went on the numbers we have around the town when a mr mr billings exhibit on the gotta look at him give his name here billings exhibit of our percentages there's one outlier on this Tuscaloosa 85% coverage and that is because it's a worse location number one number two Tuscaloosa city of Tuscaloosa granted core the maximum variance they could on parking so they had to meet the code on that when you take that outlier out the percentage currently in development is is 28.5 percent. The percentage currently in operation is 27.3 percent. Almost exactly the same, one percentage off. What are we? 31 percent. We're still a higher percentage than those either in operation now or currently in development. The argument about students having here, this is a student area. This is on campus right now. I want to point out, This is University of Kentucky owned property right now. We're on campus. Even if you say it's off, we are as close to campus as McDonald's. We're a McDonald's away from a seven-story dormitory, which is Boyd Hall. I can put up the pictures of that. I don't want to take up too much time getting it over there. We are the distance of McDonald's away from that picture I'm showing you. Well, that's Holmes Hall. The other one, the next one, is Boyd Hall, a seven-story, another seven-story dormitory. Our point is this. We have to take those in account. Those are in our area, as Mr. Martin said. We have a seven-story Boyd Hall, seven-story Holmes Hall at the corner of Avenue and Champions and South Limestone Street, and we have a seven-story parking garage. If you'll keep going through those pictures, that's the seven-story parking garage, which is separated from us by the Raising Cane's chicken place and the Fazoli's place. That's how close we are to the seven-story parking garage on UK's campus. We took a standard for what the area was. We went to the staff first before we did a thing on this project. As I mentioned to you last time, we talked to the staff before we started this, before they put a pencil to paper. We met with Brandy Peacher, who is the design planner, and we were met with great enthusiasm. And the plan that you have before you reflects her input, reflects the input from the staff and others in the Division of Planning. Are we going to have retail here? We waived the possibility that we will not have retail here. Well, shall we just not try? Is that, you know, just keep it a parking lot? I guess that's what everybody wants. But the fact is here we are extremely close to signing a contract with a national retailer. One retailer wants the whole space. And we are very, very confident we'll have groceries in the first floor of this building. They are required to make this project go. We are not building the building so we can have a vacant first floor. The property over on South Broadway is totally different from this. It has a totally different walking distance, a totally different relationship to the neighborhood. Now, I happen to think the property on South Broadway is going to take off with the new Oliver Lewis Way being connected in there. I think it may have been before its time. But our property is different. We are a hop and skip the jump away from all of UK's campus, all of the medical facilities on UK, and we know this is going to go. The target they mentioned in another city, I can't remember whichever city it was, Mr. Harrington mentioned to me during Mr. Billings' conversation that it went in very close by in another project. So it is there in the area where they did the other project. Let's see. I want to mention to you the cross section. And if you saw Mr. Zalisco's cross-section, we have to relate ourselves to the seven-story dormitories around here, the Center Court building. I have a photograph of that in my handout, which is four stories at one part, five stories at another, and is right across the street from the seven-story parking garage. That's the five-story portion of Center Court down near Bolivar Street. and you can see one, two, three, four, five stories there away from us, away from campus. Here is the Bolivar Street lofts, and both of these are across the street from the seven-story parking garage, which I showed you a picture of earlier. On parking, I want to mention to you, too, Mr. Brett Maloy is here. You can ask him. Oh, this picture shows the relationship. Mr. Billings said he was representing this group and this group. They are directly across the street from the seven-story parking garage, which is much closer to them than our building will be. Brett Malloy was here and did a study of our parking based upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers parking manuals. He's here. He can answer any questions you all may have. In his review of the parking manuals, they have parking manuals just like they have traffic generation manuals. The parking manuals, when he studied an urban apartment building and a retail facility, the peak hour demand for parking was 177 spaces. We're providing 178 spaces, counting our tandem spaces. So we are right on the exact number, 177, 178, of the Institute of Traffic Engineers figures for parking generation during the peak hour of this property. So we have enough to cover that. As in my handout, I have a map of the parking areas, the permit parking areas. As was mentioned before, Historic South Hill is in a permit parking area. It's controlled 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. five days a week. If that's not enough, they can petition that it go 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But I want to conclude on this is that there's a lot of other things I want to rebut. Just because I haven't mentioned to them doesn't mean they don't deserve rebuttal. It means I don't have enough time to do that. But I want to mention that we've spent the last two months or six months or eight months going through the comprehensive plan, And this agrees with everything that the comprehensive plan, both the 2013 plan and the 2018 plan, advocates. And that would be pedestrian-friendly, that would be bicycle-friendly, be transit-friendly, greater density in the urban service area. And where is that density to go? As I heard discussions many times in your work session, along corridors. and to use underutilized parking lots along those corridors, exactly what we have here along this corridor. Greater density within walking distance of employment centers and educational centers. Well, we have the biggest employment center and the biggest educational center in Fayette County, probably in the state of Kentucky, right next door to us. As you know, we're on U.K. land. and it calls for use of parking structures, which we do. This meets every criteria you all have for it. And again, I might say that I think we can't ignore the fact that we're next door to UK. This is UK-owned property. But I think moreover, this is what we should be doing with student housing. I think rather than encourage student housing to go in the single-family detached homes and what they call the four-by-fours, four-bedroom, four-bathroom, taking over single-family, our one-zoned property, this is exactly what we ought to do. We ought to be putting student housing in a location next to the campus where people can walk, ride their bicycles, take transit where they want to go. and this is what we ought to be doing in the year 2017 and 2018 and as we look forward under our comprehensive plan. So I see I'm over my time, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot more I could say to you about this. We're very, very excited and very, very pleased. And the more I listened to your comprehensive plan discussions, the more I got excited about this development I was bringing to you. whether you believe in expansion of the urban service boundary or whether you don't believe in expansion of the urban service boundary, I think everybody in this community agrees that we need greater density inside the urban area, especially adjacent to U.K. Thank you very much, and I have other people here who can answer questions, and we'd be happy to expand on that. Okay, and we may have to recycle back when we have some additional questions. Mr. Billings? Mr. Chairman, this is not a UK project. This project is not exempt from the ordinance. The planning commission wants to use the size, dimension, scale of UK buildings in order to approve them. What we're going to have are projects that mimic an entity that gets to do whatever it wants without compliance with our zoning or subdivision or land use or comprehensive plan. While UK is a component, which we admitted we're the ones who defined this UK as part of the area, the area is more than two dormitories and a seven-story parking garage. It is blocks of one-story and two-story commercial buildings. It is blocks of one and two and two and a half-story historical structures. It is blocks, blocks of three and four-story mixed-use and high-density projects. It is blocks of two-story or two and a half-story townhomes. The planning commission should not buy into an argument that says if UK has three buildings this high, we should get it two. I don't disagree with a significant number of comments that Mr. Murphy made at the end. You'll see that from the fact that we've submitted to you all a motion to approve this project, not to disapprove it. We disagree with the scale. My clients have debated internally, and they had set four stories as a benchmark, which is what they have done for 15 years, and there was a discussion about how this will play into precedent in the future. And they came to the conclusion that a five-story building that's set back, although it's not preferable, is likely to satisfy the need for increased density. It is likely to satisfy the need for increased student housing like this. We're not disagreeing with Mr. Murphy on a bunch of stuff, and I don't want you all to be misled. whole lot of this project that the neighborhood understands accepts in fact has embraced in the past by doing things like supporting Center Court supporting South Hill supporting the townhomes on Broadway they haven't opposed these projects and today they're not here to oppose this project either but they are here to ask you to approve it subject to conditions that are reasonable in scale and in density and in parking we respectfully ask you to entertain our motion and to pass it at the conclusion of this hearing mr. chairman I have seven minutes left I'd like to turn that over to any member of the audience who might like to speak in opposition or in favor of our whichever one that might be that's fine well he what the way we structured this is that each of you had 25 minutes and and you could use the time in whatever way you want to. So I'm sure your objection has been noted. Anyone would like to do that? Mr. Billings, who are they? I mean, your time is running. There may not be. