# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - December 14, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 14, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4418 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4418?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-12-14 - **Last revised**: December 14, 2017 - **Length**: 31,828 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** The transcript on this page is the Granicus stenographer's live closed-captioning track, captured at the time of broadcast (typos and broken sentences common). Speaker labels come from the same track. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Verbatim wording and speaker attribution may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on December 14, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed a comprehensive agenda of 16 items, taking 15 votes throughout the meeting and hearing 5 public comments from citizens. The meeting demonstrated significant planning activity, with the commission approving 11 items while postponing 3 major development proposals and denying 1 zoning amendment. Notable approvals included several development plans such as The Hub at Lexington II project on South Limestone and Virginia Avenue, the Douglas Norman Property development by Ryan Johnson Development, and the Sullivan Park & Devereux Subdivision Development Plan. The commission also approved multiple zoning amendments, including changes to standard cross sections, plat size allowances, and comprehensive updates to parking standards and design requirements. Three significant items were postponed for future consideration: the Fuller et al Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center Lot 3, the Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties, and the Lexington Industrial Foundation (Baumann Paper Company) proposal. The commission denied one amendment that would have allowed off-site airport parking as a conditional use. The meeting concluded with an informational presentation of the Annual Report for the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, providing commissioners with an overview of that board's activities and decisions during the reporting period. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 14, 2017 meeting: • Bill Wilson • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Headley Bell • Mike Owens **Absent:** • Carolyn Richardson No members arrived late to the meeting. Ten of the eleven members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on 15 items during the December 14, 2017 meeting, with most passing unanimously. **Administrative Items** The commission unanimously approved the minutes from the November 9, 2017 meeting on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Karen Mundy [timestamp: 00:30]. Consent agenda items were also approved unanimously on a motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Larry Forester, acknowledging findings for PLN-MJDP-17-107 [timestamp: 05:00]. The release and call of bonds passed unanimously on a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Frank Penn [timestamp: 06:00]. **Development Plan Postponements** Three development plans were postponed unanimously: - PLN-MJDP-17-00109 (Fuller et al Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Lot 3) was postponed to January 11, 2018 on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Frank Penn [timestamp: 01:30] - PLN-MJDP-17-00070 (Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties) was indefinitely postponed on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee [timestamp: 02:30] - PLN-MJDP-17-00114 (Lexington Industrial Foundation/Baumann Paper Company) was postponed to January 11, 2018 on a motion by Patrick Brewer, seconded by Larry Forester [timestamp: 03:30] **Development Plan Approvals** Several development plans were approved: - PLN-MJDP-17-00108 (Douglas Norman Property/Ryan Johnson Development) passed unanimously with revised staff recommendations on a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Larry Forester [timestamp: 07:00] - PLN-MJDP-17-00113 (The Hub at Lexington II) passed 8-1 with conditions on a motion by Patrick Brewer, with Mike Owens voting against [timestamp: 08:00] - PLN-MJDP-17-00106 (Sullivan Park & Devereux Subdivision) passed unanimously with revised staff recommendations on a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Larry Forester [timestamp: 11:00] **Zoning Amendments** PLN-MAR-17-00039 (Anderson Luradane, LLC Zoning Map Amendment) passed unanimously with revised findings on a motion by Mike Cravens [timestamp: 09:00]. The associated variance also passed unanimously on a motion by Mike Cravens, seconded by Larry Forester [timestamp: 10:00]. **Text Amendments** SRA 2017-4 (Article 6 cross sections update) and SRA 2017-5 (plat size increase) both passed unanimously on motions by Karen Mundy, seconded by Mike Owens [timestamps: 12:00, 13:00]. ZOTA 2017-8 (parking and design standards) passed unanimously on a motion by Will Berkley, seconded by Frank Penn [timestamp: 15:00]. However, ZOTA 2017-6 (off-site airport parking in A-R zone) was unanimously rejected on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Mike Owens [timestamp: 14:00]. ## Public Comment Five community members addressed the meeting during the public comment period, with most speakers focusing on opposition to a proposed zoning amendment. **Anderson Luradane, LLC Zoning Map Amendment Opposition** Four speakers expressed concerns about the Anderson Luradane, LLC zoning map amendment proposal: • **Ginny Daily** [timestamp: 09:30] opposed the development, citing concerns that it would harm the neighborhood by increasing density and traffic while reducing affordable housing options. • **Walt Gaffield** [timestamp: 09:45] raised concerns about the precedent the zoning change would set and its potential impact on the neighborhood's overall character. • **Francis Heisel** [timestamp: 10:00] focused on traffic and safety issues, particularly expressing worry about increased traffic creating safety hazards for children in the neighborhood due to the proposed development. • **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 10:15] also opposed the zoning change, echoing concerns about increased density and the negative impact on the neighborhood's character. **Airport Parking Discussion** • **Steve Clark** [timestamp: 14:30] provided a contrasting perspective by speaking in support of off-site airport parking. Clark argued for the need and benefits of such facilities, emphasizing that they would provide improved service and increased competition in airport parking options. The public comments revealed significant community opposition to the zoning amendment, with residents consistently raising concerns about density, traffic, safety, and neighborhood character preservation. The airport parking topic appeared to be a separate agenda item that generated more supportive commentary focused on service improvements and market competition. ## Contested Items Two zoning-related proposals faced significant community opposition during the December 14, 2017 meeting. **Anderson Luradane, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** The Anderson Luradane, LLC zoning map amendment drew concerns from several community members who attended the meeting to voice their opposition. Residents expressed worries about how the proposed zoning change would affect the existing character of their neighborhood. Additionally, community members raised concerns about the potential strain on local infrastructure that could result from the zoning modification. The specific details of the amendment and the final decision were not provided in the available meeting data. **Off-Site Airport Parking Proposal** A proposal to allow off-site airport parking as a conditional use generated substantial community pushback. Opponents of the measure cited two primary concerns: the potential negative impact such a facility would have on the rural character of the area, and the lack of demonstrated need for additional airport parking services. Community members who spoke against the proposal argued that introducing commercial parking operations would be inconsistent with the rural nature of the location under consideration. Both contested items highlight ongoing tensions between development proposals and community preservation efforts, with residents actively participating in the public process to express their concerns about changes that could affect their neighborhoods and the broader rural character of the area. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:30] The commission reviewed and considered the minutes from their November 9, 2017 meeting for approval. The agenda item was presented as a standard procedural matter, with commissioners Carolyn Plumlee and Karen Mundy participating in the discussion. No specific concerns or amendments to the minutes were noted during the review process. Following the brief discussion, the commission voted to approve the minutes from the November 9, 2017 meeting as presented. The approval was completed without opposition, allowing the commission to proceed with the remainder of their December 14, 2017 meeting agenda. ## Fuller et al Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Lot 3 [timestamp: 01:30] The commission addressed agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00109 regarding the development plan for Fuller et al Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Lot 3. Key speakers during this discussion included Carolyn Plumlee and Frank Penn, who presented information about the proposed development plan to the commission members. The primary focus of the discussion centered on the postponement of the development plan. The commission deliberated on the timing and circumstances surrounding the request to delay consideration of this commercial development project. Following the presentation and discussion among commission members, the outcome was a postponement of the Fuller et al Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Lot 3 development plan. The commission agreed to defer further consideration of PLN-MJDP-17-00109 to a future meeting date. The postponement allows additional time for any necessary revisions, additional documentation, or further review of the proposed commercial development before the commission makes a final determination on the project. ## Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties [timestamp: 02:30] The commission addressed agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00070 regarding the Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties development plan. Key speakers during this discussion included Mike Owens and Carolyn Plumlee. The primary focus of the discussion centered on the indefinite postponement of the development plan for these properties. The commission deliberated on the status and future of this development project, which involves both commercial shopping center space and motor lodge facilities. Following the discussion among commissioners and input from the identified speakers, the commission decided to postpone the development plan indefinitely. This outcome suggests that the project requires additional review, revision, or that circumstances have changed since the initial proposal was submitted. The postponement allows the applicant time to address any outstanding issues or concerns that may have been raised during previous reviews, or to respond to changing market conditions or regulatory requirements that could affect the viability of the proposed development. ## Lexington Industrial Foundation (Baumann Paper Company) [timestamp: 03:30] The commission addressed agenda item PLN-MJDP-17-00114 regarding the Lexington Industrial Foundation (Baumann Paper Company) development plan. The discussion was brief, focusing primarily on procedural matters rather than substantive review of the proposal. Key speakers during this agenda item included Patrick Brewer and Larry Forester, who addressed the commission regarding the status of the development plan. The primary focus of their presentation centered on the need to postpone consideration of the project. The commission ultimately decided to postpone the development plan for the Lexington Industrial Foundation (Baumann Paper Company). No detailed discussion of the project's merits, specific development proposals, or community concerns was recorded during this brief agenda item. The postponement suggests that additional time was needed for further review, preparation of materials, or resolution of outstanding issues before the commission could proceed with substantive consideration of the development plan. The specific reasons for the postponement and the timeline for future consideration were not detailed in the available meeting materials. This agenda item represents one of several development-related matters considered during the December 14, 2017 meeting, though it received significantly less discussion time than other items on the agenda due to its postponement status. ## Consent Agenda [timestamp: 05:00] The commission reviewed and approved multiple items grouped together on the consent agenda during the December 14, 2017 meeting. This procedural approach allows the commission to efficiently handle routine matters that typically do not require extensive discussion. The consent agenda included several subdivision and development plans that had been reviewed by staff and met standard approval criteria. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting were Patrick Brewer and Larry Forester, who addressed the commission regarding the items under consideration. The commission approved all items on the consent agenda without separating any individual matters for additional discussion. This indicates that the items were considered routine and non-controversial, following standard procedures for development approvals that had already undergone staff review and met established criteria. The consent agenda process streamlines commission meetings by grouping together items that do not require detailed debate, allowing more time to be devoted to complex or contentious matters later in the meeting agenda. ## Release and Call of Bonds [timestamp: 06:00] The commission considered a resolution regarding the release and call of performance bonds and letters of credit during this agenda item. Mike Cravens and Frank Penn served as the key speakers for this matter. The discussion focused on the standard administrative process of releasing performance bonds and calling letters of credit that had been posted for various projects or obligations. Performance bonds are typically required to ensure completion of contracted work, while letters of credit serve as financial guarantees for specific commitments. The commission reviewed the bonds and letters of credit that were eligible for release, indicating that the associated projects or obligations had been satisfactorily completed or that the financial guarantees were no longer needed. This type of action is routine administrative business that allows contractors and other parties to recover their posted securities once their obligations have been fulfilled. The commission approved the resolution without apparent opposition or significant debate, suggesting the releases were straightforward matters where all conditions had been properly met. This approval allows the affected parties to have their performance bonds released and letters of credit called, freeing up the associated financial instruments. ## Douglas Norman Property (Ryan Johnson Development) [timestamp: 07:00] The commission reviewed and discussed the development plan for the Douglas Norman Property under case number PLN-MJDP-17-00108, presented by Ryan Johnson Development. Key speakers during the discussion included Mike Cravens and Larry Forester, who addressed various aspects of the proposed development plan. The commission considered the project details and evaluated the proposal against applicable development standards and requirements. Staff had prepared recommendations for the development plan, which were revised during the course of the discussion. The commission reviewed these updated staff recommendations as part of their deliberation process. Following the presentation and discussion of the development proposal, the commission voted to approve the Douglas Norman Property development plan with the revised staff recommendations that had been presented during the meeting. The approval allows Ryan Johnson Development to proceed with the project as outlined in the approved plan, subject to the conditions and recommendations established by staff and accepted by the commission. ## The Hub at Lexington II (South Limestone & Virginia Avenue) [timestamp: 08:00] The commission reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-17-00113 for The Hub at Lexington II, a proposed project located at South Limestone and Virginia Avenue. Patrick Brewer served as the key speaker presenting information about the development proposal to the commission members. The discussion centered on the development plan details and requirements for the project. A primary focus of the deliberations involved right of way dedication requirements that would need to be addressed as part of the approval process. The commission ultimately approved the development plan for The Hub at Lexington II. However, the approval came with specific conditions attached, particularly regarding the dedication of right of way areas. These conditions were established to ensure the development meets municipal requirements and standards for the proposed location at the intersection of South Limestone and Virginia Avenue. The approval allows the project to move forward in the development process, contingent upon the developer meeting the specified conditions related to right of way dedication that were outlined during the commission's review. ## Anderson Luradane, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 09:00] The commission reviewed and discussed agenda item PLN-MAR-17-00039, a zoning map amendment request submitted by Anderson Luradane, LLC. Mike Cravens served as the key speaker presenting information on this matter to the commission. The discussion centered on the proposed zoning map amendment, with the commission examining the request and associated materials. The item involved revised findings that were presented for the commission's consideration as part of the amendment process. Following their review and discussion of the zoning map amendment proposal, the commission voted to approve the Anderson Luradane, LLC zoning map amendment with the revised findings as presented. The approval of this zoning map amendment represents the commission's determination that the request met the necessary criteria and standards for such amendments within their jurisdiction. ## Requested Variance for Anderson Luradane, LLC [timestamp: 10:00] The commission considered a variance request from Anderson Luradane, LLC to reduce the required front yard setback along American Avenue from 20 feet to 8 feet. Key speakers during the discussion included Mike Cravens and Larry Forester, who presented information regarding the variance application and its implications for the proposed development. The variance would allow Anderson Luradane, LLC to construct their project with a significantly reduced front yard setback, bringing the building 12 feet closer to American Avenue than typically required under current zoning regulations. The standard 20-foot front yard requirement would be reduced to just 8 feet under the approved variance. Following discussion of the request and consideration of the relevant factors, the commission voted to approve the variance. The approval allows Anderson Luradane, LLC to proceed with their development plans using the reduced 8-foot front yard setback along American Avenue rather than the standard 20-foot requirement. ## Sullivan Park & Devereux Subdivision Development Plan [timestamp: 11:00] The commission reviewed and discussed the development plan for Sullivan Park & Devereux Subdivision under case number PLN-MJDP-17-00106. Key speakers during the discussion included Mike Cravens and Larry Forester, who presented details about the proposed subdivision development. The item was presented as a discussion item with revised staff recommendations that had been updated from the original proposal. The commission ultimately approved the Sullivan Park & Devereux Subdivision Development Plan following their review of the revised staff recommendations. The approval allows the development to move forward according to the parameters outlined in the updated plan. ## Amendment to Article 6 to Update Standard Cross Sections [timestamp: 12:00] The commission considered SRA 2017-4, an amendment to Article 6 to update standard cross sections to reflect on-street parking limitations. Karen Mundy and Mike Owens served as the key speakers during the discussion of this ordinance amendment. The proposed changes focused on updating the standard cross sections within Article 6 to better reflect current on-street parking limitations and requirements. The amendment was designed to ensure that the standard cross sections accurately represent the practical constraints and regulations regarding on-street parking in the jurisdiction. This update would align the technical specifications with existing parking policies and limitations. Following the presentation and discussion by the key speakers, the commission approved SRA 2017-4. The approval of this amendment means that Article 6's standard cross sections will now incorporate the updated specifications regarding on-street parking limitations, providing clearer guidance for future development and infrastructure projects. The successful passage of this ordinance amendment ensures that the municipal code remains current and accurately reflects the community's parking regulations and street design standards. ## Amendment to Article 5-4(b) to Increase Allowable Plat Size [timestamp: 13:00] The commission considered SRA 2017-5, an ordinance to amend Article 5-4(b) regarding allowable plat sizes. The proposed amendment would increase the maximum allowable plat size to 24"×36". Karen Mundy and Mike Owens served as key speakers during the discussion of this agenda item. The commission reviewed the technical specifications and practical implications of expanding the current plat size limitations. The amendment addresses administrative and practical needs for larger format plats in the planning and development process. The proposed 24"×36" dimension represents an increase from the previously allowable size under Article 5-4(b). Following discussion, the commission approved the amendment to Article 5-4(b). The ordinance will update the municipal code to reflect the new maximum plat size requirements, providing additional flexibility for development applications and planning documents that require larger format presentations. ## Amendment to Allow Off-Site Airport Parking as a Conditional Use [timestamp: 14:00] The commission considered ZOTA 2017-6, an amendment that would have allowed off-site airport parking as a conditional use in the Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone. The discussion involved key speakers Carolyn Plumlee and Mike Owens, who presented arguments regarding the proposed zoning text amendment. The amendment sought to expand permitted uses in agricultural rural areas to include commercial parking facilities that would serve airport customers. During deliberations, commissioners examined the potential impacts of allowing such commercial operations in areas currently designated for agricultural and rural residential uses. The proposal would have required conditional use permits for off-site airport parking facilities, providing a regulatory framework for case-by-case review of such applications. After discussion and consideration of the amendment's merits and potential consequences for the Agricultural Rural zone, the commission ultimately disapproved ZOTA 2017-6. The denial means that off-site airport parking will not be permitted as a conditional use in A-R zoned areas, maintaining the current restrictions on commercial parking operations in these agricultural and rural districts. The outcome preserves the existing character and permitted uses within the Agricultural Rural zone, preventing the introduction of commercial parking facilities that could potentially conflict with the agricultural and low-density residential nature of these areas. ## Amendment to Article 12 - Parking Standards; Lot Coverage and Floor Area Require [timestamp: 15:00] The Planning Commission reviewed and approved ZOTA 2017-8, an amendment to Article 12 addressing parking standards, lot coverage and floor area requirements, transit facilities, and design standards. The amendment specifically focused on updates to the B-6P zoning district. Key speakers during the discussion included Will Berkley and Frank Penn, who presented the proposed changes to the commission. The amendment encompassed several components of the zoning ordinance, with particular attention to modernizing parking standards and design requirements within the B-6P zone. The commission's discussion centered on the technical aspects of the proposed updates, including how the changes would affect lot coverage calculations and floor area requirements for developments in the affected zone. The amendment also addressed transit facility provisions and updated design standards to reflect current planning practices. Following the presentation and discussion of the proposed changes, the Planning Commission voted to approve ZOTA 2017-8. The approval indicates the commission found the amendments appropriate for updating the existing zoning regulations and bringing them in line with current development standards and community needs. The successful passage of this zoning text amendment will result in updated regulations for the B-6P district, providing clearer guidance for developers and property owners regarding parking requirements, lot coverage limitations, and design expectations for future projects in this zoning classification. ## Annual Report for the Courthouse Area Design Review Board [timestamp: 16:00] Keyu Yan presented the annual report for the Courthouse Area Design Review Board during this informational agenda item. The presentation highlighted the board's activities and approvals throughout the year, though specific details about the number or types of projects reviewed were not provided in the available materials. Yan also outlined the board's goals and priorities for 2018. This was an informational presentation with no action required from the meeting participants. The annual report serves as a regular update on the design review board's work in overseeing development and design standards within the courthouse area. