I saw the light, I've been baptized by the fire in your touch and the flame in your eyes. I'm born to love again, I'm a brand new man. I saw the light, I've been baptized by the fire in your church and the flame in your eyes. I'm born to love again, I'm a brand new man. I saw the light, I've been baptized by the fire in your church and the flame in your eyes. I'm born to love again, I'm a brand new man. Yeah, I'm born in love again. I'm a brand new man. There's a kind of hush all over the world tonight. All over the world you can hear the sound of lovers in love. You know what I mean, just the two of us. And nobody else in sight. There's nobody else. And I'm feeling good just holding you tight. So listen very carefully Closer now and you will see what I mean It isn't a dream The only sound that you will hear Is when I whisper in your ear I look Thank you. okay it's been moved by miss plumley second by mrs bundy that we approve the minutes of october the 26th 2017. any discussion on the motion hearing now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens question thank you that motion carries postponements and our withdrawals Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page 2, item 2, Anderson-Luridane LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Sullivan Park and Devereaux Subdivision Zoning Development Plan. We are requesting a postponement to your December meeting, which I think is two weeks from today. we've been meeting with the staff and we thank the staff for meeting with us a number of times there are still a couple dimensional and that sort of issues we need to work out with them so we thought another meeting would be helpful and i think the staff advised us they felt another meeting would be helpful so that's why we're asking for the postponement on that thank you anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item anyone on the commission if not then we're ready for a motion mr. chair yes sir i'll move postponement of plan 17-39 till december okay and i think it's december the 14th next date i have a second on that motion okay it's been moved by mr mike cravens and second by mr mike owens that we have postponed PLN MAR17-39 Anderson-Lauriden, LLC, to December the 14th. Any other discussions on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. We'll see you next month or almost this month. Two weeks. Two weeks. I'm standing in for Jacob Walburn. on behalf of Steve Clark and Lexington Airport Parking in relation to matters ZODA 2017-6. We are requesting a postponement to the next meeting, the December meeting, due to Mr. Walburn's as well as the client's availability. That's on page 3. I'm going to see public hearings on zoning ordinance text amendment. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Not with ready for motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, move postpone of Zota 2017-6 until December 17th. 17th? 14th. Okay, thank you. That's all right. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we postpone ZOTA 2017-6 amendment to allow off-site airport parking as a conditional use in the agricultural rural AR zone until December the 14th. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, any other? If not, then I guess we'll go back to page one, Will Stone, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, and Bella Vista Subdivision. We're ready to set up for that one. While we're setting up for that one, while you all are getting ready to set up for that one, we did have one of our commissioner members to retire from our committee here, David Drake, And we, as we normally do, have a resolution that we usually send to him. In fact, we usually normally read it. But because of other prior commitments, he could not make it with us today. But we do wish David well. We thank him very, very much for his service on this commission and for the time and energy that he has given us. We will deliver his resolution, or someone will deliver his resolution to him personally. And, of course, again, we wish David well. With that, we are ready to move toward the Willstone LLC zoning map amendment. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson. members of the commission our first item does appear at the bottom of page one of our agenda today and then there are also some information in your notebooks behind tab one in addition to the information in the notebook there is a updated staff report related to a variance request associated with this zone change and it should be a one page tan sheet at your seat it's a variance request at the top staff report this is pln mar 17-38 and the applicant is willstone llc they are requesting a rezoning for 101 dennis drive from a single family residential zone in this case the r1c zone to a neighborhood business b1 zone the property is approximately a quarter of an acre of land and dennis drive runs perpendicular to new nicholasville road in this vicinity inside of new circle but south of in this case pasadena drive so dennis drive does run parallel to pasadena connects to nicholasville road and then on the west it connects down to regency road the subject property is a currently a vacant gravel parking lot it has been used in that manner for at least 20 years according to our aerial photographs and mostly associated with adjoining businesses in this area, but it has remained in an R1C zone. From the zoning map, you can see that areas along Dennis Drive are primarily professional office in the immediate vicinity, and then properties along Nicholasville Road and mostly on Pasadena Drive are neighborhood business. There are a few still single-family residential lots, but there really is not any residential land use in this immediate area. This is just a photograph looking on Dennis Drive back towards Regency Road where you can see some of the professional office uses. The immediate use, adjacent use, is a child care center and there are several medical offices as well in this area. This is also Dennis Drive, but looking back towards Nicholasville Road, which is approximately, I want to say about 500 feet from this location. There are some improvements along this vicinity, although the subject property doesn't appear to have the same level of improvements as some of the other adjacent uses. You can see the parking lot in that photo. This is a straight-on view of the subject property. And then this is a view of the area where the applicant is asking for a variance along the western property line. So we can get back to that. The applicant, in asking for a B1 zone at this location, is hoping to develop a use that's compatible with the adjoining office and commercial uses on Nicholasville Road and Dennis Drive. In particular, their corollary development plan depicts a small retail establishment of less than 2,000 square feet and seven off-street parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that this rezoning is speculative in nature. and they haven't indicated to us that there's a particular user or definitive use for the property at this point. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan, as the Planning Commission knows, does not make a land use recommendation anymore, so the staff often refers to goals and objectives. In this particular case, as opposed to looking to goals and objectives to support the zone change, The more appropriate finding is not that it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan per se, but that the proposed zone is appropriate and the existing zone is not appropriate any longer at this location. The B1 zone is compatible with the P1 and B1 zoning that is adjacent. It's also compatible with the existing uses in the general vicinity. As I mentioned, there's not any residential use, even though there are a few lots still zoned residentially in this area that remain in addition the distance that our b1 zoning comes back from nicholasville road is consistent with the side property line of the subject property in this case the western property line in general you can see the other two residential lots on pasadena if they were rezoned b1 would also sort of fall within that general distance from nicholasville road where b1 extends which is approximately 225 feet to 275 feet it varies a bit so this rezoning would be consistent with the depth of business zoning along nicholasville road as well the staff made that recommendation for approval to the zoning committee four weeks ago and the zoning committee also recommended approval to the planning commission today and that is for the reason that b1 is appropriate at this location and the existing single-family residential is inappropriate and there were four reasons given by the staff first the proposed b1 zone is compatible with adjoining b1 and p1 zoning in in the area. Second, the existing residentially zoned land in this area is generally suitable for a future commercial land use and is awaiting development. And historically, land use decisions and previous comprehensive plans have recommended higher intensity uses for commercial and office in this area, not residential any longer. And then last, the depth of commercial that they're proposing is consistent with the rest of this vicinity. And this recommendation is made subject to the planning commission's approval and then certification of the associated development plan happy to answer any questions about the proposed rezoning any questions for miss wade thank you thank you uh the development plan miss galt's gonna okay Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Okay. It's on. Okay. There it is. sorry as tracy explained this property is located off of dentist drive nicholasville road is out here and these are where the other biz b1 zone is the p1 zone is off to the side with the development plan they're showing an access coming off of dentist drive which then in the rear it shows a connection to a piece of property off of nicholasville they show proposed a building on the property and we have a the orange line here is showing the building setback that is required between the b1 and the p1 zone at this time with this the property is bill of vista subdivision this is a preliminary plan and they have just a couple sign-offs and then we had some conditions for that need to be resolved the timing of the building line setback because in the property it had already been recorded and it has a building line setback but with changing the zone it will change the building line setback the building they have proposed right now is going over the recorded building lines so they'll we'll have to have an amended plat to revise that setback. We also, as I spoke, the 12, the orange dash line is the required side yard between the two zones. So we want to have that resolved by moving the building and we want to delete note number 10. and also to resolve the access to adjacent property on Nicholasfield Road at time of final development plan, meaning that back access point onto the adjacent property. So with that, if there's any other questions. Any questions for Ms. Galt? Thank you. Variants. as miss galt mentioned the applicant has also requested a variance for a portion of their property they've requested to reduce the side yard setback along the western property line from a required 12 feet to a minimum of five feet in this location and the overhead shows the development plan not to scale but the where the 12 foot side yard would fall and then where the applicant wants the proposed side yard to be reduced in the same general location the B1 zone does not per se have a side yard setback but article 15-3 of the zoning ordinance requires that when a more restrictive zone is adjacent in this case the P1 zone is more restrictive than the B1 along that property line that you must match the side or rear yard setbacks of the more restrictive zone so that is what has put this 12 foot side yard requirement onto the B1 lot the applicant is asking for relief from that particular requirement of the zoning ordinance. The subject property is approximately 75 feet in width and does narrow slightly to the back. There is a 10-foot utility easement that runs along the eastern side of the property, and that has been shown in their development plan to be used for a landscape area as well as the drive aisle, and then they've pushed their buildable area to the other side of the lot. There's also a utility easement along the rear of the property, but again, that doesn't affect the buildable area shown on the development plan. The applicant believes that this requested variance would not have an adverse effect on the public health, safety, or welfare of the community, nor alter the existing character of the vicinity, because they're just basically asking that the building be allowed to be larger than what the setback would determine. They could reduce the size of their building and meet the setbacks, but they are asking that they be allowed to show, depict, and build if approved a larger building. However, in the view of the staff, a compliance structure that meets the setbacks would also not alter the existing character of the vicinity nor adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and actually be similar to other setbacks in the general vicinity. The staff at this point cannot identify any special circumstances of the subject property. There's no unique situation for this particular lot that would allow for a finding from the planning commissioner or the board that there is a special circumstance to allow for a dimensional variance. And in this case, the strict application of a 12-foot side yard of the zoning ordinance still allows for a new commercial development on the property especially if there's some sort of averaging provided for on that side yard and since there's no firm user firm commercial development proposed on this property the staff believes there wouldn't be a hardship to anyone because it's really an unknown at this time who the user would be what size building they might need At this point, the