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that because of the time limitation, as I said in my emails with staff, I didn't feel like I could bind members of the public who may want to speak that I wanted to reserve some of my time so they could have that. There may not be anybody. There may be 10. Whatever the time is up to front. Okay. Does anyone here would like to speak? I'm Jean Scott, President of the South Hill, South Hill Neighborhood Association, and as Nathan has said, we're joined by Center Court, Bluegrass Trust, and other organizations here in support of our position. In short, I want to underscore what Nathan said, by looking only to UK as a president for this project. you were approved as proposed you would be turning your back on and damaging viable neighborhoods right across the street from it and in fact south hill is the second oldest neighborhood in lexington that people are buying there living there investing there raising children there underscores that we keep that neighborhood safe enough that a dorm developer would feel students could walk to the downtown third where we be so just degraded that we're no longer there then we're going to have a problem area. But in short, the comprehensive plan, in addition to what Mr. Murphy said, calls for and reinforces the importance of neighborhoods, the importance of historic districts, and preserving those, and of keeping a viable downtown. If you turn your back on us with this decision today and look only toward the UK examples, you're really ignoring the whole goals of the city for viable, livable neighborhoods, which families of all ages can live in. So we urge you to go with the motion as proposed by Mr. Billing. As he said, we have been very supportive over the years of development in our neighborhood, including Center Court and others that Mr. Billing said. We're not saying no to infill and redevelopment. We know that's important, but we're saying do it in the right way that Lexington can be proud of and be thoughtful and careful and not just one of those decisions that later you will regret because of the incremental impacts over time that go against your goals for viable neighborhoods so please vote on the motion as made by mr billings thank you hi my name is alan bartley i live at 353 south mill street i was here last time um i'd just like to make a few comments um in addition to gene if you notice mr murphy mentioned that the hub with the last one was approved a couple weeks ago. A big distinction there, if you notice, with the arguments of Mr. Billings, is that we realize things do need to be a lot larger. We do have infill. As I mentioned last time I was here, I'm a professional economist at Transylvania University. So I'm for expansion and keeping our urban service boundary and infill. But the other hub project, I think one reason you didn't get a lot of pushback is there aren't neighborhoods right there. It's a very big distinct difference. And even though it's only a few blocks away, there aren't neighborhoods right there where the students do interact, the students do park. And it is a very big issue for our neighborhood. I had talked to some of my neighbors about, I think one of the hardest things it is for me to realize, and I know that you see the boundaries on these things, this place is asking for a variance of parking and size. It is literally across the street. I've lived in my house for seven years. If I want to reglaze a window, I have to go to BOAR. Houses across the street from this to upkeep the historic nature so that everybody in Lexington benefits. So it's not just infill trying to be on the edges here. It's literally right next to it. And I would ask that you consider that. Because if somebody wants to change a door, change a window, they literally have to go and get approval to do that. And right across the street now is going to be this five story building across from a home from a citizen who has to get approval just to try to keep a historic nature of the home for everyone else to benefit from. So I'd ask you to consider that. Across the street is a big difference than by the UK law school. Thank you. I'm Mary Campbell and I'm a board member of the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association and my husband was supposed to be here because he's the economist and can make this argument much better than I since he teaches law and economics. However, I think the gist of the argument is all of us in our neighborhoods have invested millions of dollars in our neighborhood and we've not asked anybody else to take all the negative parts of our investments we've provided a number we like to think we we've attracted people to downtown that we've improved downtown and it's a little bit ironical to me that we've created a neighborhood so nice and so safe that somebody like core wants to come and build a big building there i mean there's quite a bit of irony there but we already have millions of dollars invested in our own properties and we want to maintain them and we want the neighborhood to be viable as Jean said. So there's some economic theory about transferring all the negative aspects like not enough parking, like petty crime, like too much density, unsupervised young people who are not under the aegis of the universities they won't have any control over the those people who rent in this apartment building on to the public or to other property owners and that's what we feel is exactly going on here so we hope you will we've worked a lot to try to come up with a compromise that is acceptable and we hope you will accept it thank you thank you that probably got an F in economics 30 30 seconds. One quick thing, Joy Moore, 407 South Mill. We've lived there for 14 years. We've seen the neighborhood change. We embrace change. We embrace the development, just not as it currently stands. If you come from out of town and you were looking at a map, which is what I'm assuming they're doing, they're looking at a radius around it, yes, you do see UK, but if you're from the area, you clearly know that there is a division and that it really is a border of the campus and what they're talking about is being inclusive. It's like two different worlds. And so coming from the area, I hope that you take that into consideration. Thank you. We'll move now to the staff. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, just a, probably just one very important thing that staff would like to respond to that we've heard both last meeting and in this meeting is that this project does not comply to the ordinance. And staff would tell you, yes, this project does comply with your B-1 zoning ordinance for a form-based code. And there was some information introduced to you at the previous hearing from the Form-Based Code Institute. There were some things stated, very concerns about design standards in a historic district. And so staff would offer to you the form-based code defined from the form-based code institute. A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results in a high-quality public realm by using physical form. This particular definition goes on to talk about things relative to a form-based code that staff thinks is very relevant here. And it says it's not to be confused with design guidelines or general state codes that are regulatory. Form-based codes are created and drafted to implement a community plan. And that's what was done when staff brought to you and you approved the changes to your B-1 to have a form-based code. It is all about the physical environment, the massing, the spacing, the height. It's not about use. It's not about economics. And that leads us to some concerns, too, that we would point out once again when we talk about scale and we talk about the area that was looked at. And yes, there are two and three, and there are four-story buildings. And staff would remind you once again, in the entire area that was studied, there are seven and eight and six. There are a variety of buildings, a variety of massing and height. And with that, staff believes, again, that this plan does comply with your ordinance. And we would like to remind you of a little housekeeping along that line, and that we would recommend that under your staff's revised conclusions in your supplemental staff report, that that be stressed as a finding for your approval should you choose to approve the context and character study that has been submitted to you today. okay thank you now I will at least everybody please stay on course here for just a minute to allow any Commission member that