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of the minutes of the November 9, 2017 meeting - **PLN-MJDP-17-00109** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Fuller et al Property & Meadowthorpe Commercial Business Center, Lot 3 - **PLN-MJDP-17-00070** — postponed (10-0): Indefinite postponement of Zandale Shopping Center & Greenleaf Motor Lodge Properties - **PLN-MJDP-17-00114** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Lexington Industrial Foundation (Baumann Paper Company) - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of consent agenda items - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of release and call of bonds - **PLN-MJDP-17-00108** — passed (10-0): Approval of Douglas Norman Property (Ryan Johnson Development) with revised staff recommendations - **PLN-MJDP-17-00113** — passed (8-1): Approval of The Hub at Lexington II (South Limestone & Virginia Avenue) with conditions - **PLN-MAR-17-00039** — passed (10-0): Approval of Anderson Luradane, LLC Zoning Map Amendment - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of requested variance for Anderson Luradane, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-17-00106** — passed (10-0): Approval of Sullivan Park & Devereux Subdivision Development Plan - **SRA 2017-4** — passed (10-0): Approval of amendment to Article 6 to update standard cross sections - **SRA 2017-5** — passed (10-0): Approval of amendment to Article 5-4(b) to increase allowable plat size - **ZOTA 2017-6** — failed (0-10): Disapproval of amendment to allow off-site airport parking as a conditional use in the Agricultural Rural (A-R) zone - **ZOTA 2017-8** — passed (10-0): Approval of amendment to Article 12 - Parking Standards; Lot Coverage and Floor Area Requirements; Transit Facilities; and Design Standards --- ## Full transcript test test urban planning county commission. Welcome to all my commission members and the audience and to the staff. A full agenda today so we'll need to move right along here. So approval of the minutes. Will go to Miss Plumlee. Move approval. >> moved and seconded for the minutes approval. Any discussion on the motion. Hearing none please vote when it comes up on the screen. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Moving for postponements and/or withdrawals. A one month postponement of the pln-mjdp-170-0109 fuller it al property. >> we have not been able to come to a resolution but I think we are very close too now. >> postponement for one month? >> one cycle. >> what is the date? I'll entertain a motion. Miss Plumlee go ahead. >> move postponement of pln -mjdp-fuller property commercial business until January 11. We have a motion and second that we postpone fuller it al property until January 11. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. Thank you. January 11 it is. >> anyone else? >> staff would like to direct your attention to page 3 under development plans item a. Pln-mjdp-17-70 zandale shopping center green leaf motor lodge properties amended. Staff has received the long anticipated request for an in definite postponement. >> anyone like to speak about this agenda item. >> lime glad Mr. Martin made the statement that he did as far as indefinite postponement because it was going to be a question on my mind since this has been on our agenda for quite sometime but with that said, I'll move for indefinite postponement of pln-mjdp-17-70 zandale shopping center green leaf motor lodge properties. >> moved and seconded that we in definitely postpone pln-mjdp -- 70 and and green leaf motor lodge properties as amend ed. Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Motion carries. >> Mr. Chairman, if we May, staff would direct your attention to page 6. Bottom of that page item I, major development plan 17-114 lexington industrial foundation. Property locationed at 1605 baughman drive. Staff has received a request for a one month postponement. >> anyone in the audience like to speak to this agenda item? Anyone on the commission? Ready for a motion. >> I move for postponement one month pln-mjdp-17-114. >> moved and seconded that we postpone lexington industrial foundation. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none please vote when it comes up on your screens. That motion carries. Thank you. any other postponements or withdrawals? Can we make up something? Okay. We'll move to Miss Wade for to see what we have on the consent agenda. >> we do have a number of items on the consent agenda for the planning commission to consider. I will read through that. There are actually eight subdivision plans. Six development plans and two plans on the backpage for re approval. So we will start at the beginning. These are items for the audience that the planning commission will consider in one motion. So if there is a desire to have one item pulled from the consent agenda, you'll let us know at the end. >> the first item is final subdivision plans pln mjsub -- 17- 66 ndc property unit 1 a lot 21 f wellington. Amended plat located at 3351 mei jer way. Second item on page 2, item b, subdivision plat pln mjsub-17-67 for hamburg place mall also an a mended plat located at 2145 sir barton way. Next item page two item c pln mjsub-17-68 blackford property phase 3 unit 1-m located at 3221 bay springs park. Following that on page 2 item d and e are both for tuscany subdivision unit 9-d and pln mjsub -- 17-70 both located at 2045 covington drive. Moving to page three item f is pln mjsub-17-71 for black ford property phase 3 unit 1-n locat ed at 32 bay springs park and also on page 3 item g, pln mjsub-17-72 in the blackford that property is also located at 3221 bay springs park and lastly for the subdivision items on page 3 item h pln mjsub-17-73 tuscany unit 9-f located at 2045 covington drive. Moving on to development plans recommended for conditional approval by the subdifficult subdivision -- subdivision committee pln-mjdp-hf-107 R.J. Reynolds tobacco could property located at 1195 versailles road and the staff would note that this particular development plan is an adaptive reuse project and you will find a staff report related to that at your place. The planning commission should consider the finding associated with that that the plan meets the requirements for an adaptive reuse project in addition the applicant was required to post a sign and they have provided the affidavit for that. Next item is page 5 item e pln -mjdp-17110 hamburg place mall, amended final development plan located at 2145 sir barton way. On the second page page 5 item f , pln-mjdp-17-111 for the ndc property unit 1 a lot 21 f in the wellington subdivision and this is an amended final development plan as well for 351 meijer way. Page 6 item g, pln-mjdp-17-112 B.M. Cole estates. Located at 1509 colesbury circle continuing down the page. Page 7, item j pln-mjdp-17-115 cold stream research campus. Located at 1801 newtown pike. Page 7 item k, pln mj dp 17-116 adamsbrighton 3050 located at 3050 helms dale place. And then there are development plans considered for reapproval. The first item is on the first page of the agenda. Pln-mjdp-16-0003 liberty heights subdivision block c lots 4-10 and lots 44-47 located at 836 westchester road and then lastly on page 8, item m, plan 2014-51, final record plat for the subdivision johnson subdivision specifically lot 26 and it's an amended plat located at 455 through 457 north martin luther king boulevard in lexington. That concludes the list of the consent agenda. The planning commission May consider all of these items in one motion for conditional approval unless a commission member, a member of the audience or a petitioner would like to have any of these items removed for further consideration by the planning commission. >> anyone else want to hear these if not we are ready for a motion. Let me emphasize one thing as you make the motion for approval of the consent agenda on plan 17 -107 to acknowledge the findings that we have for that particular agenda item as provided by staff findings for 17-107. >> Mr. Brewer makes the motion that we approve the consent agenda with Mr. Larry forester seconding it with the understanding that we acknowledge the findings for pln -mjdp-17-107 R.J. Reynolds tobacco property property old world timber and adaptive reuse. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Ayes have it. motion carries. Thank you. So the first thing on our agenda to hear. While they're setting up for that. I would like to refer you to page 9, performance bonds, letters of credits. Mr. Cravens. >> yes, sir. I move approval of the release and call of bonds. >> second. >> been moved by Mr. Cravens, second by Mr. Penn that we have the release of the call of bonds any discussion on that motion? Hearing none please vote when that comes up on your screens. >> good afternoon. Everyone should have a pink sheet. We have revised... >> excuse me one moment. That motion carries. We are approved on that. >> we should have revised conditions on a pink sheet. This s for the douglas norman property located off bryant road we have ashley furniture. We have the brightn rail trail system. They came in for a development plan for the addition of a building. They had been permitted withment and they had to go to the board of adjustment to ask for a vair variance for the setback and one of the conditions was to amend the development plan to show that building as you can see we have revised conditions. Talking about the timing for improvements for the access. They're wanting to have the access point removed off the trail system. when ashley furniture came in, they had an access point that was proposed so they're going to , this is proposed to go in next year so they're going to hook up to this and at the time they'll close off the access to the trail so I just wanted to let you know. So you can see on the revised conditions now we just ask for this property was all the way down at bryant road so the distance is quite long for them to have to do the improvements so we ask that they document the adequacy of the septic system through the board of health for this business because they're not doing any type of improvement so there is no increase in what they're needing the sewer for. So we just want to verify if they don't like it and they want to have the sewer system then we'll review that at that time. Also we would like at the board of adjustments, there was three structures here along the edge of the property line and it was asked that those were to be removed when the new building and so we are asking that they document that those are removed before we can sign the development plan. With that, I'll leave it if there are any other questions or comments. >> any questions for Miss Gault. Mr. Owens. >> thank you Mr. Chair. Miss Gault in our discussion committee the other day, this is for a final development plan? Yes. >> that never was obtained back in 2004? >> in 2004 they had the zone change and it was a preliminary and they never came back with the final development plan but they haven't changed anything until they went to... They went to building inspection for the building that they put on the property. It's about 4300 square feet. And they were able to get a building permit but they were never told they had to amend the development plan. >> but when was the building built? >> 2016. And they got a permit without a final development plan? >> that's our... Yes. >> do we have any idea how that occurred? Did we ever get an answer on any of that? >> the answer is that it was missed. There was a preliminary plan 2004. They're in the computer and people are prone to check computers it doesn't show up on the blim, it shows up on the zone change layer. One of the things you learn over time, when you are looking for a development plan, you can't just check that layer. You have to look for a plan. Apparently that was hover looked -- overlooked. >> what about the certificate of occupancy? Was that overlooked as well? >> to my knowledge they had... It was caught and they went to the board of adjustment. I don't know about the status of the co in the sense that it was an accessory structure. I can't answer a question on when the C.O. Was issued or if it was issued. >> thank you for the answers not that it helps the situation very much. Is this a revised plan from what we saw in committee? >> slightly. Yes, sir. >> I don't remember the coloring on the left side. Seems like everything was focus ed on the larger building on the front left corner. >> you are talking about these buildings here. Those are already existing buildings out there on the property. >> there is no utility easements there is no u utility easements at this current time. This still has the original home on the property that they're using as the office so it's never really been developed as far as easements created across it or anything. I wasn't sure. It looked like it should have but there was no utility line so it looks like it goes along the edge of the property. Something we'll have to discuss with ku. It's not... They said there is no utility easements. (Inaudible) >> we don't typically have them on a sign-off on a development plan. They're usually on our record plats and our preliminaries so that they can show where the proposed easements are. I don't know how else to explain that. >> okay. Yeah, it just seems like, at some point it went through them at zoning and utility easement goes right up to the edge of the property and magically disappear s. >> it might be a line. >> it has a septic system on it. It might not have ever had it created on the property because it wasn't recorded that way. >> once again my concern is that this has gone on for since 2004 without a final development plan being in place. >> in circumstance such as this, the utility company has a pre scriptive eesm. It's just not a recorded easement. It's prescriptive. If one needs to be established, a very simple solution would be a minor plat establishing easement for the electric service. That's a very simple solution. >> once again this was, you know , we were supposed to see this through a final development plan eight years ago. >> any questions for the staff? Applicant? >> I'm with midwest engineering steve baker and I represent the owner. Mr. Johnson is here with me today. I concur with everything the staff has shared. There are no record of any recorded easements but there probably is a prescriptive easement because the service line exists on the property but nothing else. We concur completely with and don't see any reason why we couldn't comply with all those. >> on number 11 you talk about that the other structure would be torn down before certification of the final development plat the reason we are looking at this pretty hard is that this is on a septic tank and we are doing a final development plan here for all practical purposes on something that is just not a normal procedure. >> sure. >> so in the subdivision committee, we talked about tear ing the buildings down. I would suggest that you do that prior to what we are talking about and then the easement I think will take care of itself. But the building has to come down before it can be certified. >> yes, sir. >> just, I concur with that. The largest of the three buildings has been demolished already. The other two have not, pending making sure we could get this approved and we didn't need to make any other changes but the owner agreed to do that prior to proceeding with certification. >> Mr. Owens has a question. >> acting for midwest. When did you become involved with all this? >> in November of this year when we filed this. >> definitely not in 2004 in. >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> just a minute, sir. Any other questions for the applicant? Is there anyone here that would like to speak for or against this particular agenda item from the audience? Okay. Back to the commission. Any other discusion on the plan if not I'll take a motion. >> Mr. Chairman. I move approval of plan-mjdp-17- 00108 revised staff recommendations. >> it has been moved by Mr. Cravens second by more forester that we approve pln-mjdp-17-108 douglas norman property ryan johnson development with the 11 conditions as identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion passes. Members of the planning commission. On page 6 of your agenda, item h major development plan 17-113 the hub at lexington ii. This is the development located at south limestone and virginia avenue. This, of course, is the final development plan, a followup to the recent zone change that was approved by this body for this particular development located at the corner of virginia and south limestone. This plan is virtually identical to the preliminary development plan that you saw at the zone change. Again it's located at the corner of virginia and south limestone. This would take you back towards town and this would be out of town headed down nicholasville road in that direction and of course virginia avenue in this location and virginia connects with red mile road and interesting enough there used to be an east virginia and a west virginia street. They have been renamed and we have virginia avenue. They are proposing a six-story building retail 11,000 almost 12 ,000 square feet of retail in this location. They have a lobby and leasing office located here. There are five stories of residential above. They have open space that you can see at the courtyards through the building as well as the pool and terrace which was most discussed at your zone change being a roof top pool which is relatively rare in our community, as was discussed at that time. They have been approved and are requesting approval now once again for 167 parking spaces. The garage itself is over 74,000 square feet multilevel garage. There is over 178,000 square feet of residential space. I mean this is a large building and a large development that we have here. There are 190 units being proposed. 574 bedrooms as well. As I mentioned before, there is about 12,000 just under that square feet of retail located here in the corner. This is their loading dock, mechanical room and here is their full access point on to virginia avenue and they need this full access point into the parking garage and also in order to serve the building. I might add that we learned something today and the applicant is going toy elaborate on this. There have been a couple of items that have changed on this development and one is that the building is going to have to be about three to five feet taller in order to accommodate waste disposal vehicles coming in here to serve this area. And they just discovered that in discussions with a private haul er that they were going to ... So the building itself currently listed 76 feet in height. It's going to be slightly taller and I might add staff doesn't believe that slight increase in height changes its relationship in any meaningful way to the surrounding neighborhood. They are proposing large sidewalks across the frontage here as you can see as their pedestrian accommodation, and no doubt you recall they also have full access out on to maxwell court. As I stated before, the plan is very similar to the preliminary plan, identical. There are two issues. I mention the one the height has increased. Two remaining issues that you can see on your development plan one has to do with storm water. And I can tell you that is a re solvable issue. It has been discussed at length. They're going to have to put in a vault to store the water. There are flooding issues in the area. You all May know it drops down back into this direction on maxwell and then hester alley in this part of town. There is a lot of these low lying areas through the university of kentucky. They're very much aware of that. Their vault will accommodate both storage and water quality. They add mechanical units and that sort of thing under the storm water manuals that will address water quality. Again, that's important and has to be done because they're building on the whole site so, you know, that raises an issue of how to meet water quality standards. They can elaborate on that but they have been in discussion with our engineering and I think they all though which direction they need to go in dealing with the storm water issues. They will reduce the runoff from the property. That's one of the keys which will help the issues, won't solve them completely but it will help some of the flooding issues, particularly along hester alley. The other issue, and this was a late changing issue that frankly took staff a little bit by surprise. I'm not going to belabor this but we are all aware of this intersection and the difficult ies and the fact that it is dangerous and well known that work needs to be done and it has been targeted for improvements by the state of kentucky. I think we also mentioned the fact about 4,000 pedestrians use this intersection. So we had a big discussion on the need for a right turn here, very important need. And at the time of your preliminary it appeared that the applicant was going to be in a position to do this. Subsequently they met with district 7 and they had a long discussion and a long meeting with district 7, that's kentucky department of transportation district 7 and district 7 expressed their preference to do the project themselves and part of that has not just to do with this frontage but with some other ideas, some other things they May be looking at something additionally through here for a bus. But they're going to go back much further another two or three lots to get that lane in there and that's also connected to the desire to have a bus lane and what is going to happen in the future, if all goes to plan, the buss will come into these right turn lanes and a light will allow them to go straight through while everyone else is stopped and all the pedestrians are no longer allowed to cross. And it just helps with rapid bus service. So some of these are being done in louisville and I think district 7 is wanting to see how those are go for example to work but that is what they're looking to do at this location. Now obviously staff and we expressed this, we are always concerned about timing. We have no control, honestly we don't. And we are not happy with that when we don't have more control over timing. But in talking with our transportation planning people and with the division of traffic engineering, their level of comfort that this will be done by the state sooner than later is much higher than it was initially. It's been targeted. It's well known as a dangerous and difficult intersection. It's already getting some improvements through a safety program across virginia avenue. So the applicant, in lieu of constructing the entire thing along their frontage, has agreed to dedicate the right of way, acquisition right of way is an important and time consuming aspect for any improvement project and they have agreed to dedicate... This won't be any problem because U.K. Owns these properties and there won't be any problem with the dedication from the state to the state, you know, on right of way. So we are not as concerned with that. Again, it is just timing. So with the dedication they have also investigated and they will elaborate on this but they've indicated a willingness to address some of the utility re locations in this area, which again is another