staff feels it's premature to ask for a variance because a variance may not be necessary. It may be that you only need a two-foot variance and not a seven-foot variance. So at this point, because of the zoning preliminary development plan and no known architectural details, our particular user has been put forward that requires this particular size building in this particular location. the staff believes that the Board of Adjustments should consider a variance for this property in the future if it is ever needed. So at this point, the staff recommends postponement. We've given four findings for that. We would ask that the applicant withdraw their request, or these four findings could be utilized for disapproval if necessary. Ms. Dawins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tracy, currently the drive or access to this lot, is it where the proposed access is? No, it's I think in the middle. Okay. So they would be moving it? Yes. Closer to the building. One other question. As far as the setback on the right-hand side of the lot, is there a similar setback? No. No. The B1 zone doesn't have a required side yard setback or a rear yard setback. So the adjacent B1 zone, the adjacent B1 building can be right up on the line, which I believe it is. Okay. And there's no required setback on that side. Okay, thank you. I think the applicant would tell you there's a utility easement there, though, so that's why they can't be closer on that side. Any other questions for Ms. Wayne? Just for clarification, the staff is recommending postponement. They feel that the variance request should go to the Board of Adjustments first? There's always the ability for an applicant to ask the commission to consider variances and conditional uses with their zone change request. That's part of our zoning ordinance. In this case, because there's no particular user and it's really more of a building envelope that they're showing on the development plan and the potential for a user to come here, The staff, generally, our staff doesn't want to approve variances that aren't necessary for development. So a lot of times we see preliminary development plans that are very far along. They're not conceptual. And in those cases, it's clear that a variance is a great idea for the Planning Commission to consider that saves everyone time. In this case, the staff really couldn't get to the point where we thought that was the case in this situation. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, thank you. Applicant? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing a company today called Willstone LLC, which is the owner of this property. And Mr. Owens, while this slide is up, I thought I'd say you asked where the entrance is right now. It is technically in the middle, but it's sort of like entirely open right now. The frontage is basically entirely open for this property. but I am representing Willstone LLC and Willstone is a company owned by Doug Gibson who's with me here today in the second row and his wife they're the two owners of this property as you probably know Doug Gibson is the namesake and part owner of the Gibson Company which is one of our commercial real estate brokerage firms here in Lexington Doug is very experienced in dealing with commercial real estate and knows what it takes to make this a good piece of property for the community we are requesting this zone change from the r1c zone to the b1 zone strangely enough this piece of property is zoned residential single-family detached residential it was part it was platted with the other lots on dennis drive back almost 60 years ago in 1958 as residential lots and as you all know since that time everything on dennis drive at least this block of it has changed over to commercially used much of it is p1 some of its b1 up at this end so this is the last remaining residentially zoned lot on dentist drive on this block of dentist drive and we're surrounded by commercially zoned property looking at our development plan here to the to the north and the south we have parking lots for restaurants on the north this is the parking lot for the kentucky fried chicken at the corner of pasadena and nicholasville road it's actually zoned r1c but it's paved and developed as a parking lot because it's non-conforming use on the south we have the parking lot for panda express another and the drive some of the drive through lanes over here on the other side on the east side we have the stone square shopping center which is a shopping center that has paisano's restaurant and taste of thai there's a chiropractor martin's cigar cigar shop is in this building as well and that's a fully developed property this property up here is vacant right now used to be a printing shop and that that is also owned by willstone same company property over here is zone p1 it is a daycare center and i think the owner of that property is here he doesn't operate the daycare center but he owns the property today is is here with us today that's sewn p1 and it's a daycare center and as i said we have commercial all the way around us on the other side as miss wade mentioned the uh the zoning on this property would bring it back to the same depth of retail as other commercial b1 or b3 uses are along nicholasville road and it's extremely unlikely that this property would ever be developed for a single single family detached residential use so i we feel probably this agrees with the comprehensive plan too about infill objectives and especially the objectives that you all just passed and the council just passed last week the new goals and objectives that call for denser development along corridors especially nicholas nicholasville road and redeveloping or developing like this one be with vacant parcels along corridors to a higher density because we want that density along the corridors and the discussion of bus wrap or transit and that sort of thing so we feel it agrees with the kind of plan but we did not make that the bedrock of our request to you we use the fact that the present zoning is inappropriate for the property and the proposed B1 zoning is appropriate given the surrounding uses of the property. Need to discuss the variance with you a little bit because we do feel like it's needed on this property. In this case, I think Mr. Gibson is to be commended because he is planning ahead for future users. Much of what you see is reactive because somebody comes in and they have a particular user and they're trying to fit the particular user on the property and they know what they need. A user has a prototype building, it's this size, it has to fit, we need these variances and this sort of thing. Doug is working in advance to try to determine what the parameters users are so that he can tell potential users before they sign a contract, say, okay, here's what you have. You have B1 on this property. You don't have B3. You can't have car lots and that kind of stuff. You can have neighborhood type businesses. And we also need to know what our developable area on this property is because we have a big problem here, which I'll discuss in a minute. But we need to know, we need to be able to say, okay, normally We have no side yards in the B1 zone, but because we're next to P1, the ordinance requires 12, but we do have a variance that can take it down to 5. Can't take it down to 0, but we can take it down to 5. So we can tell a potential user exactly what we want here. But as I said, this was platted as a residential lot back in 1958, as were the other lots going down Dennis Drive, and all that has changed. But the big problem we have, one of the big problems, we've tried to solve two of them, or two or three, is this utility easement. It's a 10-foot easement down the side, but it has a much greater impact than that. And the driveway situation right here. I'm going to go over to the development plan because I can point it out. Or let me show you the pictures here first if we could. I've got a couple pictures. We want to show you that utility line. This utility pole is the pole which sits back here on this property. Now, going up and down this side are these lines right here are the ones that go up this side of the property right there. You can see this is a pretty big arrangement of lines here. The utility easement also crosses back on the back there, you can see, but there's three poles here of varying heights, and they have a bunch of equipment. That crossbar up there, I asked Matt what kind of electric this is, and he went out and took a look at it and said it's three phase, and I want you to note that crossbar here. I'll be mentioning that in a minute. But if you can go on to the next slide, this is the view. If you can rotate it there. This is the view looking up this way. I'm standing about here looking back up toward Dennis Drive to show you what we have in the side yard. These two poles, this is the back of the shopping center. That's Martin's Cigar Store right there. These two poles are in our property. They're about five feet off our property line in that 10-foot easement. This pole is about centered on that 10-foot wide utility easement right here. and you can see going back, this is a big line, this pole right here, I think if you can see the next line, that's across the street, but that gives you an idea of what we have. If we can go on to the next slide there. That's a close-up of that pole I told you. There are four transformers on this pole, and you can see they have two crossbars up there, again, for the three phase, And this is the line coming back to our property here that goes along the side of that property. Now, we're trying to solve two or three issues here. Going up to the development plan, part of it, the first part of it is where our driveway comes out onto Dennis Drive right here. This is the side yard. And this is a daycare center. We feel it's important to avoid a situation where the driveway is coming out next to the daycare center driveway. And that's because we're going to have trucks unloading dumpsters here and trucks making deliveries not only to us but probably to these businesses back here. And we want to separate the commercial traffic from the daycare traffic right here. And the best way to do that is to have our building up against it and have the driveway over on this end of the property. Because we have to, the ordinance now requires us to build the building up close to the street, we need to have a driveway going back. This is a two-way driveway here. Standard width is 24 feet under Division Traffic Engineering standards. So we have a 24-foot driveway here on this property. Now, I want to get into this easement. The power lines go right up and down here. This edge of the green is about halfway through the 10-foot utility easement, and our poles are about 5 feet in. But the issue with this is that this is a three-phase line, and although it's on a 10-foot wide easement on our property, there's a much bigger impact than 10 feet. We were in the technical review committee yesterday, and another plan came up, and the KU representative voiced exactly what I'm going to be telling you here right now. When there's a three-phase line, OSHA rules require us to be all scaffolding. When you build a building, all scaffolding has to be 15 feet away from where the line hits on the property, 15 feet away. Normal distance of scaffolding is, the width of scaffolding is about 5 feet, which means the building itself is going to have to end up being about 20 feet away from the edge of the lines here. So what we have here is we have 5 feet going from our property line to where the pole is itself. Now those crossbars, which you see up here, are about a little over 7 feet wide total, about 3 feet 8 inches to the edge of the crossbar. So going from our edge of property to the pole, 5 feet crossbar is 3 feet 8 inches. I'm going to say 4 because it's easier for me to add in my head 9 feet over here. Then we have to be 20 feet away from that number, which puts us up to 29 feet away from our property line in this direction, 29 feet off this property. We have to be, if we observe the 12-foot setback here, an additional 12 feet adding to the 29 uses up 41 feet of frontage along here. Now, our frontage is 75 feet. So using the 12-foot setback and what we're required to do for the three-phase line uses up 41 feet of that, or it's over half. It's about, I calculated the percentage here someplace, but I don't have it. It's well over half of our frontage, coupled with the fact that as we go back, we get narrower. It's only 60 feet wide in the back. It's 75 feet wide in the back. in the front. So if we're using 41 feet, well over two-thirds of the frontage of the width in the back gets used up with the combination of the three-phase line that we have to observe over here and the setback on this property. Now I asked Matt to do a little study of well, what could we build here? And I'll put this up on the screen. and if we observe that we don't have a lot of room to play with on this one. You can see if we use this as one way of doing it, we have a 15-foot wide building here. It's long and narrow, and I think the result of that is we have a 742 square foot commercial building long and narrow. Now, we might be able to get a little wider. If we reconfigure, we might be able to go to 19 feet rather than 15 feet on this, but that's the type of problem we have. I'm not saying that's the only option, but that's an example of how we could have it. Now, the other thing I forgot to mention is we do, our plan does show a five-foot sidewalk along our building over here, and we have to fit that in in addition to the 41 feet that's already ruled out with the side yard setbacks and the three-phase. So it really, really cuts into the ability of a building to be placed on this property. And we didn't have all this information when we filed, and I don't know that the staff has felt that it's a 10-foot easement, but we wanted to let you know that the impact of that 10 feet is