has any questions of either the applicant or anyone yes miss Plumlee I have a question this is for the applicant We've been given a lot of information about other projects that this Corps has done, and how many of those are adjacent to a historic district? Tom Harrington is here. He can probably answer that question better than I can for you. There's two existing operating projects in Tucson that are immediately adjacent to the historic West University District, and they were very involved in the approval of those buildings. everything to the west of that those two buildings are one-story buildings and so those those are ten-story buildings with one's ten and one's six I believe and they do have some step backs to them but if there's not nearly on the other side of it there's a lot of taller buildings but facing that that historic district there's only one story buildings essentially and Flagstaff is adjacent to a historic neighborhood was quite controversial but but it is and I was trying to think of what other ones might be we generally have some forms of neighborhoods all around us I think that one of the positives that we bring to that is that our buildings by their nature take to take the pressure off of a lot of those historic neighborhoods by kind of stopping the demand for students to go into those neighborhoods. The project that we built in, actually there's two there as well, in Madison, were both in response to a form-based code that was adopted, largely championed by a historic neighborhood there in order to achieve that as a means to an end to get students living in appropriate places and taking pressures off the neighborhood thank you mr owens thank you mr chair this would be for the applicant um i'm sorry not for sure mr murphy or mr zalesko um tracy if you could could you put up page eight uh so we have something to talk about as far as from their revised massing study which shows uh kind of an aerial with their step backs yes that one uh having missed the last meeting but listening reading watching everything it didn't surprise me with you all coming back with a revision and a step back which i can appreciate very much uh hearing the concerns of the south hill neighbors and so forth you have stepped back on their side as well i'm just wondering you know was there any consideration of stepping that upper street side back to give them a little bit more consideration a little bit more protection of height-wise well we felt along pine was the most important element for the step back upper is an extremely wide right-of-way i believe from our building to across the street it's easily 100 feet to those buildings so we thought that the impact was less also as you get towards further down upper street then you're up to center core so pretty quickly where our building is at the six stories are across from a four to five story building so really those were the two reasons plus just from a functional standpoint that pull the location was hard to put elsewhere because that's where the elevators and the lobby are they get up to that location so that setting there was difficult to move elsewhere we really tried to do that but from a functional standpoint it was difficult to do so I also want to mention with these pools we put railings around them that are five to six feet tall we usually have landscaping and other areas around them so those are the reasons that we did not consider there Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Mundy. I'm not sure who this is for. Mr. Murphy, maybe for you, you probably have the institutional knowledge I'm looking for. Is there any idea how long this underutilized piece of property has been vacant? Well, I can testify to you. Out of personal knowledge, it's been vacant for at least 40 years, and I think more like 50. One of the first things I did when I went into private practice, I got hired by the owners of one of the nearby watering holes. He called me up and said, I want you to do a lease for some phantom parking. And I said, you know, what's phantom parking? He said, well, the zoning ordinance requires me to have a certain number of spaces. And I don't need them, but the ordinance says I've got to have them. So I want you to lease from Good Samaritan Hospital, I don't know how many spaces, in the lot behind me so I can meet my zoning ordinance. I'll never use them, but I've got to pay for them. So I drew up a lease for phantom parking. That was 30 years ago. And it had been vacant before that. It had been Good Samaritan Hospital's parking lot. Some of the staff parked there, especially before they built the parking garage on the Good Samaritan campus, which now UK owns. UK got this lot when they bought Good Samaritan Hospital. That was part of the deal. So I know it's been vacant for at least 40 years from having been out there seeing it. Okay. I have one more question coupled with that then. UK owns this underutilized piece of property, as you just said, because they got it when they bought Good Sam. So if this doesn't go through and if, and I'm putting some ifs in there, this were to revert back to UK, UK could build on this underutilized piece of property, anything they wanted to. Yes, because they're exempt from zoning, except for the fact maybe they have to bring a plan to you like the school board does where they show you a plan and if you approve it, great. If you don't, they can build it anyway. you know and this when a last month I brought to you the request for proposals that UK had put up it's in the record and they requested a proposal for a building with one-story commercial on the first floor and a minimum of four floors of parking above or it could be a mixed use but it was for a minimum of five-story building not a maximum a minimum of five-story building that they had put out a request for proposals on. And then they got wind that CORE had acquired the Kennedy bookstore lot and that put all that on hold on that. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Just inaccurate information on that. I just want to preserve the record for that. please make a note of that I have one quick question and this I guess goes back to Mr. Murphy too just curious will the HVAC units be observable from ground level on the building that's it right there Thank you. Mr. Zalisco I think can respond to that. That's not in our proposal, that's in the neighborhood proposal. Any mechanical equipment will be screened from view from below. They will be screened? Will be screened from view from below by parapets. If there's bigger pieces of equipment they'll have screening around them. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission to any of the, any other questions? If not, then what we'll do is close this part of the hearing and then we'll bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion. I've got an observation. Okay, Mr. Penwood. I, like Mr. Owens, was not here at the first part of this meeting to be continued. I have read all the information. I have looked at it. I also saw it in subdivision. I saw a development plan. I have to give the people of South Hill Neighborhood and Mr. Billings a lot of credit here. You have made a lot of difference in what this plan looks like. So regardless of which way it goes here today, don't think that you haven't made a difference. If you don't believe you have, take a look at the first proposal and take a look at the one now. So citizen involvement is always important in this situation. I think it shows the commitment that you have to your neighborhoods. I want to make that comment because I think it's relevant, and I'll just let it go from there. Thank you. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kind of piggyback on that. the South Hill Historic District is very special. The applicant has indicated that they did build something in Tucson next to a historic district. But everyone sitting in this room knows that Lexington, Kentucky is super special. And to be that close to a historic district and have something of this impact is, to me, it kind of steps on the toes of our mission statement and the comp plan in that we want to promote successful accessible neighborhoods. And we've discussed parking at long lengths here and that seems to be a major issue. And with the parking issue, I don't think that neighborhood's going to be accessible and that would be unfair to those residents in theme a goal three we talk about neighborhood character preservation so this definitely would change the character of that neighborhood I think too that the neighbors at the last hearing had some elegant presentation and I congratulate them on that but if if the operation is a success and the patient dies then it doesn't work and so whenever you're ready I have a motion okay any other comments? Okay, then we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move approval of PLN, MJD, P17, 89, Stevens, and Wednesday. 88. Oh, okay, wrong number? Is it 88? Okay. 88, sorry. with the for the five conditions listed by mr billings in the neighborhood and i would list tab nine as a finding of fact for that so moved is there a second I'll second it. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Mr. Frank Penn. I have a question for me. Okay, just a minute. That we approve PLN MDJDP-17-88 Stevens and Winslow subdivision with the five conditions noted by Mr. Billings and along with the 12 conditions noted by staff, I think it is. That's the motion. Any discussion? Yes, Ms. Mundy. I have a question for legal article. Can we address the parking required by ordinance since they have already applied for the VOA? You can address the parking as it's required by the ordinance. you can't vary what is in the ordinance because that's what the BOA's gonna decide. Now, what's gonna happen there, I don't know. In other words, if you all approve this motion with the ordinance required parking, they would still have the option to vary it, I'm assuming, because the variance is filed with them. But obviously they'd get your all's direction in this vote. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Brewer? Yeah, I'm just struggling with this because the motion that was put forward didn't get a whole lot of discussion, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate at this point or not to ask for staff to weigh in on that motion and to ask the applicant how much of a financial hit it would be. Well, let me put it this way, the motion's on the table, it is open for discussion, but it's closed off from that end. But the staff, yes. Would you guys mind weighing in? I guess I'm. Okay. Mr. Berkley. I think, like Patrick said, we have not really heard any evidence to support maximizing the bedrooms at 380 and dwelling units to 127. it looks to me like most of their projects are much larger than that and I frankly don't know if it would be feasible to do it at that level. Any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Cravens? Yeah, I'm going to agree with Will. It looks like this applicant has come a long ways with the looks of the building. I mean, the architecture is much better, the brick and the scaling and all the steps they took to address the, I mean, they've already addressed the concerns of the neighborhood. And to penalize this project by those drastic numbers, that's a whole lot of units to lose and a whole lot of, then they'd have to increase the parking. I think the BOA is going to do the parking. So I'm not going to support this motion. Any other comments related to this particular motion? If not, let me make sure that we're clear about what this motion is again. The motion is to approve 17-88 Stevens v. Winslow with the five conditions as provided by Mr. Billingsley and with the 12 conditions noted by staff. That's your motion. Yes, Mr. I want to make an amendment to this motion to eliminate Mr. Billings' part of it. Okay. And just go by the revised staff, 12 issues. Okay. An amendment has been offered. Is there a second to the amendment? The amendment is to delete the five conditions noted by Mr. Billings and go back to the original 12 conditions noted by staff. Do I have a second on that? I'll second. Okay, Mr. Berkley is second. So now we've got a motion and an amendment. Any discussion on the amendment? Okay, hearing none. Yes, sir. Personally, for clarification, I would much rather just simply vote on the original motion and let it go up or down. And if I'm correct, if it does not pass, we can always come back with another motion. you could do that but the parliamentary law says that amendment has been made it has been seconded it has to be discussed and we have to now vote on the amendment and then we can come back and determine how we do okay okay so first of all any other discussion on the amendment as such okay mr. Penn I think mr. Moten mr. Owens motion is very well received our comment is very well received and I think we need to leave it the way it is voted up or down and then go from there I don't think we need to do that we have to do that so first of all you vote on the amendment and then you go back to the main motion so now ladies and gentlemen if you would the motion on the amendment on the motion is that we will amend the motion to approve but without the five conditions offered by mr. Billingsley and going back to the original conditions set forth by staff Would you please, are you clear on the motion? Okay, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Would you get it on the screen? All right, the motion has been defeated. Now we go back to the main motion. The main motion. It passed. The motion passed. Oh, the motion. I'm sorry. The motion didn't. Where am I missing? That's the amendment. Okay. Okay, the amendment passed. That's the key. Okay, the amendment passed. That's the key. Okay. It didn't come up on my screen at all, but the amendment passed. I forgot. What is the count? What was the vote count? Five to three. Five to three. So the amendment passed. Okay. Okay, what the... It's still in pass. It's 5-4. It's 5-4. Okay, 5-4 we include. Okay, but the amendment does pass. Okay, now with that said, we're back to the original motion. And the original motion now would be, unless the PLN MJDP would be approved, 88 Stevens versus Winslow with the 12 conditions provided by staff. That's the main motion that you're now voting on. No, we took that off. We voted that out. Mr. Chair, it's me over here. Oh, I'm sorry. As a practical matter, what you now have is the staff recommendation because the five conditions have been removed. That is true. Okay. So I wanted to make sure everyone was clear. The amendment to the motion was to remove those five conditions put forth by Mr. Billingsley. Okay, that has been removed. Now we're back to the original presentation by the staff. Chairman Wilson. Yes. I just want to make sure that if we're adopting the context area, area, character, and context study, that you will adopt the finding that the staff provided as well, that it meets the B1 zoning ordinance. Okay, well that would be the second motion on the second end of that. In other words, we'll have to have, well first of all, we got to get back to the main motion. The main motion now, in effect, is to approve PLN MJDP 17-88 with the 12 conditions provided by staff. That's your main motion. Okay, I've got a question about this. Yes. Again, the finding, I understood, should be included in the vote. It will be second. That will be the second piece of that, the findings as it relates to the character study. If that's what you're talking about? I don't usually vote on findings separately. Why? You usually have the findings as part of the motion to be voted on. Okay, I thought that had to be done by two separate motions. Maybe I'm wrong. Help me out here on that one. You have to make, well, you've created a little bit of a procedural nightmare here. Okay. But you have, because effectively the motion was to adopt something different than what was recommended by staff, that motion and what you were provided had no findings. So you made that motion with those five additional conditions. That's been rejected because of the amendment. Right. So what Ms. Wade is saying is that you're now back to adopting this plan. Yes. And you have to make findings to adopt that form-based study that went with it because of the ordinance. You can, at this point, because the motion's already on the floor without that, I think you can do it two ways. you can either vote on the motion and then move to adopt the study, or you can amend this motion, which I don't know which is better at this point, but one way or another you're going to have to adopt the study as a finding. I got you. In fact, let me explain what my thinking was on that, and then you can clean me up a little bit. But if, in fact, the first part is not approved, let's put it this way, If you vote on that first section and it's just approved, then the issue about the form based study is irrelevant. That's correct. Okay, to that end then, I took them separately because I have called for, in my own way, a division of the question. And division of the question simply means one question cannot be reliant on the other one as it relates to it. So the first question is, do we wish to pass this? Then I was thinking we'd come back and do the other thing if that passed. If that passes, you must adopt the form-based part. That's exactly right, but I was just doing it with two motions because, again, I'm thinking that if you don't pass the first part, the second part is moot. I know the parliamentary procedures are well memorized by the chair, and I would be woe to try to argue those. larger logic instead which is where we are now is voting on the original that's correct so i think it makes more sense and if this plumbly would be willing to do so she would would withdraw her motion we're back to a clean slate for a okay the only point with parliamentary procedure she does not own the motion anymore uh the motion is now in the body before i make the announcement that the motion is made, she owns it, but after that it's now left up to the body to own it. Now the question is, to get out of this very easily, the body can make a decision. If you want to do that, we can do it because that's what parliamentary law allows us to do. That's the cleanest way to do it. Okay, then we'll take it the cleanest way. I mean, that's okay. Do we withdraw? Yeah. Do we withdraw another amendment? No. You don't need it. No, we don't need another amendment. So we can, we're now back to a clean vote based on the findings. That's right. We can do that because the body does it. But once a person makes a motion, the only thing that motion says that you want to discuss it and someone else puts the second to it saying that there's more than one person. But once the motion has been stated and the debate has started, the motion is no longer a member. She doesn't own it anymore at this stage. The body owns it. So is that right, Ms. Boll? This is my parliamentarian. Okay, Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, did I hear that it was possible to withdraw this motion for cleanliness sake? You could, in effect, as the body, if you would like to withdraw the first motion on the table, you can do that. You can withdraw it. Can I withdraw my second? Well, you don't have to worry about the second if the motion belongs to the body. You can do whatever you want to. So what you would want to do probably in this case is put