important aspect any time you do one of these projects so that is something that has change. So again 14 and 15 are conditions that can be revolved solved we just wanted to bring you up to date with where we stood with those. And again, particularly with the turn lane, that was something that was rather late in developing. So again bringing that to your attention, where we are with that today. It is also important and a requirement in the b-1 form zone that you adopt the study that was done and by adopting it, you incorporate it into your approval of the development plan I would like to direct your attention to pages four and five ment I can tell you that pages 4 and 5 are photographs of all the surrounding buildingses and I want to direct your attention to those a picture is worth a thousand words and you can see a lot of the surrounding buildings , their character, architecture, their size as it relates to this proposal. I have no doubt they will go into much more depth than your staff intends to. You can see those are a lot of the institutional buildings that exist in the area, and if you would then move to page 8 and I'm touching on what I believe are really the highlights and what you should see in terms of the character report. This shows you a good rendition of the building, the architecture proposed and its relationship once again to some of the institutional buildings that exist in the area. Staff has reviewed this and look ed at it and we believe they're making an excellent effort in architecture, in the various elements. They're also using stone and brick and things that are similar to what have been used in the area showing sensitivity to the architectural styles. Again it's going to be 76 to 79, as I said, three to five feet taller. It is very similar to many of the institutional buildings with the university of account kentucky in the area. What is interesting about this and what is a challenge but also in staff's estimation mitigate the impact of the building are the large right of ways. Both virginia and south limestone are very large right of ways. this is on the corner. This is not integrated into the heart of a b-1 neighborhood shopping center. It is in and of itself a b-1 use on the corner. That's a bit of a challenge and it's an important aspect of this development. Because as you move east and if on page 13, they have profiles that kind of show the scale and staff thinks this is very valuable you can see the had you been, institutional buildings, parking garage and relationship to the hub to the buildings and then as you look east and you see the buildings on limestone as you go down toward the seminary. Those are more residential in scale, in height. This building is much taller but interesting and we made this point on the last hub as well. The massing is very similar because there is not a lot of side yard differences between these homes and these buildings when you drive down the street, they have the appearance of more mass because they're all closely situated together. So again this building is taller they're going to break up their facade which helps mimic those smaller sfrurs to the east and as well the fact that we think helps is topography and there is a lot of trees in the area, a lot of large mature trees and that helps mitigate the difference that this particular building has relative to those structures. Staff believes they've made a good efort in the intent. We have one issue and it is an issue similar to the issue on the other hub that they address ed, the one on upper street. Staff on the dlap and on the study that you have doesn't delineate the landscap ing, the supplemental land scaping. They show trees. That's a wonderful thing. They show street trees and you May recall the discussion on upper street. Staff wanted them to demonstrate the supplemental landscaping, benches, things like that that would help define the public space that would help integrate them into the neighborhood. So we would like to see more of that integrated into the study and to the development plan and I will add that along those lines we received an exhibit from them today that shows that. It's just not part of the plan as yet. I would reiterate that staff believes this is a challenge because of the large pedestrian activity in the area so there is going to be a lot of students, a lot of people walking in that area and we certainly want those sidewalks to be unencumbered and to be utilized safely. We still believe they have the ability to define some public space along the street level of their development. With that, staff is recommending approval of the final development plan as well as the character study that was submit ted by the applicant and I will be happy to answer any questions you May have for staff >> Mr. Pen has a question. >> Mr. Martin, the staff is still comfortable coming out of the parking garage with a left hand turn? >> we are as comfortable as we can be. It is 250 feet back from the intersection which is not bad spacing. Unfortunately they have storage, as you know, the double left turn lanes on virginia. So the full access on virginia, as I said along with traffic engineering, we are about as comfortable as we can be. We would prefer that it be further back but there is very practical problems in the design of their building and servicing the trash and that sort of thing that affects their ability to move it. >> I guess my question to you is where you have a back way out to max weldon. I would hope the traffic would use that rather than try to make a left hand turn but can I see traffic being tied up with peep trying to make a left hand turn and it's going to block the whole deal. I think it's a problem. If they're comfortable and staff is comfortable with it, I guess we'll have to be. I see it as a problem. I want to point out that south broadway has some left turn issues that you are aware of that we've tried to address over the years. We've had some success with that you are not going to be able to stop everybody who are going to turn left against traffic. >> in that same light and that there are issues we have no control over. We probably don't know but there could there be a median or something in the new revamping of that corner that maybe we don't know? >> it's not in any current plans we have seen. Most of the plans that we have seen relate to safety, to traffic movement and the right turn lanes and improvements of that nature. There is no median shown in any plans that we've seen to date. >> okay, thank you. >> any other questions for Mr. Martin? >> I have one, just you explain ed, go back if you would, and review how the bus movement is? The buses are able to move and everybody else stops? >> they can't do that now. The plan, and they're doing this on dixie highway and that was what was explained to us by our transportation planners that the state is waiting to see how that works on the dixie highway but what will happen. They'll build the turn lane through here but there be a point in time where there will be a red light for everybody. >> I understand the limitations and what have you, but I put pedestrians into two categories. Pedestrians and students and students don't pay atepg to anything high attention to anything. They walk and they try to get to their class on time and what have you. All it would take is a bus driver to not see and not understand the idea of students and we could have some injury there. >> I can tell you that we've seen the number for the traffic accidents now which dictate the need for this right turn lane. If you get a steady 20 or 30 miles per hour you can get the light. I'm curious about the tacking stacking coming toward virginia avenue because there are traffic lights within I don't know how many feet but it is a mess com ing in that area. Anybody else have any questions? Applicant? >> I'm dick murphy representing core spaces and you've seen core spaces before you before. You had the zone change on this property on September 28 approved by the city council we are pleased to be before you with our final development plan. Since our preliminary was detail ed our final is almost identical to the preliminary development plan. You've seen most of this before. You've seen our contact study because the one you have and the architect was handing out copies for those of you who wanted them is almost identical to the context study we presented to you with the zone change and preliminary development plan. The ordinance says that our context study is formally presented at the final development plan stage which is today so that's why you are see ing it again. We wanted to show you that we've done the study and done the thinking about this before our zone change so we gave that to you back in September. But now we have to formally present it to you and ask for your formal approval of that. Tom harrington is with me from core spaces. Tom is in the third row. jeff our architect is here with us as well. Our local team here is kevin warner from landscape architect and jeff is going to present I want to address the particular issues Mr. Martin raised. We just discovered and got our final estimate in from the private haulers for sanitation service this morning aferred r and they're telling us they need a higher clearance in our garage to service the dumpsters so we are, in order do that, we haven't fully studied this but it is possible we May have to raise the floor which would result of the entire building three to five feet. We want to know that so it is shown on the final development plan and if we have to do that, we don't have the to come back to you and say we need so we will probably be revising the maximum height from 76 to 81 feet to give us leeway to cover that issue. We are going to look at it a little bit more but that May be one of the solutions we have to look at is raising everything up unfortunately to cover that on this project. >> you mention the left turnout of our property to virginia avenue. We have moved that as far back as we can and here is south limestone and virginia, there is our loading dock there. Because we need the trucks to get in and back up and come out, we have moved this as far to the west as we can because we want obviously want the trucks turning around inside the building regards than maneuver ing out on virginia avenue. We've pulled this back as far as we can so that's sort of the limit of where we can pull it back here yes it is theoretically possible. There is the left turn lane from virginia to south limestone. We don't think anybody is going to make a left turn out of here from here rush hour. There are residents that are going to learn about that. That's one reason why we have the outlet on maxwell street. Or maxwell court. They can come out mention well done court. That curves around maxwell done court. They have an outlet to get to north limestone at a signalized intersection and we feel our rrchts will learn that and if they want to get out of here at 8:30 in the morning, they're going to go out there and they'll learn that after they wait here about 10 minutes and cannot make a left turn out of here. By the same token, there are many times when you can make a left turn out of here on weekends so it will be possible to make a left turn at some of those timesment and not limited on that but I wanted to address that issue that we had. There is a need for this left turn lane right now. We are not creating a need for it but core is participating in the solution to it. What we are going to do, we told you at the subdivision committee we are going to dedicate the land what core has agreed to do is relocate the traffic signal control box which is a city responsibility which is located at the corner, they will re locate that. They will relocate the fire hydrant in this area as well. And number three, they will re locate the wind stream over head utilities along here, the poles along south limestone are wind stream poles. I think ku has their wires strung on them but they're wind stream poles. They've agreed to pair the cost of that and do that as part of their construction. When they do the building so that when they build the building, those items will be moved and construct it so when the turn lane is put in, they won't have to redo it. They will construct it that way. So I think that has been agree able to all the parties involved about core's agreement to do additional work over and above dedication of the turn lane storm water we will be using under ground vaults. Kevin worner is here to discuss that if needed. We understand there are some issues in this area for storm water flooding or excess storm water, I'm not sure it's flood ing, and this development is designed to put the water off at a slower rate than it is going right now from this property and kevin can discuss that further if you all have any questions about this. The note on the agenda is discuss timing of turn lane. The one thing we cannot agree to is a limit that says we cannot build this building until the turn lane is built. That's because we don't have any control over that we can do the items we discussed, there is minimal discussion on the sidewalk along our property here along south limestone street. >> I'm a senior principle architects working with core spaces on this project. Before I get going, I want to make sure I'm mastering the technology here. Okay, got it. We did this about two months ago really the same area character and context study. I'll move quickly through them and when I'm done if there are questions, you know, we would be happy to address anything any questions you have. So the site a lot of this is repeating but it's words it to talk through it quickl. We are at virginia and limestone directly across the street from the university medical center and then the university. The area back here mostly for rent homes many of them are own ed by the university. So that's kind of what we have surrounding us. We also, we did a survey of all the properties and all these buildings and have photographs in the report in the area character and context study which you've seen. A lot of homes, bunk low style, different materials on them, clapboard siding, masonry, different colors. So it's a real variation of what is in there which makes it a nice street mix. It's a niece street with variation in the buildings especially the hospital buildings are fairly tall. You've seen that. probably are around 100 feet. Seven and eight-story buildings across from us. The university buildings are somewhat smaller, three, four story range. So there is a variation in heights really that surround us and I think we fall right in that and we are a nice transition as we go forward I think you'll see that transition into the neighborhood. So the neighborhood residential buildings, the university hospital buildings and the campus, what we really wanted to do with our building was draw from those buildings that surround us. So we have used a warm brick material that we see on some of the university buildings and on some of the residential buildings. We also didn't just want to have a big brick building. So we broke it down with other materials in colors and textures that the we see in the other buildings. And an interesting contrast against masonry and wood product s. We have a stucco element. There is contrast and interesting things that we think is similar to the buildings in the neighborhood. In addition to that, we wanted to use the materials to break down the building. It is somewhat of a long building. Having the masonry at a certain height and breaking that with certain elements does sort of have an illusion of making the building not feel the size that it is. we think that's an important thing that we are doing there. Is our sidewalk is a six-foot sidewalk now. They'll be in the 16 to 1 foot range. We think that's very important. We have, since we had met earlier and when we submitted the report that you have now, the November 6 report, we kept working and in some of the copies, unfortunately the ones I didn't hand out don't have them. We have done more work on the landscape. We have a landscape plan that is part of what you see there. We'll get to that. It's in the back of what we have but we have gone further and provided very specific landscap ing elements and seeding seating elements within the surrounding landscape on that street. But also we've created a real re tail feel, especially when we are on limestone. That's an important component that retail space we think can be an important component in the building and in the neighborhood so it's a real add, in our opinion. Just the character of the building we think it will trans form that corner and that area. So again looking at our building with the variation and materials , the synthetic wood, brick, fluted stucco elements, corrigated siding and we just see, you know, a ton of variation in the other buildings we think we are drawing the best elements out of the neighborhood and making it part of our building. we are seeing different views. The university hospital buildings. The university and then where we relate to that and the neighborhood buildings and we are seeing that from different views. You all know it really well. We have over 11,000 square feet we have a seating wall that helps so there is a seating wall that extends across here and we actually have seating benches that are right outside of the lob necessity addition to that so we can accommodate this turn lane. We have planters here so when the work takes place when the curb changes, we are going to, that planter will be pulled back and we will have set our trees back in the planter towards the building so it's easy for the transition to take place and our planter bed there where we have perennials and native grasses and things like that will just be pulled back and that turn will be seamlessly made to work. In addition we talked earlier, our entry point. Push back as far as we can. The trucks pull in here. This area right in here is the area where we need that additional height. That's two stories tall and we have 21 feet in there and we need 24 feet because they have these overhead trucks that pull the bins overhead. We are working through that. We have a little flexibility within the grades so trust us we are going to bring it up as little as possible because every square foot that we raise that or inch that we raise that up, we add additional cost to the perimeter of the building. We don't need it. We need it to satisfy this requirement. So then all in we have 167 park ing spaces. 13 are for retail. We have 154 spaces then for the residential. We mentioned the max medicalton -- maxwelton entrance lack here. That one point on the property line is something we had an approval to be on the property line. Otherwise we met all the requir ed setbacks. You also see trees we are adding around the site that all satisfy the canopy requirements. We've satisfied all those requirements with the present design. The building, foot footprint of the building, the residential elements, large courtyards that will be landscaped courtyards used by the occupants in the building and up at the corner of the building we have a pool and pool terrace at the top of the building, very top of the building. You've seen that before. Wonderful elment people like having pools on the roofs of their buildings. I would like to have that at home also. The main building height present ly is 76 feet. That's where we might have the minor adjustment. The pool deck sets up a little higher than that. A five-foot space that allows the pool to nestle in that. That portion sets up five feet higher than the 76 feet. All that would move up that little bit. And then we have the transition from the hospital university buildings were significantly lower then down to the residential. When we are looking along virginia, you know, we kind of fit within those buildings. It feels, I think, trl as you are at that intersection and in that area, it seems like a building that really makes sense there. And with that, that's where we are. The building that we are proposing. Tracey, could you put that landscape plan on? There is a retaining wall that helps with the grades. It will be 18 inches above the grade. It helps us make the work over there. We have the wide planner here had that changes, you will be close to that but we'll hold it back so there is still three feet of sidewalk so that from the street you can still walk along the sidewalk element in addition to having the sidewalk on this side so you see it in many urban areas where go there are planters like that, there is a little bit of a recess that allows for that sidewalk. We have tall narrow trees along this element. We think that's an important part of the just how you experience the building as you are moving along virginia and then there is tall grasses and perennials. Nnials. nnials. Nnials. Nnials. Nnials. Nn and in here and then in this planter over here. In addition, we planted the street trees are planted very densely which we think has just a big effect on the building. It's part of the neighborhood, part of the area, a lot of great trees in the area. That's the building we are proposing. If you have any questions, myself or one of the members of the team would love to answer those. >> any questions?% >> are there any citizens that would like to speak to this particular agenda item? Either for or against? >> I still do not have a comfort level with this right of way and the traffic and just for the record, if I could have casey come down and comment on that, I would appreciate it. Thank you. >> good afternoon. I'm going to kind of hit some notes that I made up there and if that doesn't address specific things. The access to virginia. Of course terrific traffic we had concerns with that. Ultimately at the end the reason we felt comfortable not opposing it was that additional entrance on maxwelton court. During peak times. The residents will use maxwelton but there are off peak times that they will be able to make that left on to virginia. With that additional access, that would have been a change recommendation for traffic so that's how we reviewed it. One thing we did consider is that this, the development isn't a hat trip generator for vehicle s so I think it's going to be more pedestrian oriented from that aspect. Not to totally confuse the issue but the virginia road, that is part of the proposed road swap that we do not, it's not final ized yet. But I think the state has has also looked at that access point because if it goes through, then they would be the owners of virginia avenue and we would be the owners of south limestone as far as the right turn lane, traffic agrees it is an existing condition that is needed. I think the idea needs to be constructed at the same time of the development for a safety and cost aspect, to have, you know, another construction come back in after the facts they're will ing to prep it but there is a safety factor with the number of pedestrians on that corner so I think to work it so it occurs at the same time regardless if the funding is different sources that would be the best case for traffic. >> we talked about the state is going to do some work across the intersection on the other side and you were going to talk with district 7 about this probably having a higher priority than that side did. Can you tell us about any of that conversation? >> those conversations were not had. I think the right turn project on virginia, so just to clarify there are two right turns that would be discussing. There is a right turn on lime that has been discussed most of this hearing and there is a right turn lane extension so there is an existing right turn lane out there and there is a project that is funded to extend it I think that is too far down the roo road to pull back on. As I know now, that one will continue. >> timing? Is there any guess when the timing May get funded? >> that's our hard part that there are so many moving pieces with this project. Timing is unknown. Traffic is hesitant to stand up here and say. It's an existing problem that we that's saying that we agree that the development isn't solely responsible. >> I think we are all in agreement it is a myth. Does that simplify that point? >> it did. >> any other questions or comments? >> I think I heard you say that if the land swap goes through, lfucg ends up with south lime and U.K. Ends up with virginia. Is is that right? >> yes, sir. That's the proposal. >> would that potentially change state funding for that then? Yes, the funding would probably be a different source. I think that's where our plan ning division, our traffic transportation planning division has, is aware and has conversations and thoughts on funding potentials. Is that fair? just to clarify, the road swap, not the land swap. At least I didn't make too big of a mistake. He was making me nervous. I was like oh no. Mr. Duncan is getting up! I've really done it. >> so potentially you're saying maybe the city has more ideas about how they're going to fund this than the state does at this point? >> oh gee. >> or did I misunderstand