I had plans for dinner. Said no thanks ma'am back home. We like the girls that sing soprano. Cause where I come from is cornbread and chicken. Where I come from a lot of front porch sitting. Where I come from trying to make a living and working hard to get to heaven. Where I come from. I was heading home on 65 somewhere around Kentucky When the CB rang, the bop-tailed rig, it's rolling on like thunder I answered him and he asked me, aren't you from out in Tulsa? No, but you might have seen me there, just dropped a load of salsa Where I come from is cornbread and chicken Where I come from A lot of front porch picking Where I come from Trying to make a living And working hard to get to heaven Where I come Where I come from Yes, cornbread and chicken Where I come from A lot of back porch picking Where I come from Trying to make a living And working hard to get to heaven Where I come from Where I come from, yeah, where I come from. A lot of front porch sitting staring up at heaven. Where I come from, where I come from. Trying to make a living. I love you. The End I'd like to welcome you to September the 27th, 2018, Urban County Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to thank all those of you who are in the audience attending. I thank you, again, staff for your wonderful work and support. And I'd like to thank all my commission members, and hopefully you will be able to keep Mr. Forrest and I awake. We just had a big lunch, and I just thought I'd announce that publicly. so if the cameras picked us up, that would be just too bad. Well, I wanted to make sure we all went down together. Approval of the minutes for August the 23rd, 2018. Ms. Mundy? Mr. Chair, thank you. Move for approval of the minutes for August 23rd, 2018, as they stand. okay miss monday moves mr forrest the seconds that we approve the minutes of 20 august the 23rd 2018 has been provided to us any other discussion on the motion you're hearing none please vote when it comes up on your screens okay that motion carries thank you postponements and our withdrawals okay then we are ready to move to the first item on the agenda good afternoon chairman wilson and members of the planning commission welcome on this rainy and cold and wet day uh the first item appears on the bottom of page one of today's agenda it is mar 18-00016 the petitioner at least 2826 llc has requested a zone change from a single family residential r1d zone to a planned neighborhood residential r3 zone for approximately 12.5 acres of property located at 2826 leestown road located in the northwest portion of the city here is our overview of the surrounding zoning i'm going to zoom in the subject property is currently vacant with two local streets peaks meal drive and a white oak trace stubbing into the property while the subject property has a leestown road address any future development will access the planned internal roadway system within the sebastian property a portion of the mcconnell's trace neighborhood the portion of the development located to the northwest is the masterson station development located up in this area the subject property is bound by single-family residential development to the northwest southwest and southeast along the northeast portion of the site across lees town road there is a mix of residential r3 and business use v3 planned for what is currently the great acres nursery site there is a certified development plan for the great house property which is where this area over here which depicts a fueling station and a convenience store located at the edge of the property the single-family residential development is proposed at a residential density of 5.0 dwelling units per acre just run through some pictures of the site area this is white oak trace one of the stub streets looking down towards some of the construction that is being developed right now from white oak trace we're looking into the property the current undeveloped vacant land this is the other stub street peaks mill drive looking out towards the developed area and then back into the undeveloped vacant land looking northwest on leestown road southeast and then back towards the property this is the vacant land and now we're looking across the street at the future development site that will be part of the great house development plan the subject property was previously rezoned in november 2000 as part of 103 acre parcel sebastian property the parcel was directly across from leestown road from the entrance of masterson station subdivision station subdivision the initial rezoning sought a zone change from ar agricultural rural and au agricultural urban zone to a mix of single family residential r1d and r1e and a planned neighborhood residential r3 zones in 2000 the site was evaluated against the recommendations of the 1996 comprehensive plan which recommended low and medium density residential land use for the parcel the applicants uh requested requests differed from the specifics of the recommended recommendation slightly as they proposed to relocate medium density areas to a more compatible area with the zoning approved for the adjoining properties rather than locating the medium density areas on the far east portion of the property portion of the site adjoining low density developments in the spicewood development the applicants rezoned the far west portion of the property to r3 which adjoins the r1t zone area of marshall property with this application the subject property with this application of the subject property the petitioner is seeking to rezone the remaining undeveloped land from the r1d to the r1 or the r3 planned neighborhood residential to allow for greater flexibility of the lot sizes the future development is seeking to continue with single-family residential dwellings with lot sizes varying from approximately 42 to 48 feet by modifying the frontages the single family houses uh modifying the frontages of the single family houses the developer has increased the number of lots depicted on the associated development plan from 45 to 63 units the increase of 19 units presents an approximate 40 percent increase in density to a residential density of 5.0 for plant pln mar 18-00016 the staff and the zoning committee recommends approval of the zone change the plan to neighborhood residential zone is in agreement with the 2013 comprehensive plan and the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan for the following reasons the goals and objectives of both the 2013 comprehensive plan and the adopted 2018 goals and objectives prioritizes a mix of housing types and densities theme a goal one and recommend supporting infill and redevelopment theme a goal 1b and goal 2 as well as theme eagle 1 the goals and objectives of both the 2013 and 2018 comprehensive plans encouraged max encourages maximizing development on vacant land within the urban service boundary and promoting use of under lot underutilized land in a way that enhances the existing existing urban form theme e goal 1b the proposed density increase will allow for the dwelling units that are slightly more affordable and complements the existing pattern of development within the Sebastian property this proposed development will be compatible with the existing variety of houses in the area which will respect the context and design features of this area theme a goal 3a the corollary development plan provides street connections to complete the