together a substitute motion. That's what it amounts to. You want to substitute one motion for another motion. That's essentially one clean way to deal with it. Yep, Mr. Owens. Can you do that with the withdrawal or just a substitute motion? Well, first of all, you have to vote on the withdrawal. Okay. If you all wish to withdraw the main motion, we can do that and then start all over. So someone can, okay. Mr. Chair, I'll move to withdraw the motion that's on the floor at this time in reference to Plan MJDP 17-88, Stephen Winslow's subdivision. Do I have a second? Okay. It's been properly moved and seconded. We withdraw the original motion. Question? Any discussion? Any discussion? All those in favor, please vote when it comes up on your screens. or if you can get it on the screen withdrawing all right now you're clean now what do you want to do now make a new motion mr. Owens mr. chair I'm gonna move on as far as plan MJDP 17-88 Steven Winslow move for approval with the 12 revised conditions noting what's the proper language the area and character context study is that correct you would be adopting it adopting adopting okay area and character context study do I have a second okay well mr. Owens mr. Owens has made the motion that and mr. Craven the second that we approve PLN M.J.D.P. 17-88 Stevens and Winslow subdivision with the 12 conditions provided by staff along with the adoption of the character and content study. Any discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion passes 7 to 1. I'm sorry, 8 to 1. I'm sorry, we're a little late. my monitors. Okay. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Again, thank you all for your patience on that as we maneuvered our way through parliamentary procedures. I assume that includes the finding that the staff presented to you. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. The consent is everybody's nodding their head yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. All right. You all want to take a break? Yeah, please. Okay. Let's take a five minute break. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ As you said, we're looking at page two, the Williams property. This property, this is a final record plat to subdivide two lots into three. we're located off of Todd's Road this has an access we had a development plan a little while ago that created four plex units that went through here so we're now back here with this development plan or this record plot to subdivide and create an access easement for lot number 19 for their access to the property So we have the first six are our standard sign off conditions, including utility companies. We have a few clean up conditions. We also have a waiver that Tom is going to go over for the sewer with that the planning commission grants the waiver. So we want to have denoted on this plan that the orientation of the homes on lots one and 19, which we discussed in the committee, to be able to face Todd's Road and not have the backs of those homes. So we ask for the note that put on this plan for for the orientation of that to be done at the platts noted or with the development plan at the time of the final development plan. With that, I leave it to you all if you have any questions. Any questions for Ms. Gallup? Okay, who's handling the waiver? Oh, Mr. Martin is. Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the waiver that is associated with this property is relatively simple in that this does meet the approved development plan for this area. And there were duplexes, fourplexes type townhouse proposed in this area. These three lots were proposed on that plan to be single family detached. The public sewer is here located in this location. These are the two sanitary sewer easements where the stubs go for the laterals for these two lots. This lot does not front on that sewer. So they would like to again get this plat recorded, be able to transfer the property, and then when the house is being built they're going to run a lateral to this public sewer line. and they're going to have to create an easement on this plat in order to get that lateral to this to this sewer line and staff is recommending approval of the waiver and our of course only concern is we certainly hope that they get the sewer line in the easement or else they'll have to come back and amend the easement but with that we are recommending approval of the of the waiver and if I might just do a little bit of cleanup very quickly the condition on resolve the orientation of the homes on lots 1 in 19 per previous plat at the time of the final we already have a final development plan so we'd like to resolve the orientation of those homes on lot 1 in 19 per the approved development plan not at the time of the approved development plan we already have one it's already been approved and certified I should say per the final development plan not at the time any questions for mr. Martin mr. Martin we talked about this on the sanitary sewer part of that any way to link that with the access easement or do we have to do it one at a time I believe that what will have to be done is that the division of engineering working with the applicant will have to determine the best location for this. So it may or may not be with the access easement? That is correct. It may be within the access easement. It may be along the front of the property as well. We would hope to avoid too many conflicts as well if there's any maintenance required a replacement of the lateral as well so any other questions mr. chairman planning commission members I'm Laura watcher with EA partners we are in agreement with all the conditions and request approval we have a easy one here you you would think any questions thank you anyone here would like to speak to this particular plan okay if not we'll bring it back to the Commission Miss Monday then go right ahead mr. chair I move for approval of PLN MJ SUB 17-57 Williams property lots one and two along with the waiver we have a second by miss my we it's been properly moved by miss Karen Monday second by miss Carol and Plumlee that we approve PLN MJ SUB 17-57 Williams property lots one and two along with the waiver any discussion on the motion I Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Well, goodness. My screen is okay. Thank you. Thank you. It is. Mine is really... Flip over at mine. Thank you. Am I right? We're on page five now with the distillery district. Yep. Okay. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Members of the Planning Commission. The next item on your agenda is item E on the bottom of page 5, and of course it continues over to the top of page 6. It is Major Development Plan 17-92, Distillery District West, Unit 1. This is an area I'm sure that you all are very familiar with. It's an adaptive reuse project on Manchester Street. This is the big five-story warehouse building. This is an area of a parking lot. You recently approved an amended plan. And here we have the area where we've had a lot of restaurants. Here's the water tower and the little bar in this location. location that has the deck out by the creek. Up in here is, I think that's the ice cream place. And the purpose of this amendment is to add an outdoor kitchen in this area with previously approved seating in this area, and there's 40 seats. The amendment in and of itself is a relatively small amendment in the staff's estimation. They're adding an outdoor kitchen. They've been successful. They want to be able to serve more people, I'm sure, more efficiently and quicker. And, of course, obviously outdoor seating when the weather's good is very popular. It's a large patio. The staff had recommended this for approval, and we raised two issues that you can see on your plan and those are discuss the timing of the parking construction in phase two and discuss the timing of pedestrian improvements along Manchester Street and really that covers our concern on the property as well the the amendment as I stated for this area does very little to affect the required parking because of the huge parking break that they get to begin with it requires an additional five seats they have documented that they have an off-site parking agreement across the street that provides additional parking as a result of this amendment now there are 151 parking spaces in this area and this area has finally in essence been completed it took several years to get this area completed and a lot of work. This parking area is not complete. They are they have a permit to build this part as phase one. We raised these two discussion items and I want to I want to tell this body that I am disappointed in myself professionally I should have raised we should have raised these issues on the prior amendment and earlier and for that I have stood in front of you before and told you how much we take public safety seriously and really I apologize to you because really we should have brought this to you sooner other staff members have been stressing this for some time our wonderful people in traffic, our pedestrian planner. It's a complicated issue. This is a complicated project. It is a state highway. The intent was to put public sidewalks and facilities on that right-of-way using the TIF money, and the TIF is gone. But the very success in this area has been building, and as you know, staff is very supportive. We're very happy to see this success, But it has created a problem and a safety problem in the staff's estimation. And that is why these two issues, and these are big issues, and they're bigger than this amendment. They are. This is, as I said, from a strict regulatory perspective on this project, this is a small amendment. It increases the parking in a very minimal amount. But nonetheless, we