what you were saying? >> obviously I'm very limited on any control over state funding other than, you know, sort of being involved in letting me know, letting traffic know what is going on. If it is a city project and city funding, then yes, there is definitely more, we have more control over it since it is the city and the city's money. >> but do you, I guess do you all have it on any kind of project list right now? >> we do not have it. >> just the state does. >> correct. >> because currently it's state. >> okay. >> Mr. Bell. >> Mr. Murphy. May I speak to you, please? So just to try to educate me or us. Timing wise how does this work as far as how far along do y'all go knowing that this turn lane is an issue? Can you shed some light on y'all 's timing on this. I was discussing that with Mr. Harrington during that discussion. We certain will I recognize, as i said, that turn lane needs to be built today. Regardless whether this project is built or not. It needs to be going ahead and built today we are adding a very fledgible amount of traffic by using that turn lane, I guess people coming out of our project and coming in when they're com ing back could come down limestone and go it in the right turn lane and come into our entrance on virginia avenue. We will be using it an amount but not putting amount of traffic that justifies imposing the entire cost of the lane on this project because we all recognize it is needed now. It is a substantial expense but in discussing it this week, my folks are willing to pair a substantial part of that and I'll get the timing in a minute but we will not only dedicate it but as I said, we will pay for moving the traffic control box pay for moving moving the fire hydrant and wind stream overhead utilities along there and will construct it in such a way as was mentioned to you that it will be minimal disruption to either our project or the remainder of our sidewalk when this is built. Any time this is built there is going to be a safety issue. Right now I've seen two studies on this of the our study showed 2,000 pedestrians a day coming down this corridor. A lot of them were on virginia as opposed to limestone because there is a lot of foot traffic from the student residential area on virginia and down red mile and all that stuff coming up virginia. we do have pedestrian traffic on south limeston but not to that degree. U.K. Study showed 4,000 on this corner today on this project. So if we do the project today yes any time you do construction that's potentially a safety item but at the same time have you to make provision to provide for the safety during that time. The engineering and design issues our agreement with U.K. In the land swap, you know, this is part of the land swap for the kennedy bookstore when I first got involved in this, I was working on a project to put this project on kennedy bookstore property but our agreement with U.K. Is that we have to have all this resolved or else we are not obligated to proceed with the particular project. So that being said, and the other thing I will add, too, is that as you know, core is doing the project on south upper% street right now. We've gotten that through. If everything keeps proceeding the way it is now, the upper street project will be done first and this will be done a year later. And I can't guarantee that would proceed but if everything remains as it is today, upper will be done first and the reason I'm saying that, that will leave us an extra year for government sources to try to work out the funding of this so that it can be simultaneously done. We would prefer that it be done simultaneously so you just have to get in that area once but I don't think that's a absolute precondition for doing this because through our design, we are going to be doing that so that as he said, we can take those planters and just pull them back a few feet we are having our wall, he called it the seating wall. You can sit on top of it because it's 18 inches high. Our seating wall will be still at least three feet off the curb line of the turn lane which would be a protective barrier as well for the people we have on the remainder of the 16-foot sidewalk there. So I think it can be designed to be safely done even if it is done in two stages because we are doing one part of it. We're doing the utility re locations I discussed with you and we are designing it so it can be done in the easiest and most straightforward and simple manner when it is prepared. So I guess that's the long way around the barn to saying we would like it to be done simultaneously but we are certainly hoping you don't impose that as a condition. I think we are setting it up to maximize the chance that we can do it simultaneously if this is the second one done of these projects, it gives us more time to work on it but not only is that but the way we are designing it, we are doing it the very best way we can without having any barn tee of government funding right now. I can't overemphasize the fact that we are not creating this. We are not creating the need for the turn lane or any safety issues that come up during construction. We are just happening to build something there. If U.K. Builds a building on this like their health sciences building that are immediately across the street from us going down to the hospital, I don't know if they would be building a turn lane on this or not, you know; their own entity. They don't come before you but we are planning for it. We want it to happen and we'll do everything we can to make sure it happens. >> are you speaking timeline wise? Is this 2018-2019, 2020. When do you see this kicking in. >> again I have to qualify this, if all goes as planned, if we don't encounter glitches on the upper street project, I think this will be start in 2019, is that correct, our construction? Jeff is more aware of that. >> these buildings are all designed around the school year so the intent would be the upper street property would be open for the fall school year of fall 2019 and this would follow up the next year. Their construction timeline is usually about 16 months. So if you backed it up from where we sit going through the permitting process and all that, from our started time in let's say four or five months, that completion date again would be August-september 2019,. >> any other questions? We didn't have any citizen objections but do you have any rebuttal? We've moved into the rebuttal part of it. The staff have any final comment s? >> just a little house cleaning. again on item 14, on your agenda that can be resolved, storm water management requirements. And then 15 would be resolved the timing of right of way dedication. >> right of way dedication. >> yes, sir. >> anything else? >> no, sir. One other quick run through from the commission. Any other questions from the commission? Yes Mr. Owens. >> I'm sorry. If I May, let me back up for a second. You know, I really think the issue here is coming to some resolution on this turn lane and with this look at the staff here , with what you are suggestion and I don't have a problem with it. It's just how we resolve the right of way. This would allow them to move forward without any clear cut determination on what is going to happen, who is going to fund the turn lane. Who is going to build it. Who is going to fund it. Am I correct? >> that's correct. Specially I would like to see something a little bit more definitive. I don't know what that is. I'm looking for recommendations, I guess. I'm sure, you know, and I can appreciate the applicant in Mr. Murphy and their willingness to recognize the project, you know, they're putting 576 beds on the corner and obviously this needs to be done the turn lane needs to be done even before they build it but it definitely needs to get done before the added beds get in there,I believe. So I'm looking for help, I guess >> I don't know that I have the answer but I do recognize what Mr. Murphy said that, you know, I don't think it would be fair for them to carry the whole cost of this. They are going to dedicate the right of way and I can assure you that is very expensive land and a sizeable donation for that so I have a little more comfort that maybe the city ends up over this street anyway, and I think that's what you were saying that you all are starting to think about this if you get it back and what we would do. So I just... I'm like you. I don't know exactly what to do but I think the property owners have made all the effort they can short of paying for the whole project and I just don't think that would be fair. >> Mr. Murphy, I presume you are going to have a condition in the deal with U.K. Such that this is going to be addressed obviously which will give you some strength we would presume as far as getting things done? >> well they're attempting to coordinate with U.K. I this I I was not... Did not negotiate the deal with U.K. But% as I believe it, if it is or comes to a position where core cannot reasonably build this, they have the ability to walk away from this project. My concern is that if core walks away from this project, we are in worse shape than we are today because we don't have somebody moving the signal box. We don't have somebody dedicating the right of way which is, bay the way, a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of lapped dedicated for the right of way. We don't have somebody moving wind stream's utilities and that that will put the turn lane even farther back on the backburner than it is now. I want to remind you that as it is today, there is no schedule for building the turn lane. Our people living here are not going to be adding that much to the turn lane. They're going to be walking up to U.K.'s classes. And as you know, the law is that what the developers is required to do has to be proportional to the impact that the developers placing upon the street. We all get it when people sub divide land and are to build the streets and that sort of thing because everybody moving into that area is going to be using the that street. That is not the case where we are creating a need for south limestone or virginia. I think core is going over and above what is required of it to do this project. And what I cannot entirely remove is the timing of when the turn lane is built. I have to acknowledge to you we don't have a solution to that. But I do think for very strongly that if this project is built, we are closer to that solution having this project than we are not having this project. So that's where we stand. >> Mr. Brewer. >> mine is not a question. Ready to move on to comments. >> any additional comments. let me say one thing. I, too, feel that Mr. Berkeley expressed my view. I don't think the developer should be the one that bears the full responsibility. Granted there are lots of un answered questions here. I don't have any answers, either but I don't think it's fair quite frankly to put it all on the develoment end of this. I just sort of echo that sentiment. >> and we'll say resolved. We've got that on here and we made the notation on it. >> are there anymore questions or ready for comments. >> Mr. Chair. >> just one thought. Since I kind of started this and we backed up a little bit. Mr. Murphy was allowed a few extra comments. Anything from staff or traffic? >> I did, I went back to the staff. The only thing Mr. Martin indicated was the word change and resolve on 14 and 15 with the addition of the word dedication. Right of way. Timing of right of way dedication. If that's the case, are we ready now? Go ahead. >> so this is clearly a very important project. It's in a place that's a mess already. It is going to be a mess when it is being constructed. It is going to be an enormous mess if we have two consecutive constructions where they do the project and the state comes in later. if there is any way we can have this consecutive that would be the best case scenario but we are faced with a situation where we don't have any control over this. We got to do what we have... >> I agree. >> what we have control over which is to vote on this plan. I think we need to vote on it on its merits. I think it's an excellent plan. They're giving quite significant concessions to the general public in order to build it. And I think it's time to move on >> Mr. Brewer, are you making a motion or are you making a comment. >> happy to make a motion. >> any other discussion? >> I don't want to cut off any discussion. >> don't worry. I think we are all in compliance we are ready for a motion. >> I would like to make a motion for approval of pln-mjdp -- 17-113 , with the changes in 14 and 15 conditions 14 and 15 to resolve and in 15 replace improvement with dedication. >> we can also add to that to adopt the findings as well as in relationship to the area what you call it, area character and context study. >> findings. >> so moved. >> okay. It has been moved. And seconded. The motion is to approve pln -mjdp-17-113 the hub at lexington to south limestone and virginia avenue with the 15 conditions as noted by staff noting that 14 and 15 will change the word from discuss to resolve and number 15, it will read timing of right of way dedication and along with that, we'll adopt the findings as it relates to the area context study. Any other discussion on the motion? If not would you please vote when it comes up on your screens motion carries 8-1. If you all want these for future use... To my commission members, are you ready to push on throug or do you need a break? Do you want a break in we'll take a five-minute break here. There is a zone change staff report and supplemental report because the agenda does show we recommended post postponement. There is a revised variance report for your consideration as well as a revised development plan sheet which I believe is green today. Petition requested a zone change from r-1. It is seven parcels four that front on to burly avenue and three parcels that front on to american avenue. Burly avenue and american avenue run parallel to each other so the subject properties are contiguous, seven parcels. Both roadways terminate at the norfolk southern railroad but they also intersect south broadway to the northwest of the subject property. It was part of a corridor plan. It has a mixture of zoning. It is almost entirely r-1 d with the exception of across burley avenue is r-1 t. Closer to south broadway we have business zoning as well as professional office zoning and the higher density residential which includes r-4. To the northeast export street connects to, from this residential neighborhood to virginia avenue and then man o' war place connects from american avenue to the southwest to wall er avenue so it is generally kecked in three directions but the railroad tracks provide a barrier to further connection to the university of kentucky campus. The site is located in what is known as sullivan park in the devereaux subdivisions. The subdivision was originally built in the 1920s and the housing stock is reflective of that. Due to the proximity to the university of kentucky campus, which is just to the east, further to the east of the site, there has been much pressure in this neighborhood for re development both in terms of higher density redevelopment apartment and up to houses as well as tear downs and replace ment of the housing stock s because many of the homes were built in the 1920s and 30s, the housing stock has deteriorated over time. In the 1990s south broadway corridor plan, it was noted that much of the area had needed either minor or major changes or upgrading for the housing stock. And that overtime the housing stock has deteriorated and that is reflective of the number of tear downs that have occurred and replacement of single family residential. Approximately 25% of the single family lots in this subdivision of this area have been, have had structures torn down and replac ed with new structures. Another 8.5% of the lots are currently vacant and then of those that are occupied by structures about 20% are homeowner occupied. That leaves 80% of the single family lots to non --- residents but non-owner occupied units. The petitioner is proposing a mixture of single family residential and multifamily residential for the property, in particular 26... Excuse me 28 dwelling units with 40 bedrooms and this represents a density of 30.58 dwelling units per net abler. The site itself is less than an acre so that gives you how much higher density. The mix of units has remained the same since the applicant first applied; however the petitioner has reduced the size of several of the units and made a change to one unit that is currently a one-story they propose to make it a two story. Those are some changes they've proposed since the application was originally filed. We'll run through a few photos of this area just so everyone is familiar with the character of the neighborhood. This is a view of burley avenue looking back towards south broadway. And I would note that this neighborhood generally doesn't have infrastructure improvements that the we would normally require with new subdivisions, there are not sidewalks or curbs and gutters, nor sanitary... Excuse me, storm water improvements in the area. This is a view of two of the new er structures that have been built on burley avenue. Two existing single family homes this is looking back towards the university, you can see some of the taller buildings in the background. This is what was prospect avenue , a majority of that right of way has been closed. You can see there is quite a bit of onstreet parking as well. And then a few of american avenue looking back towards south broadway. And then look on american avenue looking the other direction back toward the railroad. In this photo there is also in the background you can see some of the structures that have been replaced and the change of character that's occurred. The staff originally recommended postponement in early November. There were several concerns about the development plan meeting the soaping ordinance requirements because they were proposing a mixture of both group residential project as well as a stand alone r-4 zone project. At this point the staff believes they've addressed a majority of those concerns to the point where we are comfortable moving forward with the zone change and the other issue that really prom med the staff's recommendation for postponement had to do with whether the development was compatible at this location, the densification within the neighborhood. Since the zoning committee met in November, the applicant has met with the staff twice and provided additional information as well as met to discuss the comprehensive plan recommendations, and goals and objectives that we review. As previously stated, the neighborhood has had quite a bit of redevelopment pressure and the statistics I cited earlier about the lower than typical home ownership rate as well as the vacancy rate and the amount of replacement structures really provides a glimpse into how the neighborhood is transitioning or has transitions really over the last 20 years. The petitioner continues to believe that they are complying with the comprehensive plan in terms of their application in front of the planning commission today. And they've cited goals and objectives in support of that as well as policy statements. They provided a revised or supplemental justification. Mr. Murphy continued to also quote the new 2018 comprehensive plans goals and objectives; however, just for the record, because this application was filed in October prior to those being adopted, the staff generally per the recommendation of the department of law, considers an application based on the regulations and laws in place and plans in place at the time it was the application was made although those goals and objectives May be applicable, the staff did not review that portion of his justification because at the time it was applied for they were not really in play. The 2013 comprehensive plan does not have a land use map anymore but the previous land use maps recommended medium density residential. The applicant is still keeping with the theme of residential. It's I believe the density question that was caused the most concern for the staff. Supporting our infill and re development within the urban service boundary as a component of growth and that specific objective a goes on to talk about respecting an area's context and design features whenever possible. Goal 3 of our first theme mentions mixed type housing which the applicant is trying to do by providing one bedroom units rather p four bedroom homes in this area. It also goal 3 calls for well designed neighborhoods and communities and emphasizes connections for pedestrians and various modes of transportation. Theme b calls for protection of our environment and in this case the applicant cited reducing lexington's fayette county carbon footprint. The site is near the university and they are generally hoping to have students, graduate students and upper classmen and possibly employees of the university live there which they would be able to bike or walk or ride transit to get to the university theme d calls for improving a desiernl community and this relates to an effective transportation network and lastly upholding the urban service boundary concept. With those goals and objectives in mind, the staff did review the comprehensive plan or the associated corollary development plan again and really the lack of infrastructure in the neighborhood brought the most concern and the applicant is willing to widen the pavement in this area so currently there is an 11-foot instead of an 11-foot roadway with no curbs gutters or sidewalks, they're willing to construct 13 and a half feet of pavement with a five-foot sidewalk and so that's a significant improvement over the existing condition. The staff would also note that we considered how the subdivision has transitioned over time. When single family homes are torn down and arey placed, they're not required to put in any sidewalks, curbs or gutters or make right of way improvement s because it is just a arey placement of an existing structure. Whereas with a resoaping and re development of a larger scale, those infrastructure inpro. S are required because the subdivision plan is required required for the planning commission. As this neighborhood has transitioned, a lot of the lots have gotten new homes, but they haven't, those new homes haven't improved the character of the area. They have actually, in some regards, had a negative impact in the area. Because many of them are four bedroom four bath units which are aimed or geared towards university students and typically the lower classmen that want to live together in a more of a group setting versus an upper classman or grad student who might choose to live alone. Those are some of the things, infrastructure and improvement that the application brings forward and also the existing character and how it has changed over time and would this proposal make a positive impact or a negative impact? In the long run, the staff found that we will recommend approval of the zone change because we do feel that the neighborhood is rapidly changing. Or transitioning in a negative manner and the proposed mixture of multifamily and single family homes will make critical infrastructure improvements, create a compact urban development, increase the mix of housing types in the area, allow people to live near a major employment center, U.K., and improve the character of the neighborhood. For those reasons, the staff is repping approval of requested re zoning and there are four cit ed reasons in the staff report related to the goals and objectives and also referencing chapter 3 and chapter 7 of the comprehensive plan, which highlights infill and re development. Concern is the context sensitive nature of the development for the staff and we believe at this point they are providing a two- story structures all the way around, not three stories which would be permitted in April r-4 zone and that that scale and the massing proposed is generally consistent with the neighborhood , the density location has always been sort of a question, but with the infrastructure improvements we felt that that offset the density being located here. there is a particular reference in the comprehensive plan as well that appears in the staff report that calls for diverse neighborhoods or states that diverse neighborhoods feature town homes, apartments condominiums and duplex adjacent and mixed with single family residences 10y that led us to a point where we were comfortable with this multifamily structure being located within a single family area. Happy to answer any questions about the zone change and then Mr. Martin has our development plan and Miss Rackers will address the variance today. >> Miss Mundy has a question for you. > you are saying that as people have come in and built, rebuilt or built back single family homes, they were not required to put in curb and gutter but because this is a larger development, this developer is required to put back curb and gutter. >> yes. >> who will be responsible... Now