network within McConnell's trace neighborhood and will provide direct pedestrian access to Lee's town Road in support of theme D goal 1a this objective recommends support of the complete streets concept prioritizing a pedestrian first design that also accommodates the need of bicycle transit and other vehicles this recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of PLN MJ DP 18-00064 Sebastian Sebastian unit 3 amended prior to forwarding forwarding the recommendation to the urban County Council this certification must be accomplished within two weeks of the Planning Commission's approval if you have any questions I'm here to answer Any questions from the commission members? Okay, thank you. The development plan is... I'll turn that over to Ms. Galt. Ms. Galt. Sorry, good afternoon. Sorry for the voice here. I'm going to lose it. So just want to go over. We're looking at MJDP 18-64 Sebastian Property Unit 3. As Hal explained, they are asking for the property to be re-zoned to R3 so they can increase the density on the property. You can see up here, whoops, this is along Leastown Road, and this is Peaks Mill coming in. As I was explained, up here at the top is White Oaks Trace, which is at a light across from Masterson Station subdivision. The development plan has just a few sign-offs with this. Just typical engineering traffic and Forrester, environmental quality, and bike and ped planners review for pedestrian access. Our final condition was to resolve pedestrian access to Leastown Road via proposed cul-de-sacs. The cul-de-sacs, as you can see, they're located closer to Leastown Road, and we were hoping to have the connection between the cul-de-sacs to the sidewalk on Leastown Road after they've done the improvements to Leastown Road. With that, if you all have any other comments or questions. Sorry. Any comments or questions about the development plan? Thank you. I give a cold oh my gosh allergies okay thank you mr. chairman I'm Dick Murphy I'm representing Lee's 2826 LLC which is an affiliate of Anderson communities Dennis Anderson is with me here today John Strom the in-house counsel for Anderson communities and of course Rory Kaley our designer from EA partners we are in basic agreement with the staff's recommendation on the zone change we have designed this so that the sides of the houses will be facing least down road rather than the rear of the houses which was the design under the old plan so we think it'll be aesthetic aesthetically better on this plan than we had under the old zoning. This is a good use of underutilized land and I won't go into all the reasons that the staff mentioned that it agrees with a comprehensive plan. We do have a bit of an issue with the development plan recommendations and that is item 7 and possibly 6 as it relates to it. As Ms. mentioned there's an issue about the connection of the cul-de-sacs by sidewalk to the Leestown road sidewalk. I've got some exhibits I want to start down at this end. I'll take one and pass it along. But we have want to emphasize that McConnell's Trace has valued connectivity and made connectivity an important part of the development since it was started back in about the year 2000. And as you know, the Town Branch Trail starts in McConnell's Trace. It was Dennis actually donated 24 acres of land, 24 acres for the first part of the Town Branch Trail. And not only did that allow the trail to be built in his subdivision, but the value of that land, $1.7 million, was used as the local match to allow the city to get state or federal funds. I don't know which it was, state or federal, to do the work on the Town Branch Trail. Our development connects with the Town Branch Trail. we don't though connect between houses on this and the issue about connecting these cul-de-sacs was made in the technical committee and wanted to discuss that with you for a second here here is our development plan and the issue is if I can get my laser pointer out of my pocket here whether we should connect two of our cul-de-sacs here and here to Leastown Road. This is Leastown Road. We have White Oak Trace intersects with Leastown Road right up here. It's just one lot width away from us right here is the intersection of White Oak Trace and Leastown Road. Staff mentioned Peaks Mill Road. We'll be coming right through here parallel to Leastown Road. We have another connection into the subdivision back here, and we have a connection with another road out here, which is Chestnut Ridge Drive right down here. Chestnut Ridge Drive is not yet signalized, although it was designed, if you've been out there, you can tell it was designed by the state to be fully signalized when it's warranted. White Oak Trace is a fully signalized intersection right now. This is a four-lane divided highway running down here. Now, why are we objecting to having our sidewalk connections here? There's three reasons. The first reason is a physical or topographic reason. The second reason is a safety issue. And the third reason is a security issue. And I'm going to go on to our next slide. this is the development here. We've picked a point in the middle of our project and we've tried to measure how far it's going to take to get across the street to the Great Acres development over here if that's what somebody wanted to do. We measured this on Google Earth and the distance is 1,639 feet. I think it's 39, going from here up to the light, crossing and go back up to here. Our next slide shows what the distance is if you used our sidewalks along the street to get to that same point, again, from here up to here. We measure it going down to where Peaks Mill Road will be, sidewalk along White Oak Trace, cross Leastown Road, down to this point. That's 1,929 feet. That's a difference of 290 feet. It's just less than one football field, just less than 100 yards difference in this distance going this route and the distance going up to Lees Town Road and around. Now, that's important because we have some topographic considerations to deal with here. This is the bank, earthen bank, along Lees Town Road. you can on our property you can see the zone change sign gives it some perspective as to what the height is it's probably eight or nine feet at this point the bank isn't that high along the entire frontage here's another shot that shows uh less of a bank through here going down leased down road looking toward town a little bit but it's it's still an embankment i asked rory to measure the the elevation difference at our two cul-de-sacs it's about eight feet we're about eight feet above the level of Leastown Road. Now what that means is we're going to have to put in steps to do it. We can't do that on a slope down because our slope for the sidewalk would be about somewhere between 28 and 40 percent. The greatest slope you allow on a street is 10 percent in perspective. We're talking two and a half to four times that kind of a slope. So we can't do a ramp. it's too steep for a ramp, we'd have to do steps. What that means is this would not be ADA compatible. So if you're in a wheelchair, a scooter or something like that, you're not able to use this connection. It's only for people without a disability. Now, when you take into account the difference in distance, that 290 feet, if you're in a wheelchair, have to go that anyway because that's the only way around is to go by the sidewalks on the street. An able-bodied person without a disability