wanted to get it in front of you, in front of this body, that we do have serious concerns about safety in this area. And if not with this amendment, certainly with any future amendment in this development, we are going to be talking about increasing the safety for both the people who are parking and the pedestrians in this area and how that could best be achieved. And as I stated, it's a bit of a complicated issue. We have a threshold of square footage on this plan that triggers improvements that the applicant would have to do. And frankly, without the TIF and with the amount of square footage that was imposed at that time, it was very optimistic that the TIF would go through and it wouldn't be a problem. So staff wants you to know it's going to be time to revisit that number. It's going to be time to revisit the need to ensure better pedestrian safety in this area. People are parking across the street and crossing Manchester, and it is heavily traveled. There's still industrial traffic and truck traffic on this street. So again, I just wanted to explain that to you and let you know staff's perspective on it. Your subdivision committee, we had a very spirited discussion at that time, and your subdivision committee did recommend postponing, I think, because several of the members shared staff's concern. With that, the staff is before you today to tell you that, yes, we believe this plan is approvable. But again, it is time that we need to really take a look at this area and consider some steps to improve safety in the area for the many people who are enjoying the success of this area. With that, I'll answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tom, you mentioned when you were up at the map that we're referencing the parking lot was now complete. The parking lot was complete. It's our understanding. Does that mean it's been paved? Yes, sir. It's our understanding for the most part. I have not made a site visit, but yeah. Okay. And I will tell you that our zoning compliance people, they are not issuing any approvals on zoning compliance until they've seen that the parking's on the ground for any use that's being proposed out here. I was down there about a month ago, and it kind of dawned on me. It's like, wait a second, isn't this supposed to be paid? I stopped by a month or so ago when I was attending another meeting during the day, and I just happened to look and see. But it's our understanding that they have completed it. Let me ask one other thing real quick. The distillery district west unit one, that is the whole complex? It's this. Yeah. Okay. It's been subdivided. There's a plat on the property. What's interesting, and I think you're going to hear about this. But when it comes to improvements, that's who we're going to be looking at. Yes, sir. And there's multiple owners. Yeah. And that's another reason. We wanted to make it clear, staff's concerned, that this is going to have to be addressed. Okay. Thank you. Tom, while you're still there, tell me again where the parking was on the other side of the street. It is, and there's a small area that they're going to pave and stripe and bring into compliance for off-site parking. And, again, people will be crossing. That's where I was getting at, though. So do we need, I mean, in the interest of pedestrian safety, do we need a pedestrian bridge that crosses over? Well, that's a huge endeavor. and if people and a lot of people that park over here i hesitate to say it's illegal because i'm not sure that it's signed that it's illegal and of course people are parking there and taking the shortest distance to their to their goal which is to get over here where the activity is oh right so i mean your options to keep them safe or put a light there or put a bridge there yes sir and And the state of Kentucky is very reluctant to do certain things, particularly mid-block. Now, in the future, when the trail comes in and there's going to be a trailhead up in here, there will be a pedestrian crossing. But now I want to emphasize that that's to bring people here and take people away and connect them to the rest of the community. Staff's concern at this point is the development itself and the parking and the pedestrian safety issues, both with the way this functions and, again, people crossing the street. My view on it, it's a great development. We need to encourage it and protect it however we can. Yes, sir. Staff would agree. Okay, Mr. Brewer. I mean, Mr. Penn. While you're here, I'll also ask the applicant this. That is an outdoor kitchen for a restaurant. Yes, sir. And I was there two weeks ago, and the outdoor patio is bigger than the indoor restaurant. And so my concern is that the outdoor kitchen, in your all's measurements, only takes five additional parking spaces. That's based on the seating on the patio on the approved plan? Well, then you're going to have to be very careful about the seating because the patio is definitely bigger than the restaurant. yes sir thank you any other questions okay thank you i think we can say good evening at this point in time abby jones with abby jones consulting here to share a few things with you the existing parking lot on the west side has some pervious parking pavement and that does look a little bit like gravel so that might have been one of the things that was throwing you off as part of it does have a textured look so there are a few other things that I'd like to maybe address with the the kitchen area the kitchen itself is the addition the patio has been there and been on previous development plans so it's the addition of the kitchen portion on the patio that triggered this particular development amendment and we have been i have multiple clients in this development plan as we've shared there's multiple owners and so it's not that there's one developer in charge of the entire thing each of those pieces is owned by different entities and they are the client that i'm here today representing the middle fork kitchen they have started talking with different city staff and with the electric company i believe about potential for lighting lighting there there was some question about how to have safety improvements pedestrian bridges started a million dollars and they're difficult to get approved over state routes also so that's probably a um a little bit over our kitchen development amendment here some low-hanging fruit as a traffic engineer includes signage and lighting those are some of your lowest hanging fruit and so you can have congested area signage you can request to lower speed limits in an area you can also have enforcement you can have police off-duty officers like at churches on busy times they have officers to help with the traffic and the pedestrians that are crossing in different areas so and those are are some different types of pedestrian solutions for safety that are low-hanging the large-scale right-of-way improvements will take quite some time to get approved by the state and there are requirements existing on the development plan that say that must happen I think the point that staff is asking about is how can we maybe solidify those things coming online as soon as possible and my other client is the one that we did the parking lot design for they're wanting to try to do things as quickly as possible to constructions just not as fast as sometimes you wish it would be so I think that the parking lot is going to start coming online we're probably early spring because we're starting to run into the time of year that there's a rush to get asphalt parking lots done hang out with that crowd so the pedestrian improvements along Manchester Street the way that the land disturbance permit which includes all three phases this entire parking lot is a part of a land disturbance permit already and it's in three phases one two and three the way that it is currently permitted it says that when phase two comes online that that's when the right-of-way improvements would occur that's not in any way referenced on any of the development plan right now that's a totally separate area and document and those are separate and distinct I guess as of right now so maybe that's one of the things that Tom is trying to point out is that there's nothing on the development plan that ties to that particular issue and there is one minor item that I would like to ask for many development plans in town have started dropping the amendment number in the plan title and they're using only the date instead and since there's so many different entities out here that would solve a lot of problems for us if we could remove number 12 by basically not having the amendment number hopefully that's provided some updates for you as well we've also clouded the items that are being changed on this development plan to try to make it very helpful about what exactly is being changed you have questions I'm glad to answer them any questions do you know how many parking places there are across Manchester Road that they're anticipating putting in more than five I don't have that at my just that's your request it's more than five but how many actual parking places all together are going to be over do you know i can't remember if it was five or seven i don't have a copy of that with me we did we distributed a copy of it at the so that's all or just five across the street that middle fork is a part of yeah that's not really my question my question is how many are over there do you know or how many across how many total parking spaces well most of those are not striped so it's difficult to quantify unstriped parking you were to guess i'm just trying to get an idea of how big it is and how much traffic it's gonna well there's it really depends on what limit you're defining