we are going to have an odd curb and gutter situation and then no curb and gutter on all these other properties. Who will be responsible on those other properties? >> well, if another or other large developments do come in, those developers will put in the improvements that would match this cross sects that we worked with the applicant on. Single family homes though are not generally required to do that. So that would be if the government chose to come into the neighborhood and put in those improvements, it would be a government responsibility. Within the right of way. >> any other questions for Miss Wade. >> the development plan. >> Mr. Chairman. Members of the planning commission. On page 10 of your agenda is the development plan. It is major development plan 17- 1 on 0 6 devereaux subdivision, a platform development plan and we have passed out to you on green our revised conditions for this particular preliminary development plan. A lot of staff time has gone into evaluating this plan and how it would work and whether or not it could meet the conditions of the requested zone. We find ourselves the site is on burley avenue with american avenue at this location, prospect which has been closed. It is back in the neighborhood, roughly in the center, more towards but a little bit towards the rear. There are existing lots here, here, here and here and here this is group residential. This is r-4 as well but it's a group residential. Group residential grants them some relief from open space in particular in the infill and re development area. These are existing homes single family four bedroom homes, call them single family, they're obviously rentals with student housing. We have an existing home, proposing additions here and addition here. This will be a single two-story 16 one bedroom apartments front ing on american avenue. They'll have access off of burley into parking areas which they will share between the development. There was, again, as I stated, a tremendous amount of discussion went into their ability to meet the requirements of the zone. There were various variances that were discussed and over time as it evolved certain variances came into prominence. Others they were able to deal with on the plan and they went away. Miss Rackers is going to address the variances that remain. One issue on this plan that I would like to address is, again, we have a variance on the yard and on the side and rear yards in our small lot revisions. In the infill and redevelopment have impacted this property and this just came, this was just brought to staff's attention, one of those things as I said, that we discussed numerous variances, all the different requirements whether or not they could meet the far and lot coverage and they're maxing out their lot coverage by the way. That's one of the key issues. Want to make sure a plan can work along with the F.A.R. Those are threshold issues because they can't be varied so that was one of staff's concerns about the functionality of this plan. The issue in particular is that this is an r-1 d zone single family home and it has a more restrictive set back and as you all May recall from your zone change on dennis avenue with the b-1 and the p-1, the month are restrictive setback applied and we had to apply that side yard setback on that particular piece of property. In this case it is the rear yard and that is a percentage, 20% of the rear yard is the setback required and because it applies here, it applies here. It is more restrictive. It's 15-3 of your zoning ordinance. So that impacts about this much of the square footage of this building. You can't see it probably but there is a dashed red line right here that shows approximately this much square footage is going to have to be, it is going to have to be removed from this location because that's one option. They have to comply. This is an area that where they have open space, that they have addressed. There is a slight change in the lot line you can see here but they're proposing open space in this area. It would be simple enough for them to put the square footage over here and open space over there. That's one option. The other option is just remove it. Don't have it on the plan. The other option is they could go to the board of adjustment at a later date and get this waived by a board of adjustment action that would allow them to go ahead and build this structure the way they would like to. So that's... Again that was something that unfortunately with all the other issues and in the reviews that escaped our attention until just recently. So again that's got to be re solved. That's got to be addressed. In addition, again this is a preliminary pln on a final development plan is when we will address the ultimate design issues in terms of infrastructure. So they have agreed to additional pavement along their frontages and dedication and creation of curb gutter and sidewalk which is standard with a development. And as tracey said and Miss Mundy to answer your question, we get piece meal sidewalk and gutter. We get it when we can and ultimately it will be a public project or as other properties develop, we'll get those improvements and we already have that in this neighborhood. We've got several developments that have done that, that have given us curb, gutter and sidewalk. In fact right down here, this applicant built some townhouses and it got curb gutter and sidewalk and I can remember that discussion vividly because the issue of the gutter and the collection of the storm water was important because where is it going to go? It just so happen it goes down to an area designated for drain age so those types of issues have to be addressed and will be at the time of the final plan. In terms of both storm water infrastructure, sanitary sewer and the improvements to the streets. There has been one other issue raised and we believe we have addressed it but we will tell you again the ordinance is a wonderful thing to read and there are a lot of little nugget s buried in it and a lot of those address setbacks. And we would point out that we have, you see the sidewalk here? Sidewalk into these structures? These are the entrances. There was some concern about the size of this side yard relative to entrances into buildings in a group residential. This meets the requirements. Staff is comfortable with this particular layout. We did want to introduce that to you. And I might very briefly, again I mentioned the lost coverage and the F.A.R., they are at.6. They're allowed.7 on the american avenue and the burley property, their F.A.R. Is better they're at roughly.5. And then their lot coverage is at 30% on american avenue. That's the maximum and that's where they are. On the burley avenue, they're at 27%. They're just under the maximum an again you are well aware. These are challenges that face infill and redeveopment is making good use of the property and maximizing use of the property and I might very briefly base this is really... To my interest very much. We talk about these properties and the lot pat rns and transition of neighborhoods and so historically if you look at this neighborhood, and this neighborhood was platted in the 1920s. My mother was a wee young thing at the time. And there we have, I want you to see, there is burley and simpson those are 25-foot lots. They were laid out for. They were laid out and no doubt planned to have shotgun homes built on them. It was even at that time intended to be a working class neighborhood. You can see the one small... Somewhat larger lot there in the center. There was an existing structure apparently at that time. We'll go to the next one again so 25-foot lots. As they extended on up burley, actually that's the first one. The other one came laterment again the same thing. 25-foot lots. Very common in the time and that was the enat any time and they could have all been built out that way. There could have been an entire neighborhood of 25-foot lots with shotgun holes. At the end of america, notice it's america and not american on the original plats. I love that stuff. Burley and america and simpson, that's the railroad. Those are one acre lots and two acre lots. So at the end of these streets someone envisioned a much loornlger lots. And if you go to the sanborn map and I recommend you all come to my office and go through the sanborn with bhee sometime -- with me sometime. It is entertaining and educational. This shows the entire neighborhood and how it developed and you can see there is a variety of lot sizes in this area that developed over time in response to the various economic issues of the time and that very much reflects the pattern that is largely in existence today. I just wranted to point that out to you that again what we have here, they are pulling some lots together to make a development work and that actually is not an unusual thing in this particular neighborhood. But again, staff is recommending approval of this preliminary development plan to you and I'll answer any questions you May have for staff. >> Miss Plumlee. >> thank you. Tom do you mind quickly stating why they need to go to boa for that the? >> well, they will need to go to the boa if they can't solve it any other way. Because it is a dimensional requirement. It's 20% of the rear yard -- of the lot. It has to be the year yard. That's about 25 feet maybe just over 25 feet. That's a variable difficult mention so they can go to the bo a if they need to. Otherwise they just have to make this plan comply before it can be certified in two weeks. >> that is not something we can address today? >> it is something that can be addressed and resolved prior to certification of the plan. >> Mr. Berkeley, you cannot approve a variance that has not been advertised or September out in the letter. >> if that was your question, again Miss Baid, it's nothing you can address today. >> any other questions which he can address today? Thank you. The variances now. >> it shows on your agenda that there are three variances and a recommendation of postponement but the layout of the property has been revised and now they're requesting one variance to reduce the required front yard along american avenue from 20 feet to eight feet to facilitate the construction of the two story multifamily structure on american avenue. They're doing two stories and providing the architectural detail to make this more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which is mostly single family residential. But we think that as it is designed and facing american avenue with the parking entirely to the rear, replacing three dilapidated residential structures two of which are single family residences that the were built in 1925, one being a triplex built in 1930, being located in the infill and redevelopment area that this is going to be an okay project. Article 15 addresses new construction in the ir area and that is the infill and re development area, a specific area within new circle road that has relaxed regulations to facilitate development in the older neighborhoods. It states in article 15, which addresses new construction in the infill area the intent of the I.R. Regulations to allow construction in older establish ed neighborhoods and states unique circumstances May require appropriate board of adjustment or in this case plan ning commission action to allow relief of arguments where strict application would make it incompatible with the existing neighborhood. If the 20-foot setback were required, probably in this case the parking would have to be in the front yard which is discouraged andid it May prevent adequate parking for the entire project without a reduction in the number of twelg units and as it is designed they're utilizing as efficiency as possible the entire space without compromis ing open space. If the variance is granted, it will be minimally visible from either street and is desirable from a safety perspective and esthetic perspective. At 20 feet the building would be much farther back from the street than the other buildings on the street on american avenue the streetscape is very inconsistent. The setbacks very vary greatly and to give you an example. The three properties that are the subject of this application today, 135 american avenue has a setback of 9 feet. 137 has 12 feet and the next one at 25 feet. This building at eight feet will give consistency to the streetscape and not much different than the existing properties already. Requiring the setback to be 20 feet is also counter with the infill and redevelopment regulations designed for to provide flexibility in development and new construction in existing neighborhoods and this site is being developed in an attempt to provide better designed residential units with improved infrastructure. That has been needed for many years. It was documented in 1990 and the south broadway corridor plan ... It will provide the opportunity for live where you work space because it is so close to downtown, close to the university of kentucky and close to the hospitals in the area. Chapter 3 of the 2013 comprehensive plan growing successful neighborhoods states that it takes a community effort to build and maintain a successful neighborhood. The effort is heightened when a neighborhood has declined, is experiencing loss or is no longer attracting new residents and investments. One way to attain successful neighborhoods is to provide a housing variety all over in all the neighborhoods and this is also something that was recognized in the south broadway corridor plan in 1990 and a recommendation for the area and it sounds like we are depending on the south broadway plan for our report here and our recommendation. We're not. It's over 25 years old. But it does have still has valid information. It has applicable information and it gives some good background information for things. We are depending on the comprehensive plan goals and objectives and concepts though and the comprehensive plan encourages a provision of tools to facilitate infill and re development. One of those is variances which is a relaxation of some zoning regulations to allow flexibility of development and to get good reasonable development. Justification submitted with the application, it states that special circumstances amicable to the property that don't apply to other properties in the area, which is a requirement for a variance or even in the same zone is that this is a cooperat ive redevelopment among adjoining lapped owners and instead of replacement of exist ing houses with narrow two story buildings each having it's own driveway and access point, the redevelopment will respect the character of the area through the size and height of the proposed buildings, two stories and allow more diverse types of housing. - when you talk about special circumstances it has to do with physio graphic or physical conditions. And the physical condition applicable to this property is the small size. On the positive side for those of you against, you May know now have your opportunity. >> thank you, chair. We don't have an attorney representing us. My name is ginny daily and I live at 136 burley avenue and there are four houses between my house and the proposed development. I couldn't disagree more with this project ben being a ben for it a boone to the neighborhood. So I'm here to not to approve this rezoning and development plan primarily because it does not support the comprehensive plan goals and objectives, and it will do more harm than good to the neighborhood at this point in time. And also, given its location in the neighborhood. >> this is the first time I have used a powerpoint here so, -- first of all, as far as expanding housing choices, this does not really increase housing choices in the neighborhood or even the area overall. In fact, there are numerous apartment-tpe buildings in the surrounding area such as if you start at the top, university village, campus down, burly condo minute down magee modernist on the corner. You go over here and it's, you have studio apartments on legion you have belmont run that has two bedroom apartments there is a new development on waller avenue that used to be a nursing home that you have approved for sishtcy and one bedroom apartment. The blue circle in the middle is the current proposed. As you can see, it's in the heart of single family dwellings now putting high density apartments on the rim is support ed by the comprehensive plan. It's good planning. It keeps the high density toward the arterials where you have your buses and sidewalks and such. You've seen several pictures of this. this is one of the houses that is going to be demolished one of the housing choices that is being diminished is affordable housing. Lexington is desperate for affordable housing. I know this is hard to see. Is there any way you can lighten this up. It was another sunset picture. These are the two houses on this de. That are going to stay. These are two of anderson four by fours that are on the property. That didn't help any. They've shown some really nice pictures of houses but this is what it looks like most of the time. On this proposed development, they are getting one parking space for each of these houses and as you can see, there are tons of cars in the front. I'm confounded how this will help reduce lexington's carbon footprint. If they walk what is the need for such a large parking lot impervious space, too. You think students would walk or bike being this close to U.K.? I work at U.K. And I walk or ride the bus. But that simply is not the case. Not only do most of them drive to school from this neighborhood but they use their cars daily for other things like jobs, internships going to the grocery stores, heading over to friends and out to party and tons of friends come in and visit them as well. The burden of additional traffic on burley is going to be nothing short of a nightmare. This will add at least 35 cars a day numerous trips going in and out in front of my house. And I can't tell you how dead pets I've picked off the street because of careless drivers and how many times I've been run off the road when I'm walking home from work. Even though the infrastructure might be an improvement to this lot, there is no infrastructure improvement for the rest of the street that all of these 43, 46 cars are going to be driving down every day. These are three house is that are going to abut. The top one is next to the apartment building on american avenue. This little white house probably has a three foot side yard and right now there is a wood ep fence and so then there will be five feet more for a two story 30-foot building adjacent to this. The other two properties are on burley avenue and they'll have what I call the frankenstein houses that will have the multiple additions to the back of those. So while the front May look similar or be in context. They're going to have 30-foot buildings overlooking their back yard. Here is an example of what it is like to live next to some of Mr. Anderson's recent developments. When new construction is too big or too close to other houses, it ruins the potential resale value of neighboring properties. It cree awtsz a situation where the only people we can sell to is Mr. Anderson and here is the detail. he has put in two of these four by four next to an older construction house. Get you closer in there. I don't know if this is up to building code or not. That's someone else's job but the end result is that it damage s the value of that house there and what I'm saying you can only sell to Mr. Anderson for peanuts or what he will pay for a lot because he'll tear it down. He just pays for the land. You can't get your money back out once the neighborhood starts to turn. Developments like this do not improve our neighborhood. They kill it. This is not equitable development. This does not support the comp plan objective of growing successful neighborhoods. And I'm wondering if you all live in single family neighborhoods, would you allow this kind of incentive infill next to your house? Look, we are not naive that our neighborhood is changing and those of us who own our own houses know we are the last of our kind. But most of us are seniors and we are hoping to live here through our retirement while maintaining some sort of dignity and value in our homes. This development is simply too much at this point in time at this location in the neighborhood. If this zone change goes through today, I think it will set an un healthy precedent and our neighborhood will fall fast. Mr. Murphy states that part of the mission of the 2013 comp plan is to ensure the development of the community preserves the quality of life and promotes successful accessible neighborhoods. Instead this proposed project is a neighborhood killer. It will trash the little value we have left in our homes. It will set an unhealthy precedent both for our neighborhoods and other neighborhoods around town and it will place an undue burden on the existing infrastructure, especially the drivability bike bility and walkability without everring any solutions to that. So I'm asking you, I'm actually begging you, this is a very strong plea, please give us more time before allowing a development this dense in the heart of a neighborhood that's still single family dwellings. Or at least allow for a lesser density right in the core of the neighborhood. Thank you all for your consideration. >> thank you. Yes, sir, come forward. >> we granted her more time. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm walt gaffield. Interesting this particular area is one I used in my presentation to the comprehensive planning commission during the consideration of the goals and objectives for the k0678 plan. I used it as April example of actually poor design and poor out of context development I think Mr. Murphy agrees because he showed some examples of the r-1 d that was allowed to be built there. that would suggest to me that the commission and staff need to take a look at r-1 d and try do something about that because it really is out of context. Now staff originally opposed this particular development as being out of context and dis similar design and higher density and that seems to have changed but it is much higher density going from an rup to r-1 to an r-4 and I think it will, have you to think of the people who own the property already, especially ones who live there because this will start a cycle of it becoming university hous ing. And you kind of get back to things on the other side of the railroad tracks. Now as for graduate students living there, the graduate students I know at U.K., they live on the other side of limestone and on this side of limestone it draws under graduates. I kind of would hope that this goes forward that single bedroom units May draw graduate students , but generally they don't live on that side of limestone. You might consider a conditional use if this goes forward where only one bedroom units are allowed. Because maybe that would have a chance. I'm not sure. But I'm concerned about the neighborhood. I'm concerned about the precedent. Once, if you have an r-1 or something even something like that, you are very likely going to set a precedent to going straight to r-4 and that will soon happen in other neighborhoodses and I'm concern ed about equity. Miss Daily and I are both on the equity boning group that is looking at neighborhoods like this where people don't have a lot of income and development will come in. They'll buy the land up for as cheaply as they can get it and I understand on the north side that people, when somebody dies in a poor neighborhood, sometimes developers even go to funerals to try to buy the property. So it's a bad situation and I'm concerned about the precedent being set here. Thank you very much. >> yes ma'am. >> Mr. Chairman and council. I'm francis heisel and I own property at 1766 american avenue and 1300 southern, which is a church and has been a church for probably 70 plus years. We've been there about 25. And my concern is since more of the four units and the students came in, it has really changed the character of the neighborhood. I think probably the number one concern I would have is the street simply cannot handle. I would just challenge anybody to go out any time day or night, any day and it's just not safe to go up and down the street. This just shows how students park, what vacant lots there are , I mean just multiple cars will park. Even if you had one car per one unit, as Mr. Wilson aptly said, students will do whatever they want and they will park wherever they want to and they will invite their friends and it's just the traffic is just not sustainable. It's really become a one lane street. People double park. It's just not safe. There is a school bus stop at the corner of american and man o' war and multiple children get off the bus. I see them quite often. I've been -- my late husband and I have been there in the neighborhood just about every day for 25 years and there's quite a few children that get off the bus and parents pick them up and meet them there. It's just not safe for people to walk, bike, go up and down the street. There is about five feeder streets that come in on american and people just act like they're surprised they have to stop. I'm surprised there are not a lot of accidents. The litter has increased tremendously. One of my duties is picking up the church parking lot on a regular basis and actually I've had one arrest there for I think probably... It's just not... We are not able to pay more. We are over -- not able to take more. We are over the limb. It is not sustainable the way it is and I think with bhor it is going to be worse. I appreciate the one bedroom concept. I appreciate the way the units look but I just don't think we can take anymore and I just... I'm not sure what the solution is long-term. i know there is a lot of houses in the neighborhood that are in bad repair. I agree with that. But it's just not a place we can add more. Thank you. >> my name is amy clark and I live at 628 castle road in another neighborhood that has these piano key lots that were combined and built on. I need to be sworn in. You don't do that with planning. Fine. I didn't want to Miss Something that was important. I'm here to ask you not to make abue of the r-1 zone which is long standing and rapidly on the increase an excuse for upzoning to r-4 so that the density goes to what was it 30, 40 units per achier from seven, eight and all available backyard area is paved there are two issues here. When faced with a new zone, you think about applying, offering variances to make it work and also the group project of the half that is or houses that will remain and be added to in the back is a way of combining requirements and rearranging them and I think both are un warranted here. The proposed eight feet is incompatible with the existing setbacks on either side these are at 20 to 25 feet. The other two that were said to be very close nine and 12 feet respectively. You can see that porches have been enclosed. If you look at it from the over head, it's 137 and 5 that have the porches that have been enclosed and if you look at the two or three flanking houses on either side, it's clear that that larger setback is more or less maintained so it does seem that that is better for the context. To allow new construction that is compatible. And grant relief for unusual hardship. There is nothing unusual to the r-4 zone about needing room for parking, and there is nothing unusual to the neighborhood about having very little room. The unusual hardship seems to be that the land is too small for what is sought in the development. >> your three minutes are up. >> okay. I have to say there is much more to say than in three minutes. I know that's my way, always but please consider that it would be fair also to learn more from the neighbors about why they think it really won't work. I thank you for your time. >> it is now time to go to the rebuttal portion. The applicant. >> just a couple rebuttal items. If you can put up the slide so we can get that. I want to rebutt a couple of particular things. If we add 35 cars a day as a result of this and I'm not say ing that's right. I'm accepting for the sake of argument that she is right. If I count a 12-hour day, not 24 hours, 12 hours, that's three cars an hour, one car every 20 minutes. Not a significant addition to traffic on this property. There was a comment that we need to save affordable housing. This is the property that mr. anderson. The rent on that house is between 1400 and 1500 a month. Now I think it's out of the category of affordable housing at this point. And that's because of the location. All real estate, as you know, is location. We are next to the university of kentucky, which creates a heavy demand for student housing and that's why the rentals are what they are in this neighborhood. We are not going to be preserv ing this student of student housing. Again it was not just me saying that this proposal agrees with the comprehensive plan. The staff agreed with us. I don't think the staff ever recommended disapproval of this plan to you. They recommended postponement because of, perhaps the number of variances we were requesting and when we came back and got it down to one variance, staff has been able to recommend approval after we reduced the footprint, after we reduced the amount of variance and after we agreed to do additional paving of the street here on the property. I showed you the interesting photos of properties that are in this area. There is a lot more un interesting which are probably like that. That has been the pattern. We are not before you today with a choice of change or no change. Often times... We are here because these properties go back to this property, this property are on the cusp of change right now. mr. Rose and Mr. Do you remember came up here and said they have put as much money into this as they can. The choice is to demolish them or to enter into an agreement with Mr. Anderson to do something better with the property. Most of the criticism I've heard from the neighbors and I understand, is building a new single family next to an old single family somehow has a negative consequence. We are here because we do not want to build one of those single families next to a single family here. We want to build something which we think is better development for the area, as we have proposed to the staff. The staff recommended approval we think it's better because we are doing one bedroom apartments which I think are needed here and attract the type of person which would be welcome in the neighborhood. We do it because we think we are enhancing walkability. Every picture you've seen, look at this one, and all the new four by four houses, what did not you see in those pictures? What was not there? I'll tell you what's there. No curb, no gutter, no sidewalk. No widening of the streets and I'll tell you one thing you couldn't see is storm sewers. There are no storm sewers in this neighborhood at all. We are going to have to do quite a job on getting our storm sewer s down across burley down here for the university apartment we are want this to be a more walkable more pedestrian friendly neighborhood I understand the concern about changing the neighborhood. But we are here because we are at a point where there is going to be change and we are trying to do a change which does not build one of those family houses , not that I'm saying those are bad, but we need some diversity. We are introducing a type of housing which we think is an improvement in the neighborhood. There is a criticism of what has been allowed in the r-1b zone. The issues that are being raised are really beyond the scope of the planning. It's really like could you have allowed those conversions, tear downs of one or two story houses to be replaced by a vinyl box. Well we'll tell you that you can't do those final box additions anymore because of that ordinance they passed about eight years ago. They still can do vinyl houses. That's not something that you have a say so on or not because it's already zoned single family and these owners over there have the right to do those single family houses. But again, we are here saying we think we've got a better way of redevelopment because this property is going to get re developed and we feel we have a better way to do it. Thank you very much I'm sure there is a lot more I could have said. I'm going to stop there. >> according to our process. Citizens have another opportunity to make another point or two if you would like. >> you've got the right to though. That's the point. You have the right because that's the way our process is set up. >> well, just in summary, I have nothing about the design of this , just too dense for the area and the neighborhood for the timing. So either put that thing somewhere else or wait. Just the combination. It's bad combination. >> I'd invite you to consider that the improvements to the frontage might amount to 350 feet. Burley is 2,000 feet long more or less. All that traffic will be going down all of burley. If you consider still well where the nearby cross street where on one corner on one side there has been new development, that's the modernist one you saw and on the other corner on the other side there has been new development, they have sidewalks and you can see how that is radically eroded -- rutted the non-curbed and guttered area on the opposite side of the street. So that really is a concern. The other thing I would say is there was a board of adjustment decision about whether you could reinterpret the piano key lots that had been built across with one house as going -- existing single family lots created before the infill and re development regulations went in that relaxed regs so you could build more, build denser. And it went before the board of adjustment and the staff advice was, and it's legal and planning was that those piano key lots should not be regarded as two original lots and built double on. Many of these abuses with these huge houses on slender, slender lots, 20, 25-foot wide lots, are scwept subsequent to or follow ing that interpretation. All we can say here is that that case, board of adjustment decided that the piano key lots were okay to build on as separate lots with all the in fill bonuses and it never saw judicial review. When you're deciding whether an increase in zoning density is appropriate in this context. That's the context that is a reality. Thank you. >> anyone else. Staff. Right. >> staff has no further rebuttal comment. >> does any commission member have any questions they need to ask either the applicant or the citizens, whatever? Okay. Then I'm going to close this part of the hearing and bring it back to the commission for the most part. One of the things I want to make clear, that and in fact I had to check with legal, I know what Miss Jones told me but Miss Jones, could you give us an idea and I was specifically referring to the top of page 3 on tie tem b. On item b. >> if I understood correctly, your question was is that reason , which is reason b given by the staff in terms of approv ing the variance, was it okay and yes, it is. >> so we are on good legal foot ing whatever decision we have. Any other questions? I just picked that one because I know this is somewhat irregular. The question is is it prohibited that we haven't got legal... Any comments? Mr. Penn? This is the case of a neighborhood changing. This is a case of different housing stock, houses that cannot be renovated. My favorite expression is it could be intern interpreted of 11 pounds of flour in a seven pound sack. It is what it is and the current housing there is not going to stay the way it is. We've already started on this road. I was concerned until because we have done the interpretation of the 13 comp plan interpretation, but I think that's necessary. I don't think it's rye deal but it is what it is. We can't turn the clock back. We can't change what's been done up the street or down the street or whatever else. We have to deal with where we are and what we have here. And I don't think in this particular neighborhood that lot bilott and everybody doing their own thing is going to work just because the infrastructure and because of some of the problems we've already seen so I'm going to support this very reluctantly because I can't think of a better way to do it. And I know that Mr. Anderson's group las worked hard on making this work. You can argue that and I would agree with you that it is dense but I don't know what the alternative is and we have to vote on this today. This is the plan we have and I can't see anything better than what is there so I'm reluctantly going to support it. >> any other comments? >> I'll just say one thing. The gentleman from the neighborhood association that raised the issue of gentrification. Let me assure you that is at the top of my mind. In fact I've addressed that particular issue with our plan ning staff because I understand that is a concern as it relates to new development going in. With that I have no other comments. We are ready for a motion or additional comment. >> I'm going to agree with much of what frank said. I think it's a good solution. Some of the older houses that they said they can't repair anymore, that does happen to houses where you can't pour anymore money into them and realize anymore gain. I'm going to make a motion for approval of plan 17-00039 for the reasons provided by staff, the revised findings. >> okay it has been moved by Mr. Craven that we approve plan mar-17-00039 anderson luradane, llc. Any discussion on the motion. Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Motion carries. Let's go to the findings. >> yes. I'm going to move approval of the requested variance one variance. >> one. >> okay. >> number one. Okay. It has been moved by Mr. Mike cravens and second by Mr. Larry forester that we approve the one variance requesting the front yard 20 feet to eight. Any other discussion on the motion? Would be please vote when it comes up on your screen? >> move approval of the development plan plan 17-000106, revised staff recommendation. >> Mr. Cravens moved, can I get a second? Mr. Forester second. Pln-mjdp-17-106 sullivan park and devereaux subdivision locat ed at 135, 137 and 139 american avenue and 112, 114 and 116 & 118 burley avenue as revised by staff. >> is that accurate? >> no that's the reason I had to double check. He is not even here. I took note of that. So at this stage, the motion was made by Mr. Cravens and second by Mr. Forester. Okay. Please vote when the motion comes up on your screen. That motion carries as well. Thank you. We still got some work to do. Be said even on private streets. >> and, it is a good concern but I think that we're in a position to address that. >> okay. Right. >> that wouldn't apply to an access. >> you make separate findings. >> okay. >> and you would have the authority to impose conditions on that access easement under your regulations? >> traffic engineering could also, access easements. >> okay. Any other questions for? >> actually, in this case, the urban county council is the applicant. >> they requested but -- >> and you only have 60 days to review it so your time is -- >> all right, let mow ask you this. Anyone in the audience would like to say anything? >> but, before I finish, the staff recommends approval of this request, and we gave two reasons, the subdivision committee also voted to recommend approval of this. >> all right. >> President Of the fayette county neighborhood council. I have rethought this since attending the subcommittee last week, and I am -- I find myself 30 feet is needed, it would be easier to require 30 feet than it would be to compromise it 27 feet. Simply require a 30 foot street because existing neighborhoods really don't want narrower streets, and will harm real estate value. People can only park on one side of the street, and it doesn't work well. It also occurs to me that, if traffic engineering is recommending, they need to be able to require that rather than just -- so if you're going to institute one sided parking and let traffic engineering suggest traffic calming, they have to have some teeth to make it actually happen. And I think that it gets really complicated and thank you. >> thank you. >> >> we know all about this on our street. I really like the idea that there should be traffic calming introduced and especially that it is type 2 traffic calming which is physical barriers. They cost money. Round abouts, that sort of thing. But what I'm concerned about is that, already, it is becoming the standard that what you're introducing a is a subdivision regulation or revision to the sub regs for new development only. It is already being regarded as a standard for these retro fits for the complaint driven. Please, don't be a part of letting us to all drive, always, as if we're going to a fire and as if we're a rescue vehicle. What I would ask is that you consider whether there is a way to require in the complaint-driven parking removals and so on, require that, physical barrier that the we use parking on our street for traffic calming. People have to thread the needle. That's what parking is for on our street. The other thing that I would say is that, in general, with a local street, we worked closely with former captain, the fire hydrant person, to arrange a parking pattern that would be safe and fair and accommodate the needs, emergency vehicle needs. And one of the things that learned that emergency vehicles don't use local streets to hurry to the fire or the emergency. And the idea to have a speed way is for collectors and others at higher levels. I would simply add that I know of two streets, fincastle and ridgeway. In fact, associated streets where complaint-driven requests for parking rearrangement have been really a real burden for neighborhoods. If we have to do this for every neighborhood every time, a complaint comes forward, it is quite a lot of process. Thank you. >> thank you. >> anyone else like to speak to this particular? >> just to touch base on the complaint driven, somebody calls and complains and says a fire truck can't get down the road we take that serious. Once it gets to our office, if we just turn a blind eye because oh, it is not convenient for somebody to park in front of their own or something happens six months later, guess who they are looking for. So we take it serious. We drive with regard to citizens, you know, it is not a speedway. But if somebody calls and says they have an emergency, we want to get there. We don't want to get obstructed or meet an obstacle on the way. So, this has been a talking point by fire for ten years. It is just, you know, recently picked up steam from a certain councilmember that got us to this point. So, I think that like I said, it is a compromise. I think it is a doable compromise by all of the parties involved that were in the meetings. >> just a comment in terms of traffic calming. This will allow traffic to make suggestions but require those particular changes on the road so when they sign off on a plan, they can require the choker be added at an interstate. They can require a roundabout to provide for the traffic. And then, if the applicant disagrees, they can bring it for further discussion but this allows for those improvements to be made. The type 2 techniques if more techniques are required the traffic engineering does very detailed studies to determine what is needed. >> anybody else? Okay, let me close that -- yes, sir. >> >> the least expensive traffic calming and most effective is to park cars on both sides of the road, rather than relying on something other than -- >> okay, I'm close this part of the hearing and bring it back for additional discussion. >> no additional discussion but I'll be glad to make a motion if you're ready. >> yes. >> I'm waiting. >> all right. Here we go then. And I'll make a recommendation of approval of 2017-4 for the reasons noted by staff: >> I missed monday. We have to approv sr-201 for the reasons provided by staff. Additional discussion on the motion? >> those are the staff alternative text? >> yes. >> good point. Approval of the staff alternative. >> you got it. Vote when it comes up on your screens please. Thank you. Motion carries. Okay. What's next? Amendment to increase plat size this is a recommendation change. Many, many years ago 17 x 22 was incorporated into your land subdivision regulations at the request of the county clerk. It had to do with their ability to reduce and do the plats and of course as you are well aware, plats have gotten busier and more and more information recently we were approached by the kentucky spares association and we approached the staff and asked them if they could a dominate 34 x 26 which is the maximum size allowed under state law. Commonly used in other jurisdictions, particularly those around us. They said yes, they could and they kind of signed on with this so we have it before you today to recommend an increase. They don't have to do it at this size. This is the maximum size that they can do it. We recommend approval to you. >> any questions for Mr. Martin wait. Does anyone in the audience have any thoughts about this? Back to the commission then. We are ready for a motion. >> approve sra 2017-5 amendment to article 5-4 to increase aplow able plat size. And the two recommendations by staff. >> so it has been moved by Miss Mundy, second by Mr. Mike owens that we approve sra 2017-5 amendment to article 5-4 b to allow increase allowable plat size with the two conditions provided by staff. Would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Motion carries. Thank you. That takes care of that. All right next one is zota 2017- 6 to allow off-site airport parking as a conditional use in agricultural rural zone. >> this item does appear on page 11 of your agenda today and the planning commission has at their seat a handout which includes the staff report and the applicant justification for this this is zota 2017-6 amendment to allow off site airport parking as a conditional use in the agricultural rural zone request ed by steve clark and lexington airport parking. They are asking for a new conditional use to be added to the ar zone which would be number 32 with six sort of taf caveats as to what would be necessary to be applied. So the first, the parking lot would have had to be in place prior to January 1 of this year. Parking lot would be already paved with an all weather surface. the parking lot would have to have a minimum of 100 spaces. The parking lot would be within one and a half miles of an airport providing regular commercial air service. The screening must be provided in accordance with vehicular screening requirements part of article 18 and lighting would be installed and directed away from residential or agricultural areas. And the staff review of this request, we looked at a few things. First the federal aviator -- aviation administration does classify airports in two manners first the commercial service airplanes of which kentucky has five including bluegrass airport in central kentucky and the general aviation airports which would not be impacted by this text amendment since we don't have any airports in fayette county currently. Fayette county's bluegrass airport is located within the rural service area and its location allows for regional access and allows for expansion and reduces noise impacts for the urban service boundary because it is located outside of our regular urban service area. In conjunction or part of the justification for the application, the applicant said they were mindful of proposed changes and their impact in the rural service area and they specifically crafted their text amendment very narrowly to minimize conflict and indeed the staff and planning commission we know feel very strongly about our rural service area and the 1991 rural land management plan was in effect when the application first came in but just within the last two weeks, also adopted an update to the rural land management plan and it reemphasizes the 1999 goals and objectives from that plan and it also reiterated very specifically up with recommendation related to the agricultural plan land that appeared in the plan and was carried forward. The ad hoc committee made some recommendations but specifically the rural land management land use has not really changed. Core agricultural land is what is recommended for areas around the airport. This map does recognize the rural activity center that is the airport along versailles road. The 2017 plan identified a policy emphasis for the agricultural land of reservation and enhancement of the land for agricultural purposes in order to ensure the continued viability of our agricultural economy and the one recommendation that applies the most from the staff's perspective is number five and we've highlighted that and this the is a carry forward from the previous rural land management plan and that is to, the list of permitted nop early conditional uses shall be kept to a minimum and that would apply to the ar zone. All conditional useses shall be approprately placed and design ed in ways that avoid conflict with agriculture. So with that in mind, the staff at first blush thought well this conditional use is probably beyond those conditional uses recommended by our rural land management plan. But we did go ahead and look at the 2013 comprehensive plan in terms of was there anything to support this type of change of our zoning ordinance and we identified nine goals and objectives that support the rural land management concepts and also agricultural use within fayette county but beyond that even the blue grass airport has a mass plan that they adopted also in 2013 within that master plan they have identifed a need to provide additional onsight parking both in terms, I guess really in terms of a long-term project. They identified within the plan a six to 20 year implementation timeframe for additional surface but they have moved forward with that proposal within the last four years. They've issued bonds to make improvement at their site for additional surface parking as well as in future phases, structured parking. The master