would be able to use these connections and gain a little bit of distance, 290 feet, but again, we don't think that is a significant significant difference in the amount that a person without a disability can travel. We have a safety issue on this as well. Well I'm going to my next slide. I just wanted to show you here this is an aerial photograph of our property. Again here's Leestown Road. I brought this up because this is done to show the shadows and you can see our Our bank, the elevation difference, is big enough on this whole frontage that it shows the shadow of the bank along almost our entire frontage of Leastown Road. That's the shadow of our elevation difference going through the entire frontage of our property. Here's what we're looking at if you take the sidewalk up to Leastown Road. We're looking at a four-lane divided highway. This is up somewhat closer to White Oak Trace. The entire distance we're a four-lane divided highway with a median. This is looking back toward White Oak Trace. Here it is. We have four lanes. We have two turn lanes on the other side plus the two through lanes plus an empty lane, six or seven lanes right here. That's where the medians start. But here are the signals up at White Oak Trace and Lee's Town Road. We don't want to put people out mid-block, which is what these sidewalks would be doing. If you walked from the end of our cul-de-sac to the sidewalk on Leestown Road, you'd be coming out mid-block. We don't want to make it easy for people to cross in the middle of a block. We want them to go to the signalized intersection. And why is that? Well, this sign tells you why. The speed limit out there is 55 miles an hour. And this is, the sign is actually closer to town. This is closer toward Citation Boulevard. This is where you're getting in the more congested part of town. It's 55 miles an hour. Of course, that's the limit everywhere. People drive fast out there. We don't want to put the people coming from our cul-de-sac who may be kids, may be adults, whatever, whoever it is, it's going to be a dangerous situation when we put them out in mid block and they want to get to the other side it'll be tempting to try to cross least town Road it's not as well lit in the middle of the block as it is at the intersection the intersection has a traffic light out at White Oak trace it'll be a much safer situation we don't want people to be encouraged to cross mid block And the last reason we have is a security reason. And I didn't realize that Officer Greg Jones, who used to be the person in charge of the Secure by Design, had left the urban county government, but he is retired, and he has now another position, but he graciously agreed to look at our development plan and go out to the site and assess the situation. What I passed out to you was his report. And Officer Jones has a master's degree in criminology from Eastern Kentucky University. He's done postgraduate studies in the Secure by Design. He was one of the group of people who went to London, England to study the United Kingdom's secure by design principles. And he analyzed this situation in light of secure by design. And you can read his report. The first page is a general discussion about leaky cul-de-sacs, which is a cul-de-sac which has a route, an escape route or whatever you want to call it in the rear, which they're not generally in favor of. But then he looked at this particular situation, and his recommendation is on the last page of my handout. I'm not going to read it all. I'm just going to read a couple sentences. Starting on the second line, he says, A concern to those living on the cul-de-sac and those protecting its territory may be the influx of foot traffic coming from Leastown Road. While walkability is important for the vitality of a neighborhood, the lack of sidewalks extending from cul-de-sac certainly doesn't prohibit vitality and walkability. I viewed good pedestrian access off of White Oak Trace and Chestnut Ridge Drive. These are safer for pedestrians with lighting and not inviting someone from Leastown Road into the neighborhood. Paths next to streets offer better natural surveillance and lighting, and the natural surveillance he's talking about is people are being able to see onto the sidewalk next to the streets. You've heard the eyes on the streets thing. That's what he's mentioning. Those type of sidewalks have better natural surveillance than do ones going out between houses off a cul-de-sac. And he mentions lighting as well, which is also important. He says he's heard feedback from others on leaky cul-de-sacs about them, but his last line is that it is my recommendation that greater security is achieved by not extending sidewalks off a cul-de-sac. And we understand the reasons for wanting to have pedestrian connectivity, and as I said, Dennis has done pedestrian connectivity throughout McConnell's trace and is very proud of that. But we think here this is not a situation where you're connecting cul-de-sacs back-to-back, where you want to have a sidewalk through so the kids can get through with their bicycles to play with the kids on the other cul-de-sac. This is where we're connecting to a four-lane divided highway in mid-block, which is not as well lit as the intersections and does not have traffic signalization as the intersections. We think here, in this particular case, the benefits of the connection, and that is the 290 feet you're saved if you're a person without a disability, is not worth the issues we have with topography, with safety, and with security on this site. So what we're asking you to do on notes 6 and 7 is to remove them or remove 7 and note that you are approving this without the connection of the cul-de-sacs to the sidewalk on Leestown Road. We think, I want to emphasize, we're mainly here for the zone change, and the zone change we feel does agree with the comprehensive plan. We agree with the staff's conditions for approval, and we agree with the staff's recommendation on the development plan, with the exception that i've noted about the uh connection of the cul-de-sacs and we'll thank you very much and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have any questions for mr murphy okay thank you is anyone in the audience who'd like to speak to this agenda item either for or against okay we'll just move to the rebuttal staff you got any let me see who who goes first on that well actually it's the petitioner but we'll let us unless you've got something else to say I'll let you go after them then okay well wow that was a well-made argument excuse me who are you oh I'm sorry my name is Scott Thompson I'm the bike and pedestrian coordinator we try to promote connectivity of biking walking connections to arterial streets and things of that nature connections to sidewalks which we have along Leestown Road here. Made some very good points as to why they don't want to make that connection. The grading does look like it is a barrier. I'm not sure what kind of utilities may be in that mound but it may be possible to cut through that mound and make a connection that would eliminate the comments about the ADA and the accessibility pieces of this component. There's a lot of information out there on crime as it relates to bike and pedestrian connectivity. We hear a lot of talk about the trip to London to study what essentially are community housing projects and how decreasing connectivity decreases crime. But this is a residential neighborhood and not very similar in any way to those locations. There's also a lot of evidence that supports people and people in places that prevent crime. And so just keep that in mind when we start talking about lessening equity and equitable solutions for transportation as it relates to crime and criminal activity and try to balance that when you make your decision. There's as much evidence, if not more, that supports people in places as an eyes on approach to safety as there is that says that building connections to sidewalks promotes criminal activity. We see crime across all types of development patterns and many times it is related to that without real evidence. Other social economic factors and things aren't brought to the table that really do relate to crime and criminal activity. So just think about that when we talk about that as it relates to crime and increased crime as it relates to connectivity of sidewalks. And that's basically what I have for you today. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those for you. Tom may have something more to say. Go ahead. Well, I do, but I wanted to ask my other commission members if they had any questions about it. Well, we can wait until you, because I do, I was waiting to see what's along with my colleague here. I would just like to reinforce what Scott had to say on a couple items, and I agree. I think the applicant has some good points about some of the concerns with these sidewalks, But I would like to point out that several of their concerns, topography for one, can be overcome by design. It can be overcome with steps. And I would remind this body and those of you that were on the Planning Commission at the time, Sand Lake, the cul-de-sac at Sand Lake. and the topography there was overcome with one of the biggest retaining walls and steps to connect that cul-de-sac to that commercial development. ADA was another issue at that time. Well, there is an ADA-compliant route. And, yes, this neighborhood has an ADA-compliant route. So it's not necessary that this connection be ADA-compliant. So I wanted to address those two things. There is a way to overcome grade. There is a way to address ADA compliance. And then along with what Scott said about safe by design, you can take, it's not just leaky cul-de-sacs they're concerned about. Proponents of safe by design along with law enforcement officials are concerned about fencing. They're concerned about landscaping. Frankly, they would reduce those things because potential criminals can hide in the shadows. They can hide behind fences. that can hide behind trees and shrubs. And they certainly do. But we are going to have trees and shrubs and fences in our neighborhoods, and certainly single-family homeowners are certainly going to build fences and plant trees and shrubs. In fact, developers are going to do those things. They're going to have a landscape package. So, again, how far do we take a concern about potential crime? And, again, that's just I wanted to touch on things in support of what Scott had to say today. I'll answer any questions, or Scott, well, you may have. Okay. I'll get my computer. Okay, Mr. Penn. Mr. Martin, if I'm right on this, this is a preliminary development plan? It is a preliminary subdivision plan, Mr. Penn, and so infrastructure can be constructed off of this plan. The reason I'm asking that question is that it's possible that there won't be an eight-foot drop there after they once get in there and get to working on the site. So my question to you is if we delete number seven at this juncture or if we leave it would we have an opportunity at a subsequent meeting to discuss that even further based on design? That's an excellent question and I believe if I understand the status of this project they currently have approved improvement plans however this change in density in the new lots will require amendments to that improvement plan so it would allow our staff to work with the applicant staff to see if this is a feasible pedestrian access we would staff would point out that if perhaps not on both cul-de-sacs one cul-de-sac would certainly improve pedestrian connectivity. But again, these appear to be engineering design questions, and we think it would be, at a minimum, we think it would be advantageous to allow our staff to work with their design professionals to determine the feasibility. Thank you. Mr. Nickel, did you have a… Yes, thank you. I'm trying to figure out how to work this. I thought it was a good argument when they were discussing the distance it takes to cross the street from the proposed cul-de-sac on the development plan or through the existing access and it looked like it was a difference of less than 300 feet. How do you consider that in your all's decision to include a cul-de-sac access rather than not? I think the distance is an excellent point. The mid-block concerns are certainly valid concerns. We were seeking just to improve connectivity from cul-de-sacs, which is something we have been seeking to do for some time, just improved pedestrian connectivity. Again, it needs to be feasible. It needs to work. I agree with that as well. My only concern is Leastown Road. That doesn't seem like a very good spot to dump people out onto, whether they're on bicycles or on foot. there there is certainly credence to that yes sir we the stars yeah so there is a sidewalk currently on least down road so people can walk there currently and that's where we would be sending them to us to the sidewalk thank you mr. chair a couple of questions one maybe mr. Murphy grading as not grading the topography's come up mr. Martins allowed that that seven foot eight foot grade change may change and I know with my history in the past that elevations do change and can change immensely what are the plans for that i asked that question to mike craft who's the development director of anderson communities and rory you can correct me if i'm wrong but our understanding is we will have to obviously we'll have to grade the property before development commences on this we're anticipating our grade will still be at an elevation quite a a bit higher than the elevation of Leastown Road. It will probably be at a more consistent elevation above Leastown Road, but it will still be at a point where steps would be needed to get down to Leastown Road. I do want to point out to you, too, one thing I forgot to point out is that the State constructed a ditch line along Leastown Road in their right-of-way, and we have made inquiries to them and they have said that we are not going to be allowed to interfere with water flow through that ditch line. So we're not going to be able to change that part of the elevation once we get on to state right of way, which will be very much. But short answer is we understand we're going to end up being higher than the least down road elevation after grading. Thank you. Another question I guess for Scott Thompson. When we're talking about the possibility of steps and Mr. Martin said that this did not have to be ADA compliant, are we setting ourselves up for problems if we put steps in and say, well, no, sorry, you can go around the block? I think that's a good question. I think, too, one thing that we're forgetting is that there are ways to make it accessible. I think what we picture is a direct pointed sidewalk across there. If you go to a lot of buildings downtown, you'll see a set of stairs that go up, and off to the side you'll see a ramp that runs perpendicular to those stairs and comes back like this and makes that connection. So there are ways to do it that could make it compliant. You know, again, we should try to make things as compliant as we can. There are scenarios where we can't. And we have to weigh out what are we gaining and what are we losing in those different scenarios to determine how to do it. But there are ways to make it happen to make it compliant. We deal with slopes all the time and grades and make accessible entrances to buildings and to sidewalks and to parks and other places. Thank you. And I guess one other question for, I guess, Tom Martin. Kind of following up with where Mr. Penn was going. with where we are development plan-wise now. Will we see a final development plan on this? No, sir. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. And I might add the final record plats that will come from this preliminary subdivision plan are no longer presented to the Planning Commission as well. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Mundy? This question is for Rory. He's been sitting there so quiet, and I want to get him up to the microphone. I'm a little confused. I'm hearing two terms used here. I think Mr. Thompson referred to it as a mound and I'm hearing elevation. Is it an elevation or is it a mound? If it's an elevation, that's different than just a mound. I believe the term elevation is correct. I'm not the engineer or any engineer. But from what I've looked at with the construction plans and the engineers in the office, before we filed the zone change, we had two cul-de-sacs, these three cul-de-sacs, two of them accessing or near Leastown Road. The grading at that time had those being 12 to 13 feet above Leastown Road. The new plan extends the cul-de-sacs further getting them closer to Leastown Road. So we looked at how the grading was established at that point and then see if we could start lowering them as we come to Leastown Road, which is why we took the conservative number of eight feet above the right-of-way. We're thinking we can pick up three to four feet as we extend those cul-de-sacs closer. And the distance that we have to work in to make up the eight feet is going to vary. that the ditch that is there comes with a permanent ditch easement maintenance from the state that comes 10 feet into our property so if you're looking at it and and depending on what you know we cannot interfere with that right of way and their ditch construction that would then require us to make up eight and 20. that's stairs and alternatives ramps that would be correct ramps are five you get five percent slope for a run of 30 then you have to level out and then you come back so you're looking at what would be a long series of ramps to make up eight within the 20. if we can get into the ditch easement then it's probably eight and 30 which is still much steeper than we usually design sidewalks and streets for okay all right thank you yeah it It shouldn't be a mound so much as just the general slope. That's what I thought. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nickel again. Sorry, I do have another question. Is there a development plan that exists with R2 zoning with 45 lots on it? Does that exist right now? Because they're going from R2 to R1B? What I'm asking is, is there a development plan that shows 45 units on it? Yes. And again, I want to be very clear. This is a preliminary subdivision plan. These are single-family homes, single-family lots, and they substitute preliminary subdivision plans for final development plans for single-family development. Okay. Okay. Good. My question then is, was there access through the cul-de-sacs to the sidewalks on that? No, sir. That was not. The reason I'm asking is because I think we do need to increase density in our neighborhoods, which helps provide more affordable housing options moving forward. Any other questions from our commission members? If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a point of clarification on some statements I made earlier. I was asked to make clear that when we discuss safe by design, they do not recommend outright against fences. They recommend against certain heights, and they do not recommend privacy fences. And landscaping is not generally something they're overly concerned with, but I just wanted to be clear. Okay. The point I was trying to make is how far do we go in a fear of crime? Okay. Any other questions? Just before you leave, help me out with one thing. The applicant has raised the issue of safety. Now, looking at the plans, there are possibly two ways to get out the Leetstown pipe. What's right across the street? Is there any development right across that street yet? Not yet. Not yet, but it probably will be. I'm sure it's your intent. I don't mean to editorialize, but I'm not one that I believe a sidewalk ought to be where a path would be. In effect, if I were getting ready to cross that street, I probably wouldn't go to the stoplight. Now, I know that's not good, not healthy, and for goodness sakes, I don't want to see this on Facebook tomorrow. But I would probably cut across that way. That's just an issue. My question is, what's your perspective on the safety issue that they raised? I mean, as it exists, people could choose to cross the street with what would be a bad decision anywhere along that sidewalk, outside of the intersections. So I understand what you mean is that someone would come out of there and just immediately walk across the street. Why wouldn't they do that as it exists with the sidewalks there now? There's two intersections there to safely cross. One is signalized and one is not, and that would be how I would cross the street. But you could choose to do that anywhere along there as it exists now. Nothing would stop anybody from doing that on either side of the street or anywhere along Leastown Road, for that matter. What the real issue is, I think, and it's not related to this, is how far a part of those intersections, you know, and what is that distance to get to those intersections because that is something that people do factor into their decisions as they cross streets. and that makes a big difference. Okay. Thank you. Let me just kind of get us back into line here a little bit. We skipped around a step or two. Here's what I'll do. Mr. Murphy, if you'd like to have a concluding statement or anything now that you've heard or kind of rebuttal and then the staff, you get your last say, and then we'll close it out from there. Yes, sir. Well, I think most of the arguments have been made. I want to emphasize we're not here to debate the merits of the secure by design versus total access all the time. We're here to talk about this one piece of property. And we felt that in this one piece of property, we should not have these connections. And I mentioned topography. I mentioned safety. I mentioned security. Probably our overwhelming one is safety. and that is we don't want the 10-year-old kid who lives on a cul-de-sac because his parents bought it because it was a cul-de-sac and a safe place. We don't want to have a way which encourages and a paved sidewalk which is open is going to sort of point the direction, yeah, this is okay. We don't want that to be encouraged to go out mid-block to a 55-mile-per-hour four-lane divided highway. We don't think that's a good idea. We want them to go up to the intersection. Thank you. Staff, any other comments? Thank you. At this time, we'll close the commission to the audience as such, and we'll bring it back to the commission for final comments, thoughts, questions, and our motion. Mr. DeForest. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for the approval of PLN MAR-18-16 based on the staff recommendations. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Forrest, a second by Ms. Mundy that we approve PLN MAR-18-16 leaves 28-26. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay, that motion carries to the development plan. Yes, Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve PLN MJDP-18-64 based on the staff recommendations, but I'd like to remove number 7. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Forrester and seconded by Ms. Mundy that we approve PLN MJDP-18 day 64, Sebastian Property, Unit 3, with six conditions provided by staff, removing number 7. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Motion carries. Thank you. Next is the Citadel storage partners Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson. Our next item appears on page 2 of the agenda, and it does continue on to page 3. This is PLN MAR18-18, and it's a request by Citadel Storage Partners 2 Limited Partnership. they are requesting a rezoning from our commercial center b6p zone to our wholesale and warehouse business zone which is our b4 zone for about four acres of property this parcel is located at 133 north locust hill drive and the applicant is proposing to remove an existing structure and construct a two-story climate controlled self-storage facility with the required off-street parking so the subject property is located on north locust hill drive and north locust hill is located in the southeast portion of Fayette County very near Richmond Road and man-o-war Boulevard other major roadways in this area include Ria Dosa Drive as well as Palumbo Drive which are both to the south or excuse me northeast of the subject property and they both intersect and have traffic signal intersections with Manowar Boulevard. The subject property again is located in our B6P zone and is surrounded by either residential or other business zoning. So to the northwest its existing B3 zoning which is our highway service business. To the southeast is B6P, part of a Locust Hill shopping center to the north east is R3 and R4 for residential use and then to the further to the southeast I believe that's a residential facility but it's a senior living as well as a rehabilitation hospital here at the in the P1 but it is a sort of a residential character in this vicinity so the applicant is proposing a hundred and thirty thousand square feet of storage facility in their two-story building the property was originally rezoned in 1981 and again here's an aerial view of the subject property so in 1981 the property was remained partially AU which is our agricultural urban zone and then at that time it was called the low density apartment zone which is now our planned neighborhood residential it's our r3 zone and the property was rezoned to the b6p zone in order to construct or develop that shopping center to the south of the site primarily here it includes a tenant a large tenant for kroger and also several outlots for restaurants and other and banks and other office uses in this area so the 2000 or let's go through a few photos of the site so the existing site does has been built on it was built with or constructed in the i believe the early 90s with a movie theater and that movie theater has operated there until about 2015. at that time the movie theater moved to the particular tenant here moved to jessamine county and it has been vacant since that time so for about three years other things in the area I mentioned residential just to the east along North Locust Hill is the rain tree apartments and then to the rear which has access to Rio Dosa our anyway to the rear is the Stoney Creek apartment so both both of these apartment complexes border the site and they all have two-story residential available along North Locust Hill it is very commercial in nature and again mostly restaurants office uses and retail retail use in this vicinity and it currently is extends just directly across from the subject property in this also small shopping center as well as the major tenant in the area with the Kroger shopping center so the applicant first filed their application and stated that the request was in agreement with the comprehensive plan our 2013 comprehensive plan no longer makes a land use recommendation but what does call for the goals and objectives to be considered as well as policy statements of the comprehensive plan to be considered by the Planning Commission when making decisions for zone changes so the Planning Commission must look for our to the comprehensive plan for guidance there were several goals and objectives that were mentioned by the applicant in terms of creating jobs where people live creating a variety of jobs and job opportunities as well as providing for infill and redevelopment that is respectful of the area's context and design features and then lastly encouraging compact contiguous and mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area beyond the goals and objectives the plan does also focus on the need for development of land to be in the most compatible relationships and compatibility of land uses is important and that's what helps to create our neighborhood nodes and our enhances neighborhood relationships for the community this the Locust Hill Shopping Center and adjoining commercial development which we we just looked at do create the activity node and since 1981 that has been the intent for there to be an activity node for commercial development in this in this location and that provides for the necessary goods and services of the nearby neighborhood self-storage generally as proposed by the applicant is not a use that generates very many jobs again not really in agreement with the comprehensive plan which talks about generating jobs and jobs where people live and in addition it's also an inefficient use of our highly valuable urban service land and then lastly it's not a neighborhood oriented land use the applicant did make some statements in their justification that this is a vital neighborhood need however the staff in terms of looking at neighborhood needs is looking for a different type of use and I'll get into that a little bit more but in terms of the planned land uses and transitions the applicant mentioned in their justification that a B4 zone as they propose it would be a better transition between B6P and R4 zone and the staff can't come to that same conclusion in fact the existing relationship there B6P next to R4 is compatible those two zones are compatible with each other and work at this location as well as other locations throughout our community so in this case there's no need to have any kind of transition land use as the applicant's proposing in fact there's not really a relationship for the b4 zone with the rest of the area let me just show you a little bit of that so this is the existing aerial of the of the general area and i'll point out a couple of our corridors again Richmond Road and Manowar Boulevard and again a lighted intersection with Rio Dosa and then as we get further to the