because there's a lot of businesses no not just here but a little bit farther away yeah like two businesses away and so it's so where your five are gonna be is that is that as many as can be there in that area just the five or are there is it bigger than that off the top of my head I think it seven I don't know if y'all pulled that up from the record or not but it's directly across the street and so it's the shortest path that we could get okay thank you at the subdivision committee as Jones I ask you Tom you want to answer a question I apologize this was submitted to staff at the committee meeting and it shows I believe nine spaces nine spaces across the street that's to go with this this project I'm really just wondering about you know people end up parking wherever they all they can find a place you know so I'm just wondering how much space is over there for people to end up using you know regardless of this project I'm just trying to get an idea that's part of staff's concern that's exactly what's happening right okay thank you mr. Brewer did you so if I understand this correctly 14 and 15 would go away because we have discussed them yes sir we really felt it important to discuss it with you all today but and the request for the at least of number 12 what's your opinion on that that's fine that that's not a problem yeah we we do track them by date it used to be a lot of fun to keep track of the numbers they were getting up in the 30s and some of these plans so so Tom why you're up here if I'm may ask a question go ahead then no sorry I'm sorry this might not be fair but you It seems as if this project is making us aware of other issues. And how fair is that to penalize, in your opinion, are you able to give an opinion about how fair it is to, quote, penalize or not these concerns we have as a result of this project being brought up? I don't really believe that it is really fair at this time to this current applicant and to burden them with this entire concern. I would hope, and I've had conversations, and frankly, I wish they were here because I do think they share some of these concerns as well, and certainly they could help address them. But as I stated before, this is a relatively small amendment to a very large plan. to get back to miss jones my only real concern about this plan is the fact that i don't think five spaces is enough because i think you're going to have way more seating than five would take to speak to the larger issue it doesn't matter how many stripes you have over there it's wherever you can find a place to lean your car in there and if you don't believe it go down there any Saturday night you want to, and if there's nine spaces down there, there'll be 15 cars in there. So when you go, be sure you drive your Land Rover because you'll get the other one stuck in there. But my question is this. Sooner or later, regardless of what we do, and I think we'll approve this plan, sooner or later the state of Kentucky and the city of Lexington is going to have to realize that that is a very dangerous situation, and we'd like to at least get lights down there. we walked across the street and i'm telling you you can't see your hand in front of you down there especially if you're across the street and the last time i was down there there's quite a few watering holes down there and i don't mean for animals and the people that are crossing that street are anxious to get there and they're hoping to get back to their cars when they leave and right down on the end of pine street down there on the viaduct end we wound up putting a not a signal, but a lighted crosswalk there just to get across to a parking lot. And they didn't have near the people in that place that you've got down there in this one. So regardless of whose fault it is, we need to talk to traffic, and I'm looking at them right now, we need to talk to traffic about getting some kind of intermediate down there, and the people that own that property need to put some lights down there because it is a safety hazard. I'm not going to hold your hostage over this, but I don't think the Planning Commission can just turn the blind eye to this. I think we've got a serious problem. Any other questions? Thank you. Anyone want to speak to this issue? The audience? Yes. Only briefly, Mr. Chair. At the subdivision committee, those of you on the subdivision committee know that I was involved in a substantial portion of those conversations because I also represent a property owner in the distillery district. I wanted to, for purposes of clarity, tell you that the concerns that we had raised at subdivision committee have been addressed on this plan, that if you approve this plan as it reads, we have no objection and completely support it, and would take the position that we don't have to sign the plan. So as this plan reads, we're more than happy with it, and it resolves the concern I raised at subdivision committee. If you have specific questions about it, I'd be happy to address it, but just wanted to clarify that for the record. Okay. Mr. Bell. So while you're here, you know, and you represent principal owner, as I understand it. I'm not 100% sure that I would characterize it that way. So you represent an owner. Correct. So how do you feel, in your opinion, if you're able to give it, that we address this broader issue? And when do you feel, you know, so we approve this and we just keep on pushing the ball down the road. When do we pull up? Does it take an accident to pull us up? When do we anticipate and try to come to some kind of, you all now own this property. Hopefully it's doing better. It seems to be obviously doing better. You maybe don't have your money back yet. But the point is that we're all trying to anticipate the safety and concerns for that. And you all obviously are too. You don't want the blemish on yourselves. in your opinion when do we start to address this and how well a couple of things just for purposes of clarity one the person that I represent is not an applicant here today does not own the building that we're talking about generally speaking no of course not you don't want to wait for an accident not only is that bad for the city of Lexington it's bad for every business owner that's down there if it gets a reputation as a place that's unsafe nobody's gonna go I would tell you a couple of things one is that the city and the Commonwealth are certainly welcome to use their governmental powers at any time to come in and remedy any situation that they think needs to be remedied. You don't have to wait. The urban county government, the Commonwealth is more than empowered to do whatever they deem necessary. In terms of what is a body you're permitted to tell people to do, I would tell you that your own legal counsel needs to advise you to that. But certainly I think, as Mr. Martin mentioned in his presentation, that any subsequent amendments would be looked on with great scrutiny. The short answer is, I know we've pulled permits for what I've been referring to is the eastern lot on the other side of the large building. There are underground utilities out there. I think they've actually finished the undergrounding at this point. They're making progress on that. It's a lot of owners. It's a complicated relationship. And yes, the project is doing better. It also started pre-recession. So there was some fairly lean times in there. I can tell you that all of the owners out there are working to make this development work but in terms of a specific point in time I don't know that I can tell you that there are significant legal breaks in terms of parking that were out here based on a zoning ordinance text amendment that was adopted I think some 11 12 years ago these are all there's a lot of complicated factors in here and I'm not trying to skirt your question we absolutely want a safe development in terms of when are all these things going happen that's a little bit too deep into the magic eight ball for me to be able to predict with any certainty but I know everybody out here is committed to having a successful development and a pedestrian accident or or heaven forbid a fatality would be a huge black mark on the development that no one wants to see anyone else want to speak from the audience yes sir Mr. Chair, members of the commission, my name is Mike Moiser. I represent the owner who's actually asking for this amendment. And I want to tell you a couple things. One is, there have been a lot of discussions about improving safety down there. The challenge of that area is, that was an industrial site. There were never sidewalks, there were never lights. It was very difficult just to get city services to the entire property. So the other challenge related to that is that that is a state road. We've already talked about getting one of those crosswalks that's activated when you walk up to it, but they're very reluctant to do that. So I think we're going to need some help from the city. We're already starting on that. The lights are needed too. The other thing I want to tell you is a lot of this pedestrian traffic that you were referring to, Mr. Penn, is related to the fact that there's a large music venue that's opened on the other side of Manchester Street. So what people do is they come down, they park, they walk over to a restaurant or a bar, then when it's time for the show, they cross Manchester and go to the borough. So that has generated more of the pedestrian difficulties. Now it is true on a Friday or Saturday night, there'll be people parked all the way up and down Manchester Street. But on most evenings, the crossing back and forth across Manchester is being driven by that. so we're working on that actively working on it talking about how we can get