actually an impact of 29 feet due to the OSHA regulations that we have to observe with the three-phase line. So that's the reason why we'd like to be able to tell a potential buyer that, yeah, we have a variance. We're not trying to vary it down to zero, but we are trying to vary it down to five. and I think we don't want to put a driveway over here. As you know, you can put driveways in a side yard setback. You cannot put a building in that 12 feet along here, but you can put a driveway. If we have to move the building over here, a user could put a driveway down on that side, which, again, we do not feel is a good idea to do with a daycare center right next to us. I think we want to separate that traffic. I want to make sure I've hit all my points here. I try to write out what I'm going to try to tell you, and then I go off without it, and I want to make sure I've got it to you. We also are dealing with a fixed access point right here to this property, which is at 2413 Nicholasville Road, which is a commercial lot. It's right next to the Stone Square Shopping Center. And as I said, that used to be a printing shop. And in the subdivision and technical review process, I think everybody agreed they want that access point to stay because it's good for this property to have an alternate access out so that the traffic doesn't have to enter directly onto Nicholasville Road off of that property. As you all know, this building is sort of close to Nicholasville Road as well. or the widening of Nicholasville Road got the building closer to Nicholasville Road than it was originally constructed. And that's a commercial building that does put commercial traffic on this property as well. So again, we're trying to plan for this property so that a potential user can know what they're buying when they come to look at this property. So as I said, we want to tell them, And yes, it's B1 appropriately with the surrounding property that's around us here. That limits the uses. You can't do a lot of the Nicholasville Road uses, which are B3 uses, but you can have neighborhood businesses on this property. And yes, we do have a variance of that side yard line, not to take it down to zero, but put it to five. And I'd like to have the driveway over on this side of the property. That way we can utilize that space that would otherwise be unusable due to the three-phase OSHA code requirements on the property. So anyway, that's where we are. And we do agree with the staff on the recommendations for approval of the zone change. Obviously, we disagree on the recommendation on the variance. They've said we could go through the Board of Adjustment and get a variance. That's true, but we feel that for a potential buyer to come in, we'd like to be able to tell them we have the variance. We'd like to establish what it is, five feet, not zero feet, not 12 feet, but five feet on the property is what they have to work with on this property. And having to go get another one just means we've got to go back through the Board of Adjustment and another two to three-month process to get that as well. So that's where we're at. And as I said, I think Mr. Gibson and Mr. and Mrs. Gibson should be congratulated for trying to plan this in advance and tell the potential buyers what they have before they come in and buy it. So I'll sum up or finish up, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have on it. Oh, I did have one more thing. Excuse me. I wanted to tell you that we had, if you could put up the last color slide there, We did measure the distances between buildings going up and down Dennis Drive. And even you can see from this exhibit, here is our property right here. We have our building outlined where we're putting it, which is five feet from the property line. You can see down here, even with that, we have a 21-foot separation between the building next to us and our building. The rest of these buildings down here, there's only one place where it meets the 12 feet on either side, which is a 24-foot separation. There's only one place it does, which is right there. All the rest of these do not meet the required P1 side yard requirements. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. That's the way the houses were built. on here they don't meet that but my point is that our separation is about 21 feet which is about in the median of what the separation is on that street so the point is that by granting this variance we will not be creating something that's out of character with the setbacks along the rest of the street along dentist drive so thank you for letting me get that in and i'll i'll miss craven finish up again yeah mr murphy um with with moving that 12 12 feet along there doesn't it mess up the parking the drive aisles and all that back there yeah if we moved it over we'd have trouble with these 24 foot wide i'm talking about where you back out of where you're parked i mean if you're if you're eight and a half feet wide or nine feet wide then you're going to have a certain width of turnaround code too you probably know what that is is that would that destroy that or mr pen Mr. Murphy, right now, what size footprint are you suggesting you put on that 7500 lot? Well, our development plan, I'll go up here just so I read it off to make sure I get it right, is we are showing a building of 1950 square feet, which is smaller than a lot of houses are, 1950 square feet. The reason I ask that question is you want us to grant a variance before we know what the use is. Is it appropriate to say that the building would not be bigger than that on the final development plan? Well, whatever we do, we'd have to bring it in on a final development plan for you to vote on. And legally, yes, it is possible to make the building bigger on a final development plan. and you can always change, but it's subject to your all's review on that. Well, my only concern about this is the fact that with this sketchy development plan for a zone change, we're not too far away from granting a zone change based on not much development plan. In other words, we're taking a leap of faith here on this development plan, and it's all because of the variance. I'm not saying it's good or bad. I'm just saying that normally we have more of a development plan than that before we grant a zone change. So I'm just in my own mind asking that question. I don't have any real extra grind here one way or the other. It's just the fact that it's fairly unusual to have a variance with that sketchy development plan. Well, I wouldn't say the development plan is sketchy. The development plan is very precise because we know where we're putting everything. the thing we don't know is who the final user will be on this. And I agree with you. I understand that point. But we're trying to get a good user on the property. And if we have a development plan to show them that way we have a 750 square foot building on the property, a lot of people are going to take a pass and walk before they get to the point of even going through the exercise of submitting a final development plan to you all. I understand that, but when you responded back to my question that we could go back here with a bigger bill, and it's very fluid at this time, you're asking for a variance on a size of building that we don't really know what it is. Well, you're not granting a variance on the size of the building. You're variance on the location of the building. On the lot setback, which has some impact on the size of the building. I was trying to, I mean, just under the ordinance, when you come in with a final development plan, And yes, it is possible to have a bigger building. It's possible to have a smaller building. It is possible to change the layout of the property, as often happens with you all. But we're trying to make this as attractive a lot so we get the best type of user on it. It's just the variance that follows me at this time because of the fluid of the building. Mr. Berkeley? I don't know if you're the best one to answer this or not but I wanted you to have an opportunity to respond if so one of the their recommendation staffs is talking about this averaging provision if article 15 is employed and I understand that I don't know what that number is and and employed meaning that we've not employed it at this point we're not using that you're asking for but if if we did use it what would the situation be it seems like to me we may be asking for less of a variance really than them going from 12 to 5 feet well averaging let's say if we left the line at 12 feet averaging would let us if we if we brought the building farther back say we brought the building back 15 feet from the property line up here we could move it say to 10 feet back here i don't think it would let us have a bigger building it would because and we because the every time you push into the property line to average you have to pull yourself away from the property line someplace else to make that up. So this isn't just an averaging of the two side yards? No. It requires, I see what you're saying now. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you for the time being. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to speak? Yes sir. Hello, my name's Tim Chin. I'm the property next door to what's being proposed to be built on. I'm not here to say Mr. Gibson can't build anything in that property. I think that property needs to be developed. It's been a parking lot for several years. The property I have does have a daycare center right now. It's for low income families. They've got about 20 kids over there. And any time you have that property being rented for that use, you're always concerned about security liability issues and everything like that. So I see that the zoning's already been looked at for a B1. I was hoping it would be looked at maybe for a P1, which is what Dentist Drive, most of all Dentist Drive properties are up through that street. I don't know if you've ever been to that street or not, but when you pull in there, you can see the signage, you can see the buildings. most people who come there are either by or lease tend to stay there quite a while because it is a great location for p1 so that was my main reason hoping that p1 may be looked at the other area i'm concerned about is this is variance if you can see it from my eyes you know the building's going to be pushed over toward my building more now. The separation of 12 feet in my eyes is excellent. I mean, if somebody says, what would you go to? I'd say, well, no more than 10 feet, but I think the 12 feet suits the property and separation. The other part of that is where the building's going to be set at. I guess you've seen some drawings here. there are building lines that are being shown on some plats for a 10 foot and a 20 foot and a 40 foot obviously the 40 foot lines are where all the current buildings are being set at right now they're on that 40 foot line everybody's in a straight line up through there it's a good line of sight everybody has their signage you can see each building this building sticking out to a 10 foot line you can tell that's going to do to my property 103 I'm now the building behind the building you won't be able to see it and I only know if you're gonna be able to see the signage once it's put up to I know that with B one there are certain lines of property lines that you're required to have either be a 10 foot or 20 foot from my understanding is a min max that some there is some movement that you can put that building on, I would hope to request that it be pushed back to that 20-foot line if possible. At least give me a little more breathing room that you can see the building that's there that I own and let the daycare be seen. My concern with the building being so far up also is the daycare people there from 6 in the morning to 6 at night. In the wintertime, that's dark to dark. So I'm going to have to be concerned about some issues about lighting down that between the two buildings if the building was set back further I may not have to worry about that but again the variance is concerned for me and where the building's sitting is a concern for me and I recommend Mr. Gibson for putting something on that lot I just have a little disagreement on how it's working out right now okay that's fair now thank you thank you just a minute sir sir we have one of our commissioner has a question i have a question for you um on the on the side where we're looking at the variance is that as i'm seeing it that's a drive aisle on your property right between the variance area and the building yes okay so so you do have a drive aisle there yes ma'am it gives you some space yeah if you go out there i had it surveyed a couple years ago and the property line is really just about six inches further out from the driveway so i don't know that tells you or not but that's why i'm concerned if something comes in on me more then i'm boxed in there and you know i'm getting on the building behind the building so okay thank you thank you let me ask mr burkley i'm gonna ask her i'm sorry i'm going real quick sorry he's got another question um it he he showed also that if they did have to move the building over that would potentially put the driveway on your side meaning for their property yes sir and i think he made a good point when he's talking about the use on your property of being a daycare and then having traffic coming out on that adjoining lot. Would you agree with that? That's probably a better situation to have the drive on the right. Well, again, it goes back to what Mr. Murphy is saying, what kind of building is going in there. I mean, is it going to be a dry cleaner where you're having people in and out all the time, or is it going to be something like, you know, with B1, it could be a restaurant, It could be a retail center. I mean, there's a lot of things that B1 allows you to do that P1 doesn't allow you to do. Is there going to be that much traffic in there? I would hope not. I wouldn't want a dry cleaner in there where we have all day long people coming in and out. But I can't see that traffic being that big of a problem. It's just my point of view. I do have a concern with safety and the children there. but with the separation and the two driveways, I think the separation would ease that concern that you have. If we were right up against each other within three or four feet, I would have real concern. Well, he can use that area to put a driveway. It's a setback, but he can still put a driveway in that area. He just can't put the building in that area. Correct. So potentially you would have a driveway beside yours, and that to me seems to be, you know, if I was running a daycare, I wouldn't want another driveway right beside me. That's just my thought, but I just wanted to see what you thought about that. Well, if the variance is short, let me ask you, if the variance is shortened, does that bring that driveway over closer to my driveway, whereas if it stayed at 12 feet, would the driveway have to be further over? Well, the way I understand this, what they're proposing is to shift the building over. So it moves the driveway to the right versus potentially being on the left. Oh, being on the right-hand side. Right, right. Right. And to me, that looks like a better situation. But that's why I wanted to ask you. I like what's being done. It just needs to be shifted some way to where we can both work together on it. Anything else? Thank you. Thanks for having me. Just a minute. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Okay. If not, then we'll go to what we classify as our rebuttal section, and then the petitioner has an opportunity to answer questions. I do have some potential findings for approval that I'd like to pass out. I guess we need to clarify that the variance, the side yard setback of 12 feet only applies to buildings. It does not apply to a driveway. And I asked Matt as Mr. Chin was up here, how close, if we get a variance or not, how close could our driveway be to the driveway for the daycare? Matt said as close as three feet. Okay? It doesn't matter whether you have a variance or not. Our driveway can be as close as three feet to the daycare driveway. Now that's what we're trying to avoid by putting our building there so we're creating the barrier between our driveway and their driveway, not to put that building out in the center where somebody could have a looped driveway. We need one way in and one way out. loop driveway is not a good way to do it here but we have both both in and out over on the east side toward the shopping center not toward the daycare center but I want to make it clear that all we're talking about is the variance for the where the building goes because the driveway can go over there anyway regardless of what you do today on this but our plan shows it over here this lets us utilize that area along the three phase to put our two-way driveway in here plus it separates our driveway from the daycare center mr. pan you had asked me how much bigger the building could get when I sat down afterwards Matt told me that if we wanted to make the building bigger we'd only be able to add about 200 square feet to it and the reason is parking because if we go any bigger than that we don't have enough parking on the site so if we if somebody came and said I want the biggest building you could possibly build on this thing we can only add about 200 square feet to it because of the parking constraints that we have on this property what about the you did the yes if we had a restaurant in here we'd have to use oh I mean that's still debating a hypothetical well we'd have to have more parking so our building would have to be smaller if we were going to have a restaurant on here so I think that the biggest thing we could possibly do would be to if somebody wanted to try to squeeze out 200 square feet more for a retail establishment a restaurant would have to be smaller because of the higher parking requirement for a restaurant on this property. Mr. Chin had mentioned the setback and of course we're going by the amendment to the P1 or the excuse me the B1 ordinance which was passed about four years ago which requires us to build close to the street on that and I think again it works best here to have our parking in the back of the property so again I guess we're we're trying to deal with make this the best arrangement and I think it's best for this property for us to be able to use the area underneath the three-phase power lines as our two-way driveway in and out have our building over closer to the daycare and if we put the building up to five feet that prevents there ever being parking or a driveway over on the side with the daycare where the daycare is on that so again we're trying to get the best possible user on this site and we need to have a reasonably sized building to do that this is under 2,000 square feet what we're showing it's not a big building and that's right it's not going to have a big traffic impact we're not going to be attracting the type of use that needs nicholasville road frontage because you can't see us from nicholasville road it's going to be some probably some kind of specialty type retail that people know where it is and know where to get it and are and can can get here off of nicholasville road it's not going to be the type of use that you're going to see driving on nicholasville road and suddenly decide that I want to go there that's just not going to happen because we don't have the visibility this will be a low intensity be one type use on the property and again we feel we have the best plan and it's a plan we want to be able to show potential users thank you thank you does anyone else that would you like to any citizen like to make a rebuttal statement or final statement of any kind related to this particular issue i think it all hangs on the variance as such okay not if that's not the case and the staff has the rebuttal opportunity i believe the development plan notes or conditions are really geared towards the the Planning Commission not approving the variance but if you choose to approve the variance there is one condition on the development plan that would need to be amended I think it's condition number 10 all right sorry numbers condition number six which referred to note number 10 on their development plan their development plan note says something along the lines of A variance to reduce the 12-foot side yard to 5 feet is required for the building location to remain as shown, which is not typically a note we would add to a development plan. They would either ask for the variance or meet the ordinance. Those were their two options. So they're asking for the variance, whereas the staff would like them to meet the current ordinance and request a variance when they do have a particular user. If the commission approves the variance, we would need to change note 10 to say the planning commission approved a variance for this on this date. That would change that one condition of approval. Where is that? Did I confuse you? Number six. what it would have to say denote approval of variance is what the condition would change to again I don't think there's any the staff's real concern is just that it's premature and that it may not be necessary okay I think we got that any other questions Yes, questions from the commission, from anybody, either the applicant or the whatever. Go ahead, Mr. Oliver. A couple of questions before we move on. Tracy, with all the discussion as far as the side yard setback and so forth, what sort of buffering would be required for whatever setback we have? There's not a zone-to-zone screening requirement between professional office and neighborhood business. No fencing? No. They have similar land use categories, so they don't require a particular buffer. Okay. And then also, much has been said as far as 1,900, 2,000-square-foot building, obviously one story. What's the possibility of it being a two-story? The ordinance would allow a two-story building, but I think, again, parking might restrict. I understand that. But you could absolutely. But depending on the use. okay all right thank you mr. Berkeley I did not bring today that I know we're looking at the B6P text and I know this is the one but what what has been proposed and what we've been talking about through our comp plan process is flexibility and revising some of these zones to allow other things. Am I correct? I think I am. In what's recently been proposed in the B6P, we are relaxing those setbacks in that zone? That's what's proposed, yes. So why would it not apply here? Well, the B6P zone is, again, different than P1 or B1. They're different categories of uses. I think relaxation and flexibility may be something that you all have talked about, but that doesn't immediately transfer to the ordinance, and it also doesn't, you can't ignore the state law and what the requirements are for a variance. So relaxing setbacks is certainly something that's on the table for discussion as we move forward. For all users, though, a variance is meant to address a special circumstance or unique condition. Otherwise, we would have everybody just asking for two feet everywhere for the maximum flexibility on every piece of property. I agree with what you're saying. I guess the point I want to make is that we are looking at doing this adjusting setbacks on a far s yes right to allow for intensity on a zoning wide basis so okay thanks any other question yes miss Monday in that same vein of thought we are also looking at reducing or lightening our parking requirements as well is that not correct in in some cases yes I don't think it will be a wholesale reduction but I think it's hard in my opinion it's harder on smart on small lots because there's no avenue for shared parking in a shopping center everybody can share the same parking so it's easier to reduce those numbers because there's flexibility between hours somebody might be at Macy's in different hours and they're at the food court and that kind of thing whereas a small lot each lot does still have to meet the ordinance if we change the ordinance and reduce for retail that works for some retailers and not for others so we just have to kind of maintain a balance okay thank you okay mr. Cravens now Tracy if if the P1 property to the left of that came in one to change theirs to be one then they would have no side yard setback right that's true because it's equal to the zone beside it but then we've somebody if according to the if you don't get the variance he has to sit his over 12 feet then the guy on the left could come in and be one he sat right on his property line I mean I got in this trap too in the development I did and I think if we're gonna redo anything in the future we need to do what is 15-3 this more restrictive zone because whoever gets there first right I see what you're saying and and perhaps that that section of the ordinance needs it needs to be looked at because I got I got into it on our one T and a P one and then I had to use well I forget which one it was but it was detrimental to building what I trying to do and i don't think it's fair that it's whoever gets here first has to go by the other zones requirements okay anyone else mrs plumley thank you this is b1 so drive-throughs are allowed they are so it does have a potential for that only with the planning commission's approval on a development plan otherwise it's a conditional use so any drive-through would have approval of either this body or the board of adjustment thank you anyone else any other questions which question are you answering you all want to hear that okay come on mr murk i'm feeling benevolent mr gibson does plan on doing landscaping around here. We have room to do it. Okay. Anything else? If not, then we will close this part of the hearing for the public and we'll bring it back to the commission for a discussion as such. Now, let me clarify a couple things just for making sure that we are all on the same page. If we, I think the other, well, if we get to the requested variance and the issue is to abide by the staff's recommendation of postponement, then the conditions that have been provided in the development plan would stand. Is that correct? Okay. But if you want to find in favor of the variance, then you would have to make a special notation on number six in the development plan. Got that? I just want to make sure everybody understands what the variances are. Okay. Any other discussion? Yeah. Okay. Yes, Mr. Penn. I'm not going to vote against this, but I strongly urge the applicant to consider what they're doing here because I think this variance in that long run may very well cost you more than it's going to gain you because of number six, number ten. So, if you want to continue to go this way, I'll support you on that. But I really think with the kind of development plan we've got now, the variance is premature. You can get the variance at the time of the development plan when you know exactly what you want to do. Right now, you're tying yourself to the location of the building when we grant the variance. And I just want us all to be clear on what's happening here. Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Coming into this, looking at this, originally I did not have much in the way of heartache here. As far as the zone change, I have no heartache. As far as the development plan, I really don't except for the variance. I just simply think at this point in time, not knowing what is going there, we simply put we should have a better idea as to what is going there there's no requirements right now as to buffering the applicants mentioned he would put landscaping in if there's a daycare center right next door I think I think some sort of fencing would be more important than landscaping and and yeah at this point we're talking about one-story building but it's been said that could go to a two-story building i simply think for variance request we need more information and that's why i will be voting okay any other comments i have a question for the legal has that you all had a chance to review these findings just yes we have um we're okay with most of them but number four is we're not particularly okay with if you choose to go the right of approving the variance, only because I don't think that strictly applying our zoning ordinance, even if you chose to not approve the variance would deprive them of a reasonable use of the land. So, but the rest of them are okay. So it's number four. So it's number four. Yes. Okay, well I have no idea at this particular time as to where we're going to go on this as relates to the variance. variant so we'll kind of reserve this until we see what's what. If you all are prepared, then we can take these in the order which they were presented. First of all, do we wish to make a motion of any kind related to the zoning? Mr. Cravens? Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of plan MAR17-38 to rezone it for the reasons by staff. Do I have a second on that? Mr. Forrest, a second. Mr. Mike Cravens moves. Mr. Forrest, a second that we approve PON MAR17-38 Willstone LLC for the reasons identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay. Motion carries. Next would be the development plan. Yeah, I'm going to move approval of plan 17-104, the development plan. And I guess I missed what she said about number four and six. Sorry to interrupt. usually we take the variants first okay maybe the development plan conditions can be adjusted based on your decision okay that's that's a good thought going by the chair's directive okay well let's go you're right i normally this is the order in which we take things but this is not necessarily normal times anyhow so we'll take the requested variance uh the staff has recommended uh postponement of it uh i would entertain a motion okay i can make that i'm going to move approval of the variance I don't know if she had a chance to look at his. Yes. Okay. I will use the reasons provided by Nick Murphy as removing number four. Okay. Mr. Mike Cravens made the motion. Is there a second on it? Mr. Berkley seconds the motion that we approve the requested variance as requested with the findings as provided by Mr. Murphy with the exemption of number four. Any other questions on the motion itself? Okay, then please vote when it comes up on your screen. it's six to four in favor okay um i think on this mr chair on this development plan number six is what there's a note on the development plan that you want removed is that right She's putting it. Yeah, I wrote a condition number six currently states resolve access, sorry, relocate proposed building to meet the required side yard setback per article 15-3 and delete note 10. you can exchange that condition for the one I just wrote towards the bottom here which is denote approval of variance by the Planning Commission they don't that way they don't move their building they would replace the note number 10 with the Planning Commission approve the variance on the standard okay you got that mystical are you asking mr. Murphy if he's okay with that yeah okay all right here it goes all right now mr cravens do you have your motion in order for that it's yeah appeal in MJDP seven change number six to the staff what they said okay okay well then I was our restate your motion to make it official then it has been approved by mr. move by mr. Cravens Who's the seconder on this? Okay, Ms. Richardson. Okay. Ms. Richardson seconds that we approve PLN MJDP 17-104, Bella Vista, Subdivision, Lot 6, with the five, six conditions provided by staff changing number six to denote the approval of variance by the Planning Commission. Okay. That's what happens when we're off two weeks. We get all mixed up on this. No. We don't get mixed up, Mr. Claven, you get mixed up. Okay, would you please? Yes, we've got seven. We've got seven conditions. But changing number six to denote the approval of variance by the Planning Commission. Okay? All right. Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Thank you. All right, the motion is approved. Okay, thank you all. Merry Christmas. okay okay okay we're on page four now the we have a zota Thank you Mr. Wilson. Our next item. All right, come on gentlemen. Let's go, come on. Tom, can you all take it to the hallway? Okay. All right, ladies and gentlemen, take your celebration out into the lobby. As you mentioned, our next item is on page four, and it should be behind tab four in your notebooks as well today. This is a request by PWM Real Estate Holdings LLC to modify the text of the P1 zone. Is it behind tab four? What happened to PLN in JDP 17-106? So, so important. That was part of Mr. Murphy's postponement. Okay. For Anderson-Luridane. Yeah, it's associated with that. Oh, okay. Thank you. You're welcome. So this is ZODA 2017-7. Right. an amendment to allow hotels as a principal permitted use when located in a professional office project which those are allowed in our p1 zone and again this is a request by pw pwm real estate holdings llc the purpose of the zota i think i just mentioned generally professional office projects have to be approved by the planning commission they also must have 10 acres of contiguous p1 zoning and our average professional office project is about 40 acres in size they are as i mentioned designated as part of a final development plan and they get a reduction in parking so instead of providing one to 200 for parking they provide one to every 400 square feet so that's a parking reduction we allow within the community we have 11 professional office projects that are designated and we provided a map the purple locations are designated professional office projects and the turquoise color blue are the existing P1 so the purple is all zoned P1 it just also happens to have the designation for the office project seven of those are adjacent to residentially zoned land and five of those continue to have some vacancy at this point of vacant land. Hotel land use regulations within our community they are principal permitted uses a standalone hotel or motel in all of our downtown business zones in the B3 zone which is our highway service business the interstate service business which is B5P around the interchanges also now allowed in the University Research Park P2 zone as part of our mixed-use three zone if it's a entertainment mixed-use entertainment project so the summit is allowed a hotel and then most recently in our economic development zone as a supportive use hotels we identified within our staff report hotels can have some characteristics that may not be compatible not with the rest of the office project but with some of the adjoining residential uses the applicant noted though that you know extended stay hotels are currently permitted as part of these office projects so the the real difference there is how much traffic is coming and going between a regular hotel and an extended stay hotel so the original proposal was just to add hotels as a principal use within this residential or within this portion of the p1 zone and these are the four kind of issues that the staff pointed out at at the zoning committee a few weeks ago. First, the proximity to residentially zoned land and how hotels might impact that. We've had some complaints about lighting, which is probably the biggest issue near residential because of the heights of the hotel buildings and it's shining into neighboring homes, yards. Loss of standard jobs land, so a standard office building might generate more jobs than a hotel. So when you switch to the hotel use, does that, do we lose some of our jobs? What percentage of the land within the professional office project should be dedicated to a hotel versus the standard jobs lands? And then the applicant didn't provide a parking generator in the P1 zone. So our parking generator didn't really show up until B2. So it's always good to have a parking generator in the zone where the use is first permitted. Those issues were things that the applicant was willing to address, and they provided a revised text or amended their ZODA to address really all of the issues. They are still keeping hotels as a principal permitted use, but providing a distance setback from residentially zoned land of 200 feet. and then also accounting for just one hotel for every 20 acres of P1 zoning or within their office project. So that would, for most office projects, on average, you might get two hotels. There are a number of office projects that are smaller than that or are completely used up by the hospital, St. Joe Hospital, So the chances of them having a hotel added are fairly unlikely, fairly slim. And the applicant also then added the hotel parking generator, which is similar to other places within our zoning ordinance. And when the staff met, we believe that these changes, these accommodations for the concerns, fully met our concerns. and so we are recommending approval of the revised or amended text amendment that the applicant has put forward any questions for Miss Wade okay just met it miss Monday do you think 200 feet from residential is enough if you have a very large say five or six story hotel next to residential it would be greater than the height of the building so you're looking at probably a two to one height to yard ratio if you're set back a hundred two hundred feet so the staff felt that that was enough okay yeah the question is why does Nicholas are probably about the width of Nicholasville roads right-of-way it's 200 feet so you're looking at a fairly big distance. My front yard is 300 feet and I'm thinking about if I've got a hotel 300 feet from me and that's what I'm thinking about. And of course there's going to be other things within that distance. There's probably parking, there might be a street, there might be another two-story office building. Any other questions for Ms. Wade? Okay thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. Since we are in agreement with the staff's recommendation, I'm happy to take questions. Very quickly, I do want to address something that you just brought up. We do think 200 feet is certainly plenty because right now that requirement does not exist for the professional office buildings that could go in right now. We could, similar to what Baptist Health is, that's in a P1, and the, you know, taller buildings can go in right next to residential without that extreme setback. The maximum height for buildings is three to one ratio right now in the P1 zone, and so we could put a substantial building right next to a residential structure, basically within that 200 feet currently today. So we certainly think a 200-foot setback is sufficient at this time. But I'm happy to take any other questions. Okay, any other questions for Mr. Nichols? I guess that's it. Thank you. Thank you all. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Okay, then we'll bring it back to the Commission here for a motion. I remember December the 25th is Christmas so I'll make the move Mr. Chairman I move for approval of Zota 17 days 7 to the P2 or P1 zone office buildings as provided by staff Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Ms. Carolyn Richardson, that we approve Zota 2017-7 Amendment to allow hotels as a principle permitted use when located in professional office projects in the professional office P1 zone. Any other discussion? Bye. Commission members, if not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? okay motion carries thank you now we go to commission items Our first commission item today is a report or request by the University of Kentucky and Coldstream Research Campus related to a TIF compliance statement. So the KRS requirements, KRS 100 requirements, state, sorry, not KRS 100, that's the other one. KRS, I think it's 65? Thank you. Require that the Planning Commission provide a compliance statement related to the comprehensive plan and their TIP request. And then that gets forwarded on to the Urban County Council, and the council holds a true public hearing like we typically would have related to a decision. and they actually make the decision about whether to move forward with a TIF proposal. So the Planning Commission's authority in this regard is to state whether something agrees with the comprehensive plan or not. The University of Kentucky's application is for a portion of the Coldstream Research Campus, and if you could show our map. It is attached to the packet we provided for the Planning Commission on the last page, just on the back. You have a staff report and then the packet that the applicant provided to us related to their requests. And then the last page is the map. It is 176 acres that's proposed to be located within the TIF Development District. The TIF Development District itself is wholly located within Coldstream, which is actually more of a 700-acre campus. The proposal is for a mixed-use development, which is generally consistent with what the Planning Commission has talked about in terms of implementing Cold Stream's master plan from 2009. It's consistent with the text amendment that the Planning Commission reviewed and the council adopted related to providing for mixed-use and residential use within our P2 zone and updating the name of that zone. And the applicant is asking generally for the planning commission to determine that mixed-use development and job creation, the P2 ideas that they're putting forth, have already put forth really, are consistent with the comprehensive plan. And the staff did find that the goals and objectives identify a number of areas where Coldstream's plans line up with the comprehensive plan. expanding housing by providing mixed use and even standalone housing that's possible now at Coldstream. Providing for the environmental protection. They're still within this area. The cane run greenway and watershed, so that provides for the environmental protection of the community and provides stormwater protection in terms of green infrastructure. attracting the world's finest jobs