east Palumbo comes out onto Manowar Boulevard so this area again generally its neighborhood business node on the north east side of the intersection of Manowar and Richmond Road we know that as that Locust Hill shopping center with Kroger in addition we have residential than a residential area between and I'll show you the other land uses so this is a mixture of townhouses and multifamily and then also the the hospital use for rehab as well as senior housing in the area and then we have professional office on the south side of man-o-war and then we have our industrial and warehouse businesses further to the east so you can see there are these blocks of land uses that have been planned and have appropriate relationships in terms of buffering and transitioning and I'm going to go back a little bit the appropriate buffer and transition between that residential and this switch and the warehousing and off in industrial land that exists on Palumbo is this fairly significant drainage way and insignificant natural buffer between the uses so those are the kind of buffering and natural transitions that we see throughout the community that create the a good relationship between residential again we know there's residential there and it's nearby warehousing but this relationship is has a physical barrier and whether that's the roadway a significant roadway or a natural feature that creates that buffer that's necessary between uses in terms of the neighborhood oriented land uses the applicant mentioned they felt that a storage self storage center was neighborhood oriented but what we mean in terms of what planners mean what the comprehensive plan means in terms of neighborhood oriented is businesses that furnish ordinary and daily needs for the surrounding residential areas the self-storage facility while it may be convenient does not provide for local needs it's also not a walkable facility so it is something that I think every community needs and certainly our community needs and has it's whether or not this particular zone and this particular use is being proposed in the right location here and the in terms of the proposed zone and land use the staff went beyond the comprehensive plan to the next finding which is is this proposal for this zone appropriate in this location and then the existing zone has to be declared inappropriate at the same time so when the staff looked at before and its appropriateness we found that the zone itself again which allows more than just self storage is not appropriate at this location it's not consistent with the zoning of the immediate area we just kind of went went through the compatibility and how the land uses sort of lay out in that area of the community but we also found that there are existing storage facilities available within our community to serve the need that the applicant has come forward and said there's a need there's a demand out there and we want to meet it which again we've offered with the applicant to help them find a better location within the community if they want to be the ones to meet the need but we found that there are currently 33 self storage facilities in lexington all of which have available space 64 of those facilities offer the climate controlled units that they're trying to to construct as well and so those statistics show to the staff that the community already has an appropriate amount of self-storage facility and we know because again most of these are all of these plans really have to come through planning we know that there are four actually in the process currently so one has is in the building permit process and it's within the immediate vicinity on palumbo drive they're adding 40 000 square feet of climate controlled self-storage and then there are three other in the planning process that have been approved on manchester street west main street and then citation and sandersville that collectively again those four developments are for warehouse facilities are 293 000 square feet so the applicant contends there's a need in our community for between 250 and 300 thousand square feet of storage space and the staff finds that that need is going to be met with existing plans and that we don't at this point need b4 in a location that isn't compatible with its adjoining land uses so we've found again additional storage options are available in the immediate area to meet the needs of our community and the planning commission has this in their granicus setting but it shows where there is availability and then it's throughout our community it is spread out quite evenly and so we show where the future locations that are under construction are being considered clearly and then the ones that do have both climate control and not climate controlled so they're spread throughout our community which is a good sign as well we're providing that need or we're serving that need throughout the community so at this point the staff in consideration of the applicant's justification and in consideration of the existing land uses in the area we found that ultimately the b4 zone is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan for this location nor is it appropriate at this location so this first slide talks about the staffs recommending disapproval of the zone change because it's not in agreement with the comprehensive plan in terms of creating a vital neighborhood need creating jobs again they mentioned at our zoning committee it would create approximately eight jobs which is certainly a decrease from the number of jobs that have been located there with the movie theater or those that would be possible under the current b6p zone in addition the staff found that the b4 zone is not appropriate at this location and again i mentioned the statistics of what is available within the community what's available what's coming online we know that those needs are being met by the community but also that the there's not any other b4 zoning in the immediate area within this general vicinity again on north locust ria dosa and richmond road and so it's not that warehouses aren't important for our community but this is not the right location for those warehouses and that the existing b6b b6p zone remains appropriate at this location first that it is compatible again with the existing character of the area but it also with recent amendments to the B6P zone it now offers other uses that may be may work for this site when the when the movie theater building does come down because we understand that that may not be the right use for this site but there certainly could be other uses that would fit within B6P including the new residential that's permitted at that site so and then the last finding the staff would make is that there's been no unanticipated changes in the immediate area that would trigger a recommendation for before being appropriate at this site happy to answer any questions the zoning committee considered this three weeks ago and did recommend postponement at that time any questions for miss Wade okay thank you applicant or oh mr. Martin has your development plan for this Mr. Martin, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the plan that's associated with your zone change today is a preliminary development plan I am technology challenged there we go again and very briefly for those in the audience and to remind the Planning Commission when we review development plans we review them