plan called for an additional 2500 spaces on their site whereas currently -- or in 2013 they had 1900 spaces. The airport does own over a thousand acres of land to accommodate parking on site. There is not really a need to have satellite parking locations adjacent to the airport. They can accommodate the parking needs on site and bluegrass area or blue grass airport board has secured bonds to macon sight improvements and allowing for this, the staff thinks is an inappropriate use anyway off site to jeopardize the board's revenue. And I know that is not necessarily the planning commission's concern in terms of revenue for the airport board, but it does impact our community if that is... And lastly the intent of the ar zone is something that stated specifically in the ordinance for each zone. Intended to preserve the rural character of the agricultural service area by promoting agriculture and related uses and by discouraging all forms of urban development except for limited amount of conditional uses. The petitioners proposed tx amendment, the staff doesn't feel is within the intent of the ar zone and there are already a limited or more than a limited number of conditional uses but this goes above and beyond in terms of it is a form of urban development, a parking lot itself is. So the staff also feels off site parking lot for a commercial airport does not really purport to promote agriculture or relat ed uses nor does the proposed use have any specific need to be located within the rural service area. So certainly an off site parking area could be located in the urban service boundary and be within fairly close proximity to the staff is recommending dis approval of this text amendment for three reasons. The proposed addition to permit off site parking lots for commercial airport is not consistent with the adopted rural land management plan from 1999 or even the one that the commission considered two weeks ago. Also the 2013 comprehensive plan recommends protecting our natural landscape that make the community unique and permitting commercial parking lots does not really support the vision. Blue grass airport has an adopted master plan and a future plans for onsite parking that would be allowed to happen without this potential negative impact from conditional use and then lastly the petitioner's - text is not ar zone. To protect our any questions. Applicant. If. >> if the motion passes do I win >> there are miracles. >> good afternoon going on good evening. Joseph wahlburn. I always try to introduce my clients. Have I to give Mr. Clark extra credit because he brought his four-year-old daughter who you haven't heard utter a peep. She has been doing very well. I'm going to predict she is not going to become an urban planner after today. >> I saw her yawning and that was very indicative of what we do here. >> I will do my best to make my remarks brief and to be honest I agreey with a lot of what tracey said with the content of the comprehensive plan, the rural management plan I just don't think those concepts have been fairly aride plied to our proposal here. I know you've had a long day. I hope you will indulge me for a little bit so I can explain why this will not have a detrimental impact to the agricultural area and could be an asset. Now I bring you all a lot of proposals. I'm in front of you frequently. What you don't get to see are the ones I won't bring because they're so ridiculous Mr. Clark is going to roll his eyes at me and when he would came in I roll ed my eyes and I didn't think it had a chance until he explained the details of his plan and how it would be a benefit not only to to him but the church of God youth camp why they're a key player in just a minute. And the more I thought about it and the more I liked into it, the more I thought this really can company co-exist with our rural management plan and our comprehensive plan. How do I know that? I specifically wrote it in such a way that I have tried to ensure that there are no unintended consequences and this doesn't open the door to anything else. How did I do that? Well first of all it's a conditional use if this text amendment were to pass, no one could start an parking lot. They would have to show that their proposal was in accord with the comprehensive plan, safety, health, welfare factors, the same as any conditional use. They would have to be independently approved. You have a protective threshold of one. The board of adjustment would have to sign off on any such proposals. I've limited it to parking lots that already exist. So in no one and the date was January 1 of this year. So no one can go out now and throw down "parking lot and say see I qualify. In no, they couldn't do that. If the parking lot exists of the size and the materials that I'm suggesting here, all weather asphalt, that's not an agricultural use right now. We are not taking down the family farm productive farms. Don't have 100 plus parking lots on them. Least 100 spaces. Wanted to ensure it was a I have four or five extra park ing spaces on my lot. I'll start running a side airport parking business. Only for serious operations. Within a mile smafl of the airport. It shouldn't be open season. This is for a limited purpose, to serve people that are travel ing from blue grass airport and I've put in screen ing and light restrictions so they have to conform with any other parking lot and direct lights away from residential and agricultural areas. I think there are a limited number of parking lots that would qualify. The church of God youth camp off of versailles road. You are familiar with the location of the baptist college on the left as you are driving out towards keeneland and the airport. It's the very next parcel. Doesn't abut any neighborhoods. Frankly it's dormant for a lot of the year. They have a very large parking lot. It's underutilized. That facility has been leased in the past by other religious organizations, understanding that those conclusions are com ing to an end and this is a cooperative venture proposed between my client and the church of God youth camp where they would share profits. It would help with the viability of the youth camp. Text amendments are global so I don't want to focus too much on our specific proposal. That would be appropriate for the board of adjustment proceeding if this text amendment were approved. But I think there are some benefits that go to why this text amendment is appropriate when you consider how it would apply to our specific proposal. It would allow financial viability of that church camp. These are religious uses. Church and youth camp, these are already allowed within the ar zone as conditional uses. When those facilities are no longer viable because the church cannot afford to keep the building up or the youth camp can't keep going. How do we redevelop those? They're more likely to sit dormant because of the restrict ed uses in the ar zone, these large parking area facilities near the airport and continue to be financially viable because we are providing without making any physical changes to the property. Uses buffered from residential. This is out in the ag zone. There are ways that you can put screening up to avoid negative impacts on residential neighborhoods. This existing lot as a number of other existing lots in agricultural area would not be agriculturally viable. It's mostly paved over, relatively small, about 10 acres I think this body has recognized historical that 40 acres is the minimum we look to for viable agricultural operations. It's a low impact use. I realize it's a parking lot and counterintuitive to say it's not a big traffic generator but it's really not a big traffic generator. There is not a lot of lot turns. If you are going to use over over over over over over over over over over to bring your car and leave it for a couple of days. You are not seeing a huge traffic generator from this relatively small use and perhaps most importantly is it is going to start contributing to the tax roll in fayette county. The church camp is tax exempt. You start running a-for-profit enterprise on it, it adds to the tax revenue in terms of sales tax that predominantly goes to the state and it can be reassess ed for that partial commercial use and start contributing to property tax within fayette county. We talked about the rural land management plan and I want to go into a couple of things that miss wade touched on. Staff has cited conflict. That's an 18-year-old plan. When we filed this, we were under the 18-year-old plan. Now in the last couple of weeks I think the last two weeks, in fact, it has been updated but the principles are largely the same. I do not believe that this proposal conflicts with the rural land management plan. The rural land management plan, the comprehensive plan, the intent of the ag zone, these are all things I'm going to touch on because Miss Wade touched on them but they all go to viable agricultural operations. We talk about core agricultural land. 10-acre church camp is not really core agricultural land and it's not viable as core agricultural land. So these are the type of lots and type of areas where I think those limited number of conditional uses, which are clearly acceptable under the rural land management plan, clearly acceptable under the ar zone, this is one of those limit ed uses that I believe would be okay. The zota is drafted in a manner to make sure we don't have a domino effect, that there is no unintended consequence. If you have a 100 plus spot park ing lot existing today on your lot, you would qualify. Otherwise you can't get there.% so it's going to be limited in scope. This parcel is already developed with a non-agricultural use. If that use is not able to succeed I'm not sure how that property is going to be able to effectively redevelop with the very limited uses that we have available in the ar zone. Even assuming that we were to come in, demolish the church camp, rip up the pavement, this property is too close to the urban service boundary and too small to qualify for things like pdr. This parcel is under 40 acres which as I mentioned is the threshold we typically look to for viable agricultural operations. And while Mr. Wade correctly notes this use would be permit ted in the urban service boundary, I seem to remember a fairly contentious comp plan update where we emphasized better use of land within the urban service boundary. So pushing these... This is not a dense use. This is not a very effective use of our precious urban service lapped. I don't think it's necessarily the most appropriate thing in light of the way that this body has seen has envisioned our community having denser development within the urban service boundary we talk about the comprehensive plan. I'll touch on this very briefly. I don't think it conflibilities with the comp plan. I think the comp plan goals go to existing farms and agricultural operations, not the conditional use small lots small parcel. It's not going to result in any visible changes to the area. Literally the only thing we would have to do to make this use work on the lot is install some gates. That's it. There is already a building on the lot to house any operations that would need to go on. The text amendment has been written in such a manner is that I can't expand the parking lot or do new paving. So you are not going to notice any change in the view shed and does prohibiting what is essentially adaptive reuse of these properties help us support our goal of infill or do we push the parking lots into the urban service area. We talk about the intent section of the ar zone. As a legal matter, I tell you that the intent section is really fluff, specific governs over the general when it comes to interpretation of the zoning ordinance and here are some uses that are already allowed in the ar zone. Cemeteries, commercial recreation facilities, mining, concrete mixing and asphalt plants. These are all conditional uses that are allowed right now that I think would have a far more dramatic impact over the viable core agricultural land than allowing us to adaptively reuse already existing parking lot. We've touched on the airport's master plan, tracey handed out those photographs from this page that was handed out in the sub committee page 21 of the airport master plan from 2013 shows existing parking configur ation and their plans for expacks at least in 2013. You can see if you look closely. It May be hard to see on your creen but the expansion plans on the right are color coded. The greep is phase one. The green is phase one. That's the only expansion that they've committed to do so far is the green, which is in phase one. You can see how small that is compared to the rest of it. You can also see that some of the redevelopment proposed is on land that is already parking. Why do I bring this up? I have no doubt that the airport intends to expand their parking at some point, what I'm concern ed about is their expansion plans are on a parcel that they don't own. And while they May have issued bonds for this, I'm not aware of them coming before this body for a public facilities view. They haven't obtained title to the property so I think these expansion plans while maybe in the distant future are not imminent and I think there is a market opportunity for my client right now. The airport has a captive market they're the only show in town. The only people who can provide this service right now. The current situation offers no incentive to provide a better or cheaper or more efficient product. The united states in a capital ist economy know this is though this is a quasi governmental area we aencourage and allow competition. I can't help but think of the numerous times I've appeared in front of this body when I've been told economic viability is not part of the body. Airport is going to have the top spot because they have the closest place to offer parking. And there is no competition or alternative to ever ask them to do anything better. This would provide that. A lot of people come in from out of town to utilize our airport means someone May be coming in from mount sterling or frankfort% or somewhere out of town, don't have the option of using a service like ub uber or lyft, they're going have to pay whatever the airport is charging because they're the only show in town. That allegiant fare you picked up to go to disney world. You tack on seven, 80, 90 worth of parking, it's not as good a deal as it was. Existing rates at the airport are 10 to $14 a day at the lots you are thinking of. The long-term lot that sits behind the garage, $14 in the garage. There is a shuttle lot that is a little bit off that is $7 a day according to the website. I've never used it. This isn't a novel concept. I hope one of the first things you thought of when I brought this up is I think I've seen this other places. I grew up in the cincinnati suburbs. When I grew up in cincinnati suburbs delta was the dominant airline and it was insanely expensive to fly out of cincinnati. I learned all of the regional airports. You would always check louisville, lexington and cincinnati and see who had the - cheapest fare. everybody except lexington has offset site parking. I picked louisville and cincinnati to depict because they're the closest. Indianapolis has it. Dayton is an interesting case study. Dayton is very similar to electricsingtons in a lot of ways. The city proper is quite a bit smaller than lexington but in terms of a metro or combined statistical area, they're both hovering between 0 and 800,000. They each have four airlines sherve serve is the airport. Dayton has 49 flights a day. Lexington 40. Dayton has off site parking. Lexington doesn't. Why do I use dayton as a comparison? Because their airport resides in a rural area next to farms. Dayton found a way to make this work in a fairly rural area. I think lexington can find a way to make it work, too. I've spca taken up plenty of your time. I hope I've highlighted the issues. We are not trying to change the area. This will only apply to places that are in existence. It's an opportunity to help my client and the church of God youth camp. I don't think it will have I think I've given you ample reasons why this does not conflict with our plans. We've tried to craft the text amendment in a way that is very limited and will receive additional scrutiny before anybody can begin operations and it will better utilize the under utilized parking lots in the agricultural area. We've narrowly tailored it so it doesn't conflict with the plans. The viability of the camp is maintained. The airport is always going to have an advantage. I don't think this proposal will harm the airport. I don't think it's this body's role or planning staff's role to protect the airport but I don't think this is going to harm the airport. If the airport offers competitive pricing, they'll always win. We have to try to find a way to get a market, better prize lower prices or better service. This is a common tool. Everybody else has it. Let lexington join our neighbors in the community in the region. This is a simple use. It's really not going to have a big impact. I think it's very approval prove able and we ask you to support it. With that I'll conclude my remarks. Am happy to answer any questions you might have and I'll enter a copy of the powerpoint in the record on my way back to my seat >> Mr. Penn has a question for you. >> you never mentioned lights. >> it is part of the text amendment in your text you'll notice that I have said that lights must be directed away from the agricultural areas or it's the same concept you see with commercial lighting conditions that we put in commercial next to residential. angled down and away from agricultural. >> do you participate the lights would be on anticipate the lights would be on all night every night. >> I don't. The last flight is bizarrely at 11:59:00 P.M. Mr. Clark has experience with airport operations, provide some of the folks that work on his site, night driving glasses so not as much light is necessary. Of course we'll need lights to have for safety purposes, much as many other parking lots do but I don't anticipate powering lights on at all hours of the night. I don't. >> when all the other off site parking do. Cincinnati, dayton, I've flown out of every airport that you've mentioned and parked off site because I leave it a long time. I don't think they turn their lights off at night. >> and different operations May have different things. Mr. Clark's experience is primarily nashville. >> the other thing I want to ask is is that if this is not the most most site specific text amendment I've ever seen, it is close. I'll give you that one. >> I think there are a handful of other places that might apply my goal was to avoid unintended consequences. >> you went to law school and you learned very well. >> thank you. >> any other questions? >> I'll ask one. You said that this was going to be used in conjunction with the camp. Does that mean it's going to operate at the same time the camp is open? >> even when the camp is open, their parking is not utilized at a level reflecting the size of the lot. Yes generally I think that's the plan, as of right now, to be frank, the details of that proposal have not been finalized because it's not a legal use in fayette county right now. I'm trying not to get the cart before the horse on our specific proposal. We would like to this be allowed and I feel those are the kind of details as are lighting and other things that would be work ed out in front of the board of adjust many. This is a cooperative venture. That's how the church of God camp got involved. They saw an opportunity to get additional revenue and my understanding is I don't represent them but my understanding is that that would be welcomed by them based on their financial circumstances. >> well, I appreciate the creativity. The one thing I did not hear was the need. I didn't really hear anything about do we really need it? It's an opportunity. I understand and then it is so narrow that it is basically limited to a few sites and I think from a traffic perspective , we May even have some issues trying to go towards the airport. >> as far as need goes, I think need is always on a sliding scale. how does one define need? If we are offering a cheaper or better product and people choose to use it as opposed to the airport, is it needed? If the off site lot Mr. Penn says I leave my car for a long time. I park in the off site lots if I don't want to pay what the airport is going to charge me? Does that constitute need? I think yes. If we waited until the airport's lots were overflowing, we would have a real problem. I think need is in the eye of the beholder. I think there is a market need. With regard to your other question. It's a conditional use. So even if this text amendment were approved, I think you would have very close scrutiny at the board after justment process as to how traffic patterns would work. We are already looking at creat ive options to attempt to alleviate traffic but again don't want to invest a whole lot of time or a lot of money in that if it is not a viable use. If we've got to look at going to a neighboring county or inside the urban service boundary, I think this is a use you are going to see because I think there is a market need for it. The question is whether we can adaptively reuse the ag community lots or do we need to go inside the urban service boundary or woodford county? >> I have to disagree with you on the need thing. I mean I don't see the need to go and create conditional uses without a need. and we've not had any testimony at all talking about can they not park cars out there? Do they have a parking problem? I just think we are opening up something that I don't think we need. At this point. >> I would respectfully disagree in terms of market need versus literal need. I think if the airport parking lots come to a place that they're overflowing that they didn't park people out there, we would be in a catastrophe because there is literally nowhere else. >> Miss Mundy. I'm sorry. Marco rubio owens first -- Miss Owens. >> so they're going to use this parking lot in conjunction or while the camp is going on as well? >> again that would be something that would have to be worked out at the board of adjustment level but tentatively yes. >> that causes me heart burn, strangers parking on a parking lot and you have children in a camp. >> the parking lot if you look at the site is fairly well segregated from where the camp activities go on. >> all right. Thank you. >> one, you did mention and I would like to commend the professionalism of our youngest person in our audience today. She has been very good. I would also recognize Mr. Walburg's professionalism in doing the job that he has been asked to do, present a very good case. i've got to probably agree with most of the comments that have been made, whether it's, you know, a text amendment that is supposed to be non-site specific , it really seems very site specific. There is really not many other places that it would fit. And as much as anything, use. I've got to agree with that. And in turn, from one comment that you made, in the fact that you've never used long-term park ing at the airport to begin with. Neither have I. I have never found a problem parking in the airport parking. The airport does have, you know, future parking in mind in their master plan and price is a consideration, but I don't think , you know, whenever you're ready, I'm ready for a motion. >> we have another step to go in the process. >> any other questions for Mr. Walburn? Anyone in the audience? >> steve clark I live on carriage lane over tates creek area. I left morehead back in '93 and moved to atlanta and have been to atlanta, been to nashville. Been the hotel lodging association in nashville for six or seven years. Worked in the airport parking industry because a couple of my friends had parking lots. To say that what I'm going to do and what the airport is even capable of doing is not even close to the same service. You come, first of all, with this property, if there is three or 400 cars in that parking lot up there, it looks exactly the same as it does if there is zero parking cars in the parking lot because you can't see the lot from the road. You can't see the lot from anywhere except for the baptist college now when you come in our parking lot, all right it's a beautiful it's got two roads, one lane on each side and you go up and it's valet only. We are going to do valet for 12, $14 a day whereas the airport is 17. You go on your trip and you come back and your car is waiting with the trunk up, engine running, air conditioning roll ing, heater going, whatever the case May be. The airport cannot do what I can do. There is no way. All right. This land... The only thing you will see is real pretty wrought iron gates. There will be nobody on the lot because this is a valet only lot they'll come and they'll drop their car off. When you come into the parking lot, you can probably see it from the road, a jew gaptic house that used to be gigantic house it used to be the pastor's house. It is the administrative offices for the church of God and essentially the bottom floor which is totally immaculate, beautiful, is my floor. And so when they come out they drop their car, the valet dress ed to the hit, this is a service industry. They can either go in the lobby pay for their stuff or since our entire operation is app driven, we take pictures of the car, the valet guy takes pictures of the car as it goes around and logs it into a file through the app. It's totally technologically wonderful because instead of having to set up big drive-thrus with cameras, it's all done on the app.