and entrepreneurial spirit. Coldstream, part of their ideal is business incubators and also new businesses in this area and trying to grow Kentucky's economy. So that is consistent with those goals and objectives as well. In addition, providing for accessible community facilities in the way of providing mixed use in this area. They provide support services for the rest of the jobs that would be located within the general vicinity. So the staff did find that there were a number of ways that the Coldstream master plan and then this moving forward with the TIF request would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions about that. Questions for Ms. Wade? Applicant? Yep, George Ward and Mr. Nicholson are here to answer any questions. uh nick nicholson here on behalf of the applicant again we are in agreement with the recommendation of staff i do want to kind of specify that what this vote is is that the proposed project going on at cold string kind of what the mixed use project is is in compliance with the comprehensive plan this is not a finding that you all support the tiff infrastructure or a tiff plan or any type of details of the financing going along simply that the mixed-use project that we discussed so thoroughly during the p2 amendment is in compliance with the comprehensive plan so I'll happily answer any questions any questions from the second that anyone would like to speak to this from the audience okay if not we'll back to the Commission for discussion or a motion yes sir mr. Penn I move that the statement of compliance is in accordance with the comprehensive plan as presented to us today by the University of Kentucky Coast Stream Research for a mixed-use development TIF area plan It's been moved by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Larry Foster, that the TIF report is a statement of compliance with the comprehensive plan. Any other discussion on the motion? Now would you please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. And while Ms. Golt sets up for our next item, Chairman, I'll need you to sign the compliance statement for the applicant. You want me to sign? Yes, sir. I don't think I will. Well, okay, I guess I... Thank you. Thank you. okay fayette county public schools no hello you'll have a tan copy this is your public facility review for 2017-4 for the new elementary school located off of 8th and Spoonsboro Road. I figured this was kind of the best way to kind of show you guys where this is going to be located. You're going to be heading out 8th and Spoonsboro. You're going to pass Hayes Boulevard and out towards I-78, Hayes Boulevard on the left. We have our urban service area boundary right there at the end of the expansion area. And you will see on the left, just a little bit further, there is an area which is where they proposed to have the new elementary school. This property was consolidated back in October of 2015. and this is a piece of AR land agricultural rule that was consolidated with the expansion area residential with the middle school for Edith J. Hayes. The school systems come in with the proposal to put an elementary school up against the 8th and Spoonsboro Road on approximately 26 acres. That leaves a section of just about 13 plus acres in between the middle school and the elementary school that they have. In the AR zone, agricultural rule, schools for academic instruction are typically a conditional use. But with the need for the school in this area of the community, they meet the goals and objections, several of those, for this property. they were the school is approximately 81 81 000 square feet it's going to have room for 750 students they're going to enter off eighth and spoonsboro road they have approval with the state because this being on eighth and spoonsboro road for they're going to do improvements for right hand turn lane and then also extend the left turn lane into the property they'll have a bus area and also a drop-off area within these two areas they're also going to have pervious pavers so they're going to try to keep the school they're going to use native grasses so they're going to try to keep the school look somewhat in the agricultural area background the staff recommends that the school meets the goals and objectives we just had some conditions to meet lead certification with the development of the new school also to obtain all the permits from engineering and building inspection to also landscape the areas the drive areas so that to meet the article 18 of the zoning ordinance and it in the future we would like to see this drive here continue on pass through the 13 acres that are shown right there to meet up with the middle school in the future when they bring in this 13 acres they said that they are proposing a middle school sports complex as the thoughts behind that they haven't done all the funding all that for that so but in the future we'd like to see these two connected up so that the elementary schools connected up with the residential neighborhood With that, if you all have any other comments, questions. Any questions to Mr. Gallup? Yes, Mr. Lawrence. Ms. Gallup, what I'm saying is the property in between the currently residential area and where the school is going to go. Is that outside the urban service boundary as well? Yes. All the area around the proposed school is zoned AR for agricultural rural. The only small portion where you can see where it is attached up to the expansion area, that's the residential. This is all outside the urban service area boundaries at this time. So it's all rural service. All the utilities are going to be connected for the property. The sewer is understood that they will be connecting with Edith J. Hayes to meet the CAP program with that. So that'll be met also. Is this property, it looks like it's a very odd shape. Yes. What you're seeing, it does go on up. Right. Okay. Right. I was, this is the 26 acres that they're proposing. That's small where it narrows down and then it opens back up as it heads towards. that's the 13 acres right there that at this time they have no plans for they're looking into doing some additional work like I said what they suggest it was a middle school athletic club or complex so at this time we haven't seen that they'll have to come back in with that and we hope at that time when they do come back in with that we can get the connection we can get that road continuing over to the middle school for access okay thank you Can you show me that on the map, please? I don't know where you're talking about. I'm only the 13 acres you're talking about. Is this it? Let's go for the Eda Faze. Okay. Oh, okay. yeah right there now this line right here is the urban service area boundary this part here was um where the school purchased and centenary united methodist church had that property and they consolidated that along with edith j hayes property but there's like i said there's a road currently that goes along the edge of the property up to a point and we'd like to see that road ultimately connect over to the other school so that there's can you know transportation as far as you know driving or walking for the students you know we'd like to see sidewalks or something for students to walk back and forth to the neighborhood but at this time they don't have any plans for that middle section so when they come back in we want to go a little bit further with that yes so that area you're talking about where there are no plans to put any sidewalks or whatever but that's in the expansion area and it's AR land right it's it's not it's outside the urban service area so it's not part of the expansion okay so it's totally even further outside it's outside that dashed line is the boundaries for the urban service area boundary okay and so it's outside but it's not include there's no proposal to expand our urban service boundaries but we just we need to meet this the need for the schools for the students and that's why they're bringing this in okay but you're saying you would like to see that improved but it's not inside the boundaries so no but we'd like to see a connection you know they've got a drive right now that they're going to show to the edge of the school but ultimately when they bring in the rest of it we'd like to see a way to have it connected to the other part of the school if they bring in that 13 acres if they could continue that drive over to where the middle school is that would help students get back and forth to school even if there's a pedestrian walkway or something okay one other question this called the the property in the middle that is surrounded will be surrounded by school property is that owned by somebody else i'm not sure we don't know don't know that's it's only mr barclay says it's owned by somebody else okay all right thank you any other questions for Ms. Galt the school systems here if you have any questions for them applicant good afternoon I'm Bill Wallace I'm director of facility design and construction our office manages all of the new construction and renovation projects for the school district we're a small office for people we keep very busy happy to answer any questions you might have about this project I think we've got about 50 questions for you I'm just kidding okay mine is not more of a question just more of a thank you I live out there and I have elementary age kids one is two and and I have neighbors that are not able to go to the elementary school that is within a mile from our house. So thank you. We're needing that. Yes. This is a response to the crowding that we're feeling throughout the entire school district, and you'll notice that an awful lot of portable classrooms have popped up at a variety of sites throughout Fayette County, and we're trying to at least get back up neck and neck maybe with the growth that we're experiencing. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh, wait a minute. Just a minute, Ms. Dolenz. In your wonderful office with four people, have you all had any discussion about connection, street connection, pedestrian connection between the two schools? Well, we certainly expect that there will be a pedestrian connection at least. We have some reasons why we probably don't want to have E.J. Hayes connected and to take over the middle school athletic complex. We also don't want to create a roadway probably through the property from the subdivision back out to Athens-Boonesboro. So we probably want to study that one much more carefully. And we do have, we're getting ready to do a master plan for that athletic complex now. So I think a lot of those considerations will be taken up as we plan. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Okay. If not, we'll bring it back for the committee. Now, as I understand it, just to get clarification, the reason we're hearing this is that this is a review. Is that correct? and for the most part that's all we can do and it's all okay with that said entertain a motion the motion should be in effect of something that the the Fayette County Commissioner did did a public facility review of the new elementary school located at whatever place and that it complies or in compliance with the 2013 comprehensive plan so moved okay okay it's been properly moved mr berkeley and seconded by mr larry foster that we have reviewed the public facility review for a new elementary school located on a portion of 260 richardson place and it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan of 2013. any other discussion on the motion mr wilson yes um Would that include the recommendations from the staff as well? Yes. Okay. Yes. We'll amend the motion to include the recommendations as also provided by staff. That's agreeable with everyone? Yes. Okay. Thank you. With that case, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay. Motion is approved. Thank you. Okay, the next item, a rural land management plan. Mr. Chair, over here, Mr. Chair, we need to set up for this presentation. This might be a good time for you all to take a break if you'd like to. No. All right, let's take a five-minute break and then we'll adjourn. We'll come back at that time. We'll recess for five minutes. you ready to go all right mr. chairman members of the commission it's a pleasure to be with you again usually on the fifth Thursday we're down in the third floor of the Phoenix building talking about the comprehensive plan and I'm kind of glad to be talking to you about a different subject this time mix it up a little bit so we're gonna be talking about the rural land management plan the 2017 update this is this plan has a new look a new name a new logo a new format but really it's a true update throughout this presentation I'll kind of take you from the rural service area land management plan of 99 to the rlmp that we have today so it was clear from the outset that there would be no real significant policy changes required for this plan it serves as a guide for land use decisions made in the rural area the original plan as i mentioned was adopted in 1999 as an element of the 1996 comprehensive plan following a pretty intense two-year process It was created as a response to a community desire to have a comprehensive planning program for the rural area that reinforces the protection of our valuable rural assets. It includes a comprehensive study of the land and its uses in the rural service area, including its agricultural and natural areas, as well as our four rural activity centers, our 16 rural settlements, environmentally sensitive areas, rural roads, and much more. So additionally, several pieces of significant rural policy came out of that 1999 plan. Most notably, the Purchase of Development Rights Program, the Conservation Easement Program, which you're all very familiar with in 2000, and then the 40-acre minimum lot size, which came about in 1999 as well. That was in response to the 10-acre minimum being identified as a threat to rural preservation in the 1999 plan. So those are two of the big accomplishments to come out