as if the zoning was already in place so that's just to explain what some people see as a discrepancy between a staff recommendation and disapproval of a zone change and yet you can see from looking at your agenda that the plan itself was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee now the the site you can see how it angles backwards here's the detention located in this at the rear of the property this being the frontage they show circulation around their proposed building which is 65,000 square feet on each floor two-story building 30 feet in height it has entryways that you can see here at these canopy locations with a small office and parking area in the front the the building is stepped back you can see again because of the the irregular shape of the property the there's a couple little cleanup items that they have to address on this preliminary plan and then a couple of items seven and eight on your agenda seven is to denote compliance with article 8-2101 and that is a requirement in the b4 zone that you only have pedestrian doors manned doors on walls that are next to within 100 feet of residential property that's just that's to to keep big truck doors and that type of traffic in warehouse uses and other uses from being too close to residential area and that is something they are meeting on this plan we just want it denoted that it is being complied with and then resolve the landscape buffer along the r4 zone that's this area right through here and they're showing only a five-foot landscape buffer now there are existing trees and that sort of thing in the area but along that boundary staff is concerned not just with this proposed use but again if you should approve this zone change and B4 moves forward we think it's it's very important to have appropriate landscaping between the residential use and this use and other potential before uses in the future we do think that that could be resolved at the final development plan should you approve the zone change and this plan move forward. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions? Mr. Mickel? I do have a question. Mr. Martin, if this were not being used as climate-controlled self-storage, and would this building have passed the B6P zoning requirements? So theoretically, if this was B6P and this development plan came to you and that was a movie theater, would that development plan be acceptable? I think, again, we would. The detention is fine. The access is fine. The building itself, the coverage is not an issue. They would have to have a lot more parking. And we would also take a hard look at the landscaping there as well. Yes, sir. Because of the residential commercial relationship. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Martin? Okay, thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant Citadel Storage Partners 2LP. I know that name probably doesn't jump off the page as a local company, but I assure you it is. I think you all are probably much more familiar with the sister companies of Citadel Storage, which is operated by Alan Schubert here today, the kind of Andover Management, Andover Construction, over development companies that has been doing residential development throughout Lexington throughout the southeast for decades now they've also done a lot of office space retail and storage facilities themselves Citadel storage is kind of the wing of the kind of real estate company that handles the self storage businesses themselves Tony Barrett is here with me Alan Schubert of course is here for the applicant the property owner is here as well represented by Steve Collar and Jason Taylor with equity management together as a whole I think we certainly would be able to answer any questions that you all may have as as this kind of presentation moves forward but what we are here at the very basic level to discuss is taking a commercial structure a commercial parcel that has been either vacant or grossly underutilized for over a decade and turning it into a viable commercial use which this company specifically has proven can work great in residential neighborhoods and also has been proven throughout Lexington works great right next to residential neighborhoods and next to kind of higher commercial uses kind of buffering those those kind of two here's an example of one of the Citadel storage buildings that just opened up in louisville it is right off the watterson when you are coming into town you certainly can notice it from the from the watterson due to its kind of architectural nature but it also is very complimentary of the other buildings it's kind of right there near the kind of ruth chris structure that if you're familiar with that down in nashville they also have a location which can go to show you what you can do with self-storage when you're dealing with a very narrow parcel that is also very deep and this is kind of just an example of what you can do the building we are proposing is certainly not nearly the size it is only two kind of stories in in uh in size that is shown kind of on this opening slide what we're proposing in this location but what i think kind of tells this story the best is what they were able to do in cincinnati they were able to take a kind of eyesore of a commercial building that had been vacant for a long time and turn it into a great addition to the area you may recognize it's a there's a few structures like this in town the movie tavern is wonderful this is an old Sam's Club this is what it looked like before Citadel came in this is what it looks like now there's a little bit more of a close-up for you all here's another before shot of what the entrance is here's what it looks like now here's what the side will look like and I'm going to show you what the movie tavern looks today and it is amazing how similar some of these pictures are here's what we were able to do with it here's the backup house notice all the kind of rear loading buildings that were the rear loading kind of bays that were here which are kind of vital for any type of big box use this is what it kind of was looking like on the I'm kind of looking in a different direction here's what we turned it into here's the inside of the facility this is now what greets you when you come in I personally was fascinated to see what Sam's Club looks like without any materials inside it's pretty barren I'm not gonna lie and this is kind of the facility that we were able to turn this into with multi-story kind of these these storage units that that are all indoor, they are all climate controlled, and these are not anything with what you typically associate when you think of self-storage. You think of these long, sprawling facilities that are kind of individual units, individual rows that go on for kind of acres at a time. The crux of what we are kind of here for, we, Ms. Wade did spend a lot of time talking about compliance with the comprehensive plan. We do believe that this proposal does fit within the comprehensive plan, but it's also very difficult to justify just on a comprehensive plan basis, transitioning from one business zone to another because the other one has proven that it just isn't working for whatever reason. There's not really a very easy kind of justification with that regard. So I'm going to focus kind of today on the notion that the B6P on this particular parcel is inappropriate it has been proven inappropriate by its lack of use and