it done and get it done quickly yeah mr. Penn has a question mr. Morzer is there anything that the planning commission could do to help you I don't know I mean I think probably we need to get together with the staff and traffic and see who we talk to we've got this compact with the state about these roads it seems like we ought to be able to get this done okay thank you they could be city street lights city street lights i didn't hear you they could be city owned street lights or city leased street lights along manchester they would have to be approved by the state as well because there would be encroachments as well but the city could and does pay for street lights in different parts of town well something that the city can do all of us sitting here everybody in the city is above our pay grade so what's going to have to happen is is that traffic is going to have to decide this is an issue and take it to the council something has to happen any other questions yes mr. owens one this isn't something that's going to get decided today i don't think um there's there's a lot of a lot of ifs ands or buts um money is going to be one and who pays for it I think something needs to be done and I you know so my only comment would be you know let's bring the heads together and you know seriously start talking about it because it is a safety issue it it has been put off neglected delayed however you want to call it simply because the tip money didn't come through you know and now we're gonna have to find some sort of other funding and that's gonna be a difficult task I have a suggestion perhaps we could have a fairly simple item 16 to require a meeting of all the owners with the traffic department within some reasonable period of time time maybe that would be the way to get the ball rolling i'm afraid that's not less can we i don't think we do that i don't know if that would be a good idea because i'm not sure that it i think it's more larger than this particular plan you know hopefully the discussion can prompt that but i'm not sure you can add a condition to this plan to make that happen okay okay well you made your request thank you anyone else like to speak to this particular agenda item okay um where's mr martin oh I'm over 12 okay so was Christmas I just want what's the staff's recommendation on this staff had recommended approval to the subdivision committee and the committee recommended folks okay thank you all right ready to We done? Yep. That's cool. No, nobody said anything. So we're back here. You ready? Yeah, we're ready for motion. Okay, I'd like to make a motion for approval of MJDP 1792 with the changes of deletion of number 12, 14 and 15, remaining 12 items. Second motion. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Patrick Brewer, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens, that we approve PLNMJDP 17-92 Distillery District West, Unit 1, Adaptive Reuse Project, Middle Fork, Outdoor Kitchen, amended with the 12 conditions now identified by staff striking number 12 and 14 and 15. Is that right? Yes. Okay. No, not yet. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. I like the whole area, but I know what they're talking about. It's a mess. It's a mess down there. Okay. We're getting across there. It's a mess. Amen. that's okay um we have uh salmon colored paper for our last plan um this is hamburg place these b5p and b6p highway this is the large development plan that we're looking at we have lowe's and walmart with the parking lot here off of sir barton winchester i-75 right here in the center part of this parking lot just on the other side of the open space that from the madden's farm where they have some horse and there's a i believe it's the north that goes through here they're coming in to put in a car wash here's a blown up version of the car wash during the meeting we said that we couldn't see this very well so they brought us in an exhibit showing us the larger blow up and they did a lot of the cleanup conditions so now they're down to just completely sign offs and the we asked for addition of meets and bounds on the property we always like to show the boundaries of the property and so that's missing so we just need to have that added but otherwise they've done all the cleanup on this so is there any other questions i know mr penn had talked about this at committee any questions applicant Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Brent Combs. I'm with Thoroughbred Engineering and we're representing the applicant today. And so I'm really just here to answer any questions that you might have. Any questions? Thank you. Loved your presentation. And since there's no one else here, any other? Okay thank you. That's it. Well, unless staff has got anything to say, we're ready for a motion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I'm ready to make a motion. Good. Move approval of plan MJDP 17-93 with the revised conditions. I guess there's 10 conditions now. Okay. Mr. Mike Cravens has moved. and Mr. Patrick Brewer second that we approve PLN MJDP 17-93 Hamburg Place-B5P and B6P Area Highway Commercial time to shine car wash as amended with the 10 conditions noted by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing now, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion passes. Thank you. I think we got a couple of other small things to do. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Nice clean up for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to bring to your all's attention and put it on the record. We sent this news out earlier, but we are pleased to announce Tracy Wade as the new manager for planning services. Yay. And with that, we are also, we'll set about immediately filling the vacancy created by Tracy's promotion, as well as the vacancy created when Chris Bronsick left a few weeks ago. So we have two vacancies, and Tom and Tracy and Cheryl are holding the fort down beautifully, but we will get those positions filled so that we can continue to advise you all in an effective way. And then, Mr. Chair, I wanted to bring to your attention what's coming up next week of interest to you all. The council is continuing their discussion of the goals and objectives, and they're doing so in this room. Next week, they meet on Tuesday, the 17th, at 10 o'clock. They had been meeting at 11, but they bumped it up an hour. So at 10 o'clock in this room to continue discussion. And their format now is they are going down the list. And so they have gotten through theme A and theme B. They'll be starting on theme C on Tuesday and then discussing anything and making any potential changes. They've made one change so far, and that is to add more context to the issue of social services in neighborhoods. And that's something I believe you all would find effective as well. And we'll see how that turns into implementation, but so far they have added that to the neighborhoods portion. Tuesday afternoon to the council planning and public safety committee the the division of planning will be making several reports one of them will be on the alternative zone change process we may have shared that with you all months ago where statute gives the option for the Planning Commission to actually make the final decision on zone changes unless someone specifically asks the Planning Commission to report to the council that they want them to make a decision. Council is looking at that as an option to help particularly for uncontested zone changes that might get caught up in a council break or something like that and actually take longer to get approved. So we don't know where that's going we're just actually making a presentation to them about that on Tuesday but but that might be of interest to you all as well. And then we'll be presenting the conditional use report where we would we've run that by you all I believe already where the the Board of Adjustment conditional uses and even the ones that come to you would some of those would be transferred to principal uses. We're presenting that to the Planning Committee as well as the Public Input Report for the comprehensive plan. They asked for a specific report on that. And then if you haven't had enough of that and we still and if you need just to save yourself please do so for the 19th next Thursday the 19th. It's a Planning Commission work session for you all back on the third floor of the Phoenix. We have a robust agenda, including a presentation, an update on the bike and pedestrian master plan, a presentation of the draft rule land management plan. We'll have an update at the time on the goals and objectives again, and then we have a couple of ZOTAs, subdivision regulations, to bring to your attention related to street width and plat size. I think you'll find those interesting as well. So a big week for planning next week, but certainly on Thursday at 1.30, work session back in our building. Thank you. Well, thank you, Mr. Duncan, for that. And again, congratulations to Ms. Wade for your new position. We know that that comes not only with a lot of congratulations but with a pay increase. I just thought I'd throw that in there a little bit. Well, that's another issue. I also just want to make mention of the fact for the record that the commission goes on record as expressing condolences to the Paulson family as well as to the family of Stacy, his wife. I think many of you had an opportunity to go by and express, and I know he appreciated that. And I think he was kind of surprised in one way to see as many people come out. But I know that he's been under a lot of stress and strain lately, so our hearts and prayers go out to him. Anything else to come before the commission? If not, without objection, then we are adjourned. Thank you.