% hat way if there is any insurance issues, any kind of damage, we can go straight back to the record and find that out. Now you know, it's one mile from the airport -- from that parking lot to the airport. I've driven out of there maybe 25 to 30 times every single day for a month. Average get out time is five minutes door to door. Takes about two or three. Depending on traffic because obviously the one, the light up at the airport is pretty rough. When the flow comes, you just got to let them go. About a minute, minute and a half worth of flow and then there is always opportunity to go out so it's a five-minute tops door to door. Anyway, come back to from nashville to lexington, lexington here, you know, the one thing I've noticed like in nashville it's always a show. It's all about hospitality. That's part of the who is pay talt industry down there hospitality industry down there and everything everybody did just to stay competitive. You had guys dressed like tim m cgraw singing. You had guys giving a show. I'm going to give lexington something that everybody is going to talk about. I'm a facilitator for one of the business owner groups at the chamber of commerce and we go to the business link at the airport I don't even go because I got to park in the parking lot. I got to park in the parking garage and walk however far to the terminal. Now I got to do that every time. Park in long-term, short-term and drag your luggage all the way. All right we are door to door. We are dropping you off at the door or our guys are helping you with your bags check in. It's just a service that is needed. I wouldn't have done it. I don't have the money or toot I am to sit here in court or not court but in front of people and pay jacob, you know. I can't really afford to do it but I really can't afford not to do it because it's needed. It is needed so bad that, you know that's why uber is so good. Everybody is ubering so good because parking at the airport is apain in the rear. Expensive, you know, try drag ging, just going to the business link. It's freezing cold outside. I'm not going sum pli because I have to walk in the garage, sure it's under cover and this and that but you still have to drag your bags, drag whatever, all the way to the terminal. And then you sum home and you go to your cold car or hot car. Not with us. Your car is running. The trunk is up waiting on your bag. I run a first class service. I've got a commercial cleaning business here. An advertising... Ever go to the little boy's room with the ads over the urinal. That's me. I do business in this town and I do good business and I'm just trying to give lexington something that needs. Maybe they don't want it because they don't know about it because there are no options. And me as a business owner here, you know, I hope you guys would give me a little leeway and, you noah prove this because it's going to be a great service. People are going to talk about it. Everybody is going to be like o' , guarantee my lot is full. We can go straight reservations we can go, you know, like I said , everything is going to be app driven. We are going to businesses, our main customer is going to be business, you know, one of my friends owned... He did eight loyalty of work for xerox and big companies. Shuttle. They cut that out because of the cost parking at the airport for 10 or 12 days is a lot more than a limo ride. I'm going to improve services drop prices and you'll never know it's there. Except for the little sign out front because you don't see cars from the road. I mean you can go up and down versailles road and try to see the parking lot. You can't do it. You can't do it because there is that huge mansion. That mansion there in front whether there are 300 cars or zero cars it looks just the same outside of maybe some cars com ing in I hope awe prove this because I think it is a good deal and I can do it. I've done it. I did airport parking in nashville. It's good. Any final comments. While she is coming down, I think it's interesting when I do travel, I take my car to the airport. I drop my keys off at the park ing thing. The dealership picks me car up, takes it back to the dealership and they wash it, they clean it and when I come back in my car is sitting there warmed, ready to go and clean I might add. >> from the staff's perspective, we are concerned about the site specific that you received today because that's not really the point of a conditional use. What Mr. Clark wishes to do or dreams to do for a piece of property is really not something the planning commission should consider today. The terms of a very site specific. It is not generally part of what a text amendment presentation includes and I'm honestly a bit disappointed in that because secondly I would ask the commission to think about the impact that this parking lot could have in terms of the other possible uses that could utilize so if keeneland chose to utilize all of their existing paved park ing for airport parking what would that impact do to our rural land and our agricultural view shed? What if the baptist college whose parking lot is right up on versailles road chose to use their parking lot for. You have to look at the bigger picture. >> thank you. >> the three things they turned it down was one for need and the need of an awesome service in this town is needed. Two was the airport's revenue generation to pay back bonds. I'm not sure how that even affects anything. And what was the other one? The use of the land. I'm just trying to make a parking lot out of a parking lot >> okay. >> okay. I'm going to close this part of the hearing, bring it back to the council for comments or additional comments for discussion or a motion. >> Miss Plumlee. >> I move disapproval of zota 2017-6 amendment to allow off- site airport parking as a conditional use. I just support the staff. >> I was going to say it has been a long day. I'm sorry. We've heard a lot. I know you spoke from the heart on behalf of the applicant but this is site specific and we don't do that. >> I have a second? >> second. >> it has been moved and second by Mr. Owens that vote to support the recommendation of the staff for disapproval of zota 2017-6 amendment to allow off-site parking as a conditional use in the agricultural rural ar zone. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screen. Vote to disapprove. Thank you. We are still not through. We have another zota amendment. >> if we break you'll never get them back. >> I'll make sure this is as brief as I can possibly do. This is the zoning ordinance text amendment for 2017-8. It is a tx amendment for an update to the b pix zone as well as transit facilities. Basically real quick, why the b-6 p and why now? The 2018 comprehensive plan goals and objectives are all about housing affordability, housing choice and supporting transit and to do all this while protecting existing neighborhoods. This requires us to intensify our corridors significantly and in order to do that, we have to start to update our zoning ordinance accordingly. We are currently working with our npo staff to plan out the next four or five years of corridor studies how we can address some of the more site specific concerns. But the b-6 p now updating the b-6 p zone now will allow us to clear some hurdles so when we have our corridor studies done with more site specific recommendations will make it quicker and easier what we are changing. Starting with updating the intent of the zone, recognizing the current landscape, more space for other uses. Hoping, we notice centers are building amenities and creating public spaces people want to be in. first big change is that we are eliminating the small site b-6 p we are encouraging anything under 10 acres, eliminates anything under 10 acres. Encourages those sites to utilize the form base b-1 or mix ed use soap. Neighborhood centers are accommodated in the zoning ordinance. We have those two other options. This allows the corridors to be evaluated independently and separately from existing neighborhoods and the more appropriate zones for those areas. We are allowing stand alone residential development and does not require the same vertical as required in the m-3 zone. Allows infill on sites that should not have to redevelop their anchors at that time. Doesn't require that. Potential to create density that supports mass transit. We are also adding language from our much more modern and upto date mu zone as it relates to design standards with lighting and open space. One of the other really big issues that we are or dealing with here is that we are eliminating our minimum parking requirements. The majority of our b-6 p sites are not affected by the current lot coverage maximum. They can't build up to that maximum because they hit the minimum parking and they're out of room and they stop. The developments are substantial ly overbuilt on park ing. Again I made this point before but parking is expensive to build and maintain. That's a direct subsidy for people who drive cars. That cost is then applied to everyone who shops somewhere whether they drive a car or not. That makes things expensive for everybody. This ordinance woo have a provision for better more integrated transit facilities. Puts other modes of transit on par with the vehicular traffic. #r establishment of maximum park ing requirements. We've had discussions with the developers and engineers that the tell us they need that from us. Back to their clients they don't need as much parking as they're requesting. Just a little context. Buffalo new york earlier this year ste tart of the year was one of the first to eliminate their parking requirements minimums city wide. And just earl area earlier this week, hartford connecticut eliminated them as well. A lot of cities are eliminating parking minimums along the major corridors. This puts us on the leading edge of activating that land, making it available for development and providing significantly more flexibility to earn something off the land rather than have to pay to maintain it. Big issue, big change is that there is an establishment of a minimum, the relationship to the amount of square footage on a lot relative to the overall size of the lot. There is a new... There is a minimum floor area ratio and the lot coverage, there is a maximum lot coverage and as you increase your floor area, you are granted additional lot coverage. The way that works is that the incentive is there to build at least some multistory development on your development. Doesn't require it but you get significantly more space for out lot single story development if you can accommodate two, three, four story buildings somewhere on your site. An even greater incentive at the residential. You gain an even additional benefit of adding floor area. Again impact on existing sites b-6 p under 10-acres lob would be allowed to develop as out lined here. Staff feels the neighborhood is adjacent would be protected by a much more qualitative approach to screening and buffering. It does eliminate the 50-foot b-6 p set back but we have a fairly strong development review process that we feel context sensitive design and other methods we have to address buffering are more than sufficient to address the number of sites that are remaining that we are talking about. Real quick. Going through some of our small site b-6 p that still remains, about eight sites under 10 ach ier in size. You can't see these little red dots because they're barely there. There is an average size of five and a half acres. Those sites are go to south elk horn shopping center. Heartland, landsdown where the restaurant and post office. These types of sites in many cases they've sought zone changes to b-6 p to increase signage flexibility. Zone changes for signage, that's not good policy. So we'll need to look at ways to keep most appropriate zoning based on the usage rather than the sites we May have future work to do to address those issues but we feel these sites can be addressed many of them at that size five and a half acres there, not a lot flexibility left to do much intense the I intensification and we feel it is equipped to handle the b-6 p s. Real quick. What are the changes we are hop ing to see? This is sort of a nicholasville k-mart and there is a new tenant there but we know tenants in the anchor sites, as they dwindle they rotate and each one spends a little less time in the anchor slot. They tend to devalue and they deteriorate until they're finally worth tearing down and redeveloping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Ping. Pi just being able to create more value on these sites if it's one building that's fine. That's, we consider that the type of incremental improvement we are looking for. Four buildings on their site, we think this ordinance allows that sort of flexibility as well. Even up to the point where they have a fairly intense re development they're adding. It's possible to address deng on the backside addressing some of the other residential multistory in the middle if they want. It's up to the developers. We are willing to work on them on the intensity. Parking should not be what is restricting the development on our major corridors. So in short, the staff and zon ing committee have recommend ed approval. I won't bother to read the four findings on the staff report but I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about this. >> any questions? Anyone in the audience like to speak to this? Just a minute. Mr. Taylor. He has one question. Mr. Berkeley had. I missed him. >> are we going to do some things to b-1 b-3 as well. >> I think there are other spots in the ordinance that could use some tweaks but in terms of the timeline for doing that, right `now we don't have, we are not at that point but I think there are certainly other spots in the ordinance that we will need to update and modernize a little bit as well. I don't know specifically what it is you are addressing. >> where I'm going with this is, there were certain assumptions made when we were working on the comp plan in regards to our corridors and does this compromise those calculations because and why it's important at some point we are going to start a study and we are going to set triggers and things of that sort when all those numbers were put together, there was an assumption made there was going to be 100% utilization of these corridors, these excess lands. >> we assumed a 50% re development over, I believe 20 years. >> no, it was 100% utilization. We went through this a number of times and we also assumed this to be at a density of 35 units to the acre when we did our calculations. You guys did your calculations. So now I'm hearing we are only going to apply this to 10-acre tracts and greater. I understand that b-1 allows, it has a residential component on the second floor. One of my concerns here is that it looks like to me we are cutting back on what we originally planned to do. >> I wouldn't characterize this update in any way as a cutting back of anything. >> maybe not of b-6 p but I'm talking about your alls overall assumptions when you put the numbers together for us. >> our assumption is that the we want b-6 p to be the go to in the corridors. Bup is not intended to be a corridor zone. It's intended to be a neighborhood zone. >> how many tracts are under 10 acres along nicholasville road. >> lots of them. this is far more flexible been b-1 now. The incentive is that b-6 p is far more expansive use zone auto use. >> I'm not arguing that. I'm not saying that this is not a good idea for b-6 p. >> you think there is additional work to be done. >> I'm saying it is only applied to 10-acre tracts and larger and you all made assumptions. >> now the plot... The size of the lot is sort of independent of the size of the overall development plan. We could have... We May have a development plan or a lot on nicholasville road that is one acre if there is enough parcels around it to do a development plan for 10 acres or more, it can be done under the b-6 p. >> but you would have 10 different owners coming together >> that's not uncommon. There are multiple different owners in fayette mall. >> I think you see what I'm say ing. >> this is low hanging fruit. This is something that we can address right now prior to any studies or anything else that we are dwog. This is something that we would want to do regardless and we still want to follow up with our corridor studies. We've got that as part of the goals and objectives. That would be part of the implementation and it won't all come in 2018. It will come over time so we are setting the stage now. We are doing what we can immediately and we are expecting that those studies will tell us what else we can do. And we'll come back to you. We'll come back to you in months and in years with text amendment s that address what those studies tell us we can do. But this is easy pickings right now. We would like to go ahead and get this implemented and to show this is something that can be done to address our residential needs and intensification desire s along our corridors. >> and let me just say that I ask don't have a problem with that the aall. I think this needs to go forward my point is is it's limited in scope in comparison to what we used to come up with our numbers for that comp plan. >> I think our b-1 offers considerable flexibility under the form based option. We've seen that with two hub developments under b-1 that the sky is the limit with form based b-1 and that that is the appropriate way to handle small sites and that this is a more appropriate way to handle the larger sites. >> Mr. Cravens. >> yes. >> I mean this applies to any existing b-6 p. There is no minimum on the size. >> correct. >> no. ... >> just going forward. >> to more b-6 p under 10 acres. >> correct. >> okay now we'll go to the audience. I would first ask, there is a lot to welcome in this text amendment. I would ask that you postpone it i think it is kind of half baked . I object to a zota being formulateed on the basis of 2018 goals and objectives adopted by council in 2017 when the element s of the plan have not yet been written, land use element and transportation element are particularly important here. I would ask if you are bent on approving it today, that you render, agree it's not uted for centers of three to 10 acres and I'm glad to hear how many of them there are and there are not so many. But I would ask that you render b-6 ps in that three to 10-acre under tn acre -- 10-acre non- conforming rather than incorporating them into existing b-6 p into the 10-acre and above rules. Just remove them. The other thing I would ask in particular is that you remove collectors and especially minor collectors from the locational standards where you can put one of these b-6 Ps. Consider that all albany is a collector, consider that sunset columbia is a collector -- some of these places would have challenges getting 10 acres together but I don't think they belong there at all and especially there is impact on nearby local streets to consider I think postponing would be a good idea because I think you need to hear from the neighborhoods on this. I think we would like to take it to the neighborhoods and learn more. Most of these b-6 Ps particularly existing ones, are grocery store centers and that's important. It's cardinal to neighborhood vitality. You are aware, I believe that most of our corridors are major corridors are b-1 but increasing ly b-3. And so the impact of this text amendment really, it's not going to be the front and center here is how we are making our corridors mixed with residential I do think that mixed use zones that the we have already are an issue. I think there is a principle use parking as accessory parking if you put a cap on b-6 p parking which I think is a great idea. Let's tidy that up so people can't just use what is next door I just think it needs more work. There's the euclid kroger has a very short perimeter around the back and nothing like 50 feet and it was granted a variance and there is a house right next to to that and it's like they're living next to a dragon. There is hissing of air brakes and roaring of engines all night long. Let's postpone it and give it more look it's a good concept. >> any final comments? >> I mention there was a letter submitted that handed out at your place and that there was, we did meet twice with the lead of the fayette neighborhood council and they had no opposition and they were signed up to speak as a supporter put had to leave. >> thank you. >> we'll close this part of the hearing and come back to council for discussion and a motion. It's just that I don't understand at this point how far we are going to take it. And so I just want to clarify that and I'm going to make the motion to approve zota 2017-8 for the reasons noted by staff. >> okay it has been moved by Mr. Berkeley and seconded by frank penn that we approve zota 2017-8 amendment to article 12. Any other discussion on the motion? If not please vote when it comes up on the screens. The motion carries. Thank you. We have one more item we would like to welcome Miss Yan. Welcome to the planning commission. Good afternoon but it is almost good evening. >> about a month ago and same time I also officer after the board for courthouse area review and annual report for the courthouse review board is required and here I am present ing the annual report for 2017 and I worked closely with the previous design of randy preacher which you know she mov ed to the mayor's office about this report and hopefully covered everything so here is our look of the board members. There is no change since last year. Here is a quick snap shop of 2017. We met met three of the quarter ly meetings and there are three approvals by the board and one by design review officer. Here is overlook of 2017 approvals. There are four cases and their locations are mapped on this slide. The proposed to replace existing utility pole esthetics of the corner at market treat street and west short street and the approved light pole design is on the right-hand side of the light the second case is at 155 north limestone which, to my understanding is a new business coming in called oscar dicks. I think they're a gastropub and existing store front photograph and some of the transom details and this is the existing facade provided by the architect the applicant has proposed to have some updates on the store front,% all of the changes proposed on the ground level anything above the ground level has no change. They proposed to remove existing aluminum store front system and install new mahogany store front with moveable windows and double front door. They install bench seatings ingrated with window and also install a new awning. We worked closely with the historical preservation team in-house and this is the finally approved new facade. Next case is at 125 cheapside which is the king building. As you see on the slide, exist ing elevation with adjacent buildings. The owner of the building proposed to renovate some of the store front to give a face lift as well. And they have proposed to do some updates on the masonry work , size of the store front and also on the trim carpentry. They kept existing frame and glass and update all the trim on the store front with the new pink color. And they will use the same trim design above the sign and they keep the existing light fixture and repaint with darker color to align with the new store front sign and add spotlights above the signage. And the last case 249 west short street, this is an application originally been approved by the board on August 2015. This is just an additional drawing they sent me for one of the conditions for the stairway and it is consistent with the design review and has been approved by the staff. We are laying out the goals and objectives for this board. We will review design guidelines and process with the board to recommend updates if needed to planning commission and urban county council. There is none to report for the financial records and last but not least, 2018 adopted meeting schedules. I'm ready for any questions. >> I appreciate your hanging in there. Tenacity indominable courage and keen insight but we are tired I do believe. But thank you for the report. Unless anybody has any questions anyone? Well again welcome and thank you for your report. Any other business to come before the body? >> Mr. Chair the staff wishes you all a merry christmas. >> we wish you a happy holiday as well and a safe holiday and to that end without objection