of the 1999 plan. So in 2013, the comprehensive plan called for what I would consider maybe an overdue update of the RLMP. This recommendation was reinforced with language both in the goals and objectives as well as the implementation table. So we'll sort of talk about the folks that were involved in this update. in this update in 2015 the planning staff approached the rural land management board the green space commission and the planning commission about forming a working group to work on this plan which was at that time 16 years old now members of the working group included marianna marie from the rural land management board charlie farmer who was a designee of that board greg butler the chairman of the green space commission jamie millard also of the green space commission as as well as Mike Owens and Frank Penn serving on that. We also had Beth Overman, the director of the Purchase of Development Rights Program on there as well as staff from Planning, which included our director Jim Duncan, myself, and then Cindy Dietz, who was our retired green space planner, who was the primary author of this document and did a tremendous amount of heavy lifting to get this plan to where it is today. So this group met for 13 meetings over 13 months discussing the plan, reviewing the policy, highlighting the potential issues and made recommendations on text edits. And again, there was no significant policy changes that were identified by the working group. There was, however, a substantial effort made to make some significant text alterations to reflect the current conditions of the rural service area. Data was collected by a number of sources, both inside LFUCG and outside, and comments were solicited by you all, the Rural Land Management Board, and the Green Space Commission. So I've kind of given you a brief history of how we got to where we are in the plan and who was involved. and now we'll sort of talk through some of the highlights that came out of this 2017 update and there's a lot in this plan so we can only touch on a small percentage of the issues but these are some of the things that that came out of this plan so one of the first things we did was to the to look at the challenges to rural preservation those included changing in farming and impacts to the family farm which included an aging farming population. The average age of the farmer in Fayette County as of the 2012 was 58 and a half and that was up over two two years older than in 2007 when they measured it before. So also loss of family farms and then the next generation of folks just choosing not to farm were all identified as issues. Also competition from other states for stallions was highlighted as an issue and then talking about providing access to the rural area for tourism and recreation while maintaining the character that we have in our rural area. So one of the that goes along with one of the trends that we noticed, which is an uptick in tourism and recreation and we'll kind of touch on that a little bit more later on. Another trend that we saw was a continued reduction in tobacco farming as well as an increase in the diversity of horse breeds and horse farms in particular the commercial sport horse and pleasure horse farms. So after we identified some of the challenges and some of of the trends going on we moved into some broad goals that we wanted to see for this plan and and to which we could filter land use decisions in the rural area so we we listed that we wanted to empower the agricultural industry by maintaining a viable and strong agricultural economy and protecting agricultural land while promoting sustainable farming practices protecting the integrity of the rural landscape including our rural settlements scenic corridors and natural areas protecting the environment, including our sensitive areas and wildlife habitat, which includes our prime and statewide significant soils, riparian zones, Kentucky River Palisades and other natural resources, protecting our cultural and historic heritage, including supporting the family farm, protecting rural resources and adverse effects, mitigating those adverse effects from urban development, ensuring continued community support, through outreach educational initiatives, exploring dedicated funding sources for PDR, ensuring public access again for tourism and recreation to the rural area, and engaging in meaningful planning efforts. A lot of these themes are things that we also talked about in our 2018 goals and objectives as well. So again, this was a very data-intensive plan. The real gem of this plan is the detailed information and data collection that was translated into this updated land use inventory. And as I mentioned, Cindy Dietz, the primary author of this plan, took painstaking efforts to break down the information and give us the most complete and comprehensive view of our rural area. For instance, there are 128,129 acres within 4,136 parcels in the rural service area. And I do believe that she looked at each and every single one of them. This includes the agricultural and non-agricultural uses in the rural service area. It includes lot sizes, usage, zoning, environmental features, soil composition, among other things, that provide us a wealth of interesting insights and useful facts. We also talk about our land use categories, going back here, but our land use categories were largely unchanged as well. The policy emphasis for those land use categories largely remained the same and was a reiteration of the 1999 plan. There was some cleanup that happened trying to address some of those, but largely they remain the same in our rural activity centers and urban service boundary was recommended to be the same, which is in keeping with the 2018 goals and objectives recently approved. So planning for the rural area really goes beyond the broad land use categories that I was just talking about and certain elements merited further discussion and explanation. This included inventory of the rural service area of which 88% of the soils are either prime farmland or soils of statewide significance. We looked at water resources, flora, fauna, and other natural resources. Discussions were had about historic sites and uses in rural settlements. Transportation was addressed, highlighting our historic and scenic roadways. recommendations were made about treatments to our prominent gateways entering Lexington and through the rural service area. Additionally, as we mentioned before, tourism is becoming more and more of an economic driver for Fayette County, as ecotourism, agritourism and cultural tourism are all trending nationally. Resources like the horse park and Keeneland continue to be popular as our active horse farm tours through services like horse country. This plan makes recommendations to capitalize on those trends and these opportunities while maintaining the integrity of the rural area. Also, we discussed the purchase of development rights as a special element. This was, again, a major outcome of the 99 plan and has conserved over 30,000 acres of their 50,000-acre goal thus far. So what this plan does, instead of recommending that we institute that program since it already exists, it simply describes its history and how it does what it does. Now, also as a special element, we looked at development considerations. While the majority of the activity within the rural service area is agricultural in nature, there's a certain amount of development that does occur, such as the relocation of our new stockyards facility off of Ironworks Pike. We also see occasionally pre-existing vacant commercially zoned properties develop. To be clear, the Rural Land Management Plan consistently advocates for the rural preservation and promotes infill and redevelopment. However, it does acknowledge, as the 1999 plan does, that future expansion of the urban service boundary may be a possibility. So, in that event, it makes recommendations that you consider compatibility with existing land uses, impact to natural resources and topography, impact of view sheds proximity to farming operations conservation easements natural historic cultural resources infrastructure and potentially available services connections to multimodal networks sanitary sewer and storm water management but it also addresses some issues that occurred due to the last expansion in 96 which is a disconnected roadway network lower density than we had initially planned for and buffer issues with adjacent farms. Now all of this information in the plan will be considered as we go through the study that's called for in the 2018 goals and objectives and is conducted to evaluate the process for potential long-term urban service area land inclusion. So to sort of segue we've discussed the new study and process here that will be part of the next edition of the comprehensive plan but today we're asking that you adopt this update to the rural land management plan as an element of our existing 2013 plan we believe it's a wonderful addition and a resource for the planning commission as a result of a great deal of time and energy and effort from a number of boards commissions and staff but with that i will sort of open the floor to comments or questions you all may have thank Thank you for your time. Any questions or comments? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to commend Cindy and the work group for a document that has required much study, and I think it's a good document. Personally, I would like to change a couple of things, like even with the recreational ZOTA that we approved not long ago and the environmental ZOTA that we approved not long ago, I would like to see stronger protection and more stringent rules for AN and AB. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. We just made Mr. Penn. I waited on him as long as I could. Well, you know, sometimes you're too close to forest to see the trees, but I would hope that we use this as a reference material because the effort that Cindy Dietz and her planning staff put in this will be used in a lot of different contexts. We literally know where every piece of land is in Fayette County. We know the size of it. We know what the location is. We know what the use is. And with the GPS system that we have now, it's a great tool if we'll use it. It's the—I want to state up front that the Rural Land Management Plan was in no way designed to stop development, even though it's being used by pro and con forces to say that it did or it didn't. There's 22 people that worked on this for a long time and represented every element of our community. In give and take, the Lisa points, everything that we do with the PDR program was designed to work with, not stop anything. To promote agriculture and promote what makes us unique. And when people on our council are waving in the air and use it as a document to support any position they want to take, it's an affront to the 22 people that worked for over two years to put this thing together. so it doesn't matter which side of the equation you're on this this was never intended to be a pro-development or an anti-development tool it was meant to preserve agriculture we need to we need to keep that in mind and we need to get that on the record and we need to decide that this is not a document used to support either side this is a document used to support agriculture and what makes us unique. Thank you. I think at this time we presented this report so we take public comments. Does anyone would like to? Yes, ma'am, come on up. Good afternoon. My name is Catherine Perkins. I live at 258 Swigert Avenue. I'm here as a resident of Fayette County, a frequent traveler of the Parris Pike Corridor, and I live adjacent to it. And also, Mr. Blyton has said that I can speak on behalf of him and I. We've not been able, as the Parris Pike Corridor, to meet on this and discuss this land management plan. We have made phone calls and have received verbal confirmation that this plan in no way supersedes the Paris Pike Corridor small area plan, but we would like that on record. And I want to note or stress that we consider the corridor to go from end to end, not just from the overlay. So we're very concerned about the urban service area that is within the corridor and how it has already been granted the first B3 zoning in the history of the corridor. And we'd like to have either that noted in the rural land management plan, if it's not already, that the corridor is end-to-end and is not managed by the Rural Land Management Plan. I think that's... If you want to give me your verbal here and now, I'll take it. But if not, can it be... It'll be in the records, but we'll ask the staff if they'd like to respond to a particular comment. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Okay. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, to address the concerns about what the rural land management does in relationship to the Paris Pike overlay, that is a separate memorandum of agreement between Lexington officials and Paris and Bourbon County officials, And this plan makes no comment about that, nor does it have any authority to override or supersede that. So everything that's in place for the Parris Pike overlay remains in place just as it has. The overlay is... Ma'am, why don't you come back to the microphone so we can get you on record here. This was, I guess, the concern of Mr. Blighton when we fought the B3. It was that the overlay is from Johnston Road. It may be in Fayette County, but the small area plan does state that the Paris Pike Corridor is from end to end. end to end from the curve bar 2 all the way to the end of the Fayette County line and then from Bourbon County into there. So we are concerned about the area not in the small area plan if that is going to be in any way this supersedes the small area. And once again, Mr. Chair, the Rural Land Management Plan addresses land outside the urban service boundary and so i believe the speaker is referring to property that's inside the urban service boundary as a as the concern again this does not address property that's inside the urban service boundary okay i'm speaking of because the urban service boundary ends at i believe the lexington country club am i not correct and there's a period a mile or so of failed land that is rural that is not in the overlay so that was where we were hoping that somewhere the wording could state that this does not affect the corridor at all but thank you any other comments yes sir I would just like to echo the sentiments as has been said one Cindy Dietz did a fabulous job with this and I would dare say that she visited each and every piece of property that was listed in this rural land management plan I know she kept me to the task not that I was always there but she did you know keep me to the task kept everybody the task asking for everyone's input so I'd specifically like to recognize that in addition to the staff's work that has been done and quite frankly I rather like the presentation here being up on the screen as well thank you yes I in fact I failed to mention the fact that this presentation has been presented to you two ways one in print and one on the screen i appreciate mr woodall trying to abbreviate because he didn't go through everything so it was kind of difficult to track him as he was going through but i like that presentation too i think it's good but i was warned before i got here today that we would be using a new system and we may be using it for other things but i think this is kind of neat i I like this as such now. Well, for him, we'll provide the snail mail. Well, we'll go back on. Oh, actually, if you if you in effect, if you really need it, the staff certainly will be willing to provide. But we can probably save a few trees this way as well. So I commend the staff not only on the work, but also on the presentation this May. OK. Anyone else want to say anything related to the rural family management plan? If not, then I think that what we're saying is that we would adopt this plan as an amendment to the 2013 comprehensive plan. But we'll need a motion to some kind. Mr. Chair, I'll move that we amend the 2013 comprehensive plan to include this rural land management plan, new version. okay it's been moved by mr. Michael and second by miss Carolyn Plumlee that we adopt the rural land management plan as an amendment to the 2013 comprehensive plan any other discussion on the motion hearing now would you please vote when it comes up on you well can't yeah on your screen thank you hey all right the motion carries and I think ma'am from your perspective we have noted for the minutes as well as Mr. Duncan's comments that should take care of what your issues are. Okay, Mr. Duncan, can you give us a brief up view? Mr. Chair, we'll ask Chris Woodall to provide that for you. Thank you. We want to provide you with the update on where we were with the goals and objectives. You all should have something at your seats that show the final version as adopted by the council and now this has the red line so it includes all of the changes that you all made in black and then the red line is everything that the council did so on november 16th the council approved the goals and objectives and they largely resembled what you all passed forward and the recommendation you sent up and unsurprisingly a great deal of time and discussion was the urban service area. There was a healthy debate which we expected and it was similar to the debate that we had with you all. But in the end, the Planning Commission affirmed your all's recommendation and added some language that was mostly clarifying in nature and generally resulted in a more complete document, I feel. So the primary things to note revolve around the study of the urban service area and the new process that will result. One of the main things is that there is now a defined completion date for the study, which is July 1st of 2020. However, there was also some discussion about dedicated funding for this as well, for us to have a consultant to help us work on this project, which will help with the workload as well. So though this gives us a firm deadline, we do have some measure of relief that we'll have a consultant bias that will be working on this as well. So now we'll begin on the study. We'll begin concurrently with the elements that are slated to go on next year. Also of note about the study as well is that there's now no requirement for the goals and objectives to be amended. once the the study and the process that results from the study is adopted by the Planning Commission it is referenced in the goals and objectives that once it's adopted as an element of the comprehensive plan that it would supersede the goals there so that you know expedites the implementation of the study which I think all the parties should be in favor of we're we're looking forward to that so we're going to do the work and we can get that once we've completed the work we'll get it started as quickly as we can so though the end date provides us with maybe a little bit less flexibility than we probably would have preferred it's you know it's the now the target date and that's a date that we intend to hit overall I'd say that we're we're very pleased with the outcome and all the hard work that you all have done we spend a long time talking about these and and so I'm pleased and I was delighted to see a lot of you in attendance for a number of the proceedings during the council work work sessions the ad hoc committee as well as the readings as well so so next our staff will kind of regroup and we'll set the vision for the next 12 months and begin a new in January of next year so we look forward to continuing to discuss with you all and fleshing out the plan so if you all have any questions I just wanted to give you all kind of a brief update. Mr. Penn has a question. Yes, sir. Just so we're all clear, we now start on the elements working toward the implementation stage and then we start on the what the goals and objectives direct us to do at the completion of the comp plan. Is that correct? We will be working on the elements. We'll start the elements in January and we'll be working to finish those by hopefully they'll be finished by this time next year. Uh but as far as getting the study started, uh the funding for that study would would come this fiscal year the way I understand it. And so we would kind of get the ball rolling in the proceedings starting on that study somewhat concurrently so we could begin sometime in the late summer, maybe early fall. Of 18 of 18. So we're going to run on parallel tracks. Yes, sir. So where is the staff going to put the major part of their time? Well, hopefully by the time we get to that part, we'll already be nearing the finish line on the elements. So we'll be doing bits and pieces in preparation leading up to that. But hopefully we'll be spending the bulk of our time on the elements at the first half so that we can sort of wrap things up towards the fall. The reason I feel so strongly about this is I think the weakness of the 2013 plan was twofold. Number one, when we got the goals and objectives done, we hurried to finish the plan up, and number two is we didn't follow it. I don't want to see us repeat that for the 2018 plan. And if the focus is on this work group that's going to complete the supersede goal, then the danger we run is that we don't put the time, the effort, and the commitment to establish a 2018 plan that the Planning Commission will uphold for the next four years. Well, I appreciate that sentiment, but I will sort of give you my perspective that we've got a lot of big things that are intended for this plan. The study is one of them, but there are a lot of other pieces that we fully intend to get around to doing and doing them well. Mr. Berkley. I guess kind of add to that I guess a question. You said that this hard date is kind of constricting on you. Why are we going to wait six or nine months to start this study then? Seems to me that we could start it a lot sooner than that. Well I think it would sort of go to the point that Mr. Penn made about us trying to do the elements and the other big things that go along with the comprehensive plan so we don't want the overall comprehensive plan to suffer at the expense of trying to get that hurried and going. So we we I mean let's I mean we all know that this is going to be the main thing. I mean it's been the main thing of what we've been talking about for six or eight months. So I guess I'm not real happy about having to wait six or nine months to get this process started. I understand. Okay. Anyone else? Well, let me say a couple things. First of all, I do applaud the staff in a likewise manner of coming together with, I think, a good plan. this comprehensive plan has been one that has been a challenge in a different type of way but professionally you all have defended it as well as I could think anyone could I also like to thank the council's input into the plan I thought it was appropriate I thought they asked good questions and put it on the line now the one thing that I've heard over and over and over from outside as well as something that I've always wanted is when we get to the objectives, they have to be measurable. Because without that measurement, then the term that has been used with me by a couple of council members is that it seems a little soft as such. Now, I know that every objective cannot be put in that same way, but I will be looking very carefully as it relates to that implementation as to how we can set these objectives up so that we can say that we're either 50% there, 75%, or whatever the case may be. Mr. Chair, we agree with you. We've actually begun conversations as a long-range planning staff about how we're going to set the metrics for this and how we're going to make them available to the public so they can see how this plan is operating. And if you recall, in the goals and objectives, it calls specifically for us as metrics to be identified and for some sort of public-facing website to be created so that people can follow along with that. We agree, and that's a priority for us, too. That's good. And I'm certainly hoping that one of the things that we did, and I was certainly pleased, I think everybody was is that we had 11,000 people to give input. I mean, the last plan I think we had when I was serving the last time, my last term, I don't think we had about 200 or 300 people at max to do it. Now, 11,000, when you think of a town of 314,000 people, it's still a small dot on the radar screen, but it does indicate a significant interest in what we were doing. So I'm hoping that one of the things that we will start quickly and continue is that public engagement education piece and keep them tracking along. But I don't want to detract with my comments by suggesting that I'm displeased. I think we've all worked as hard as we can for the betterment of Lexington. And I think we'll move this process along. I understand Mr. Berkley's point about waiting, but I certainly want to make sure we have enough time to get this thing tied down in a sense that we're happy and pleased with that part of it. That's all I have to say. Thank you again for your work on this. Thanks for the staff's work on this, too. Mr. Chair, I'd like to add a word to that also about your closing comment and Mr. Berkley's concern. just as a reminder to the Planning Commission that statute compels us to write the rest of the elements of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is not finished. The goals and objectives are one element, and we still have land use and transportation and community facilities and implementation and anything else that we want to include in that. And just as a reminder, you all spent eight months writing one element of the plan, the goals and objectives. We don't think it will take that long to write all of the others. our experience tells us otherwise but we do not want to give short shrift to those. We have a responsibility to fill out the rest of the plan according to the adopted goals and objectives and we made that clear to the council as they were deliberating whether to give us a hard finish date for this study that we still had several months of work to do to finish the comprehensive plan before we would turn our attentions to the study. So they understood that and we will work expeditiously and quickly with you all and a lot of that That will depend on what kind of public input and feedback we get and our ability to move through that process. But we want to give that its due, get that adopted. There may be some overlap, but it will be well into 2018 before we start the process for the study because we need to finish the comprehensive plan or at least get it substantially underway. Thank you. I think those comments are well taken. Just one other final. Is there anything else for Mr. Woodall? I have one other announcement to make. If not, then I just would like to announce that each of you have these pieces of paper in front of you related to parking. It has garage, and then it has Phoenix lot. Please mark garage on that. Take this and fill it out, and then if you will return it to maybe next week at your subcommittee meetings to Ms. Cuttingham, we'll get that taken care of. Where it says employee title, just say commission member. Division, same thing, planning commission. Employee ID number, skip that part of it. I'm not an employee, so I marked that all out. Well, okay, that's fine. I put down W-2 form requested. 1099 or something? That's right. Where it says model, that means call. That's right. I don't know whether email is compulsory or not, but I guess that's optional if you'd like to do that. But if you'd please take this, sign it, and get it back to us, and that way we'll have some reserved parking somewhere until they tear it up for Town Branch, right? Okay, any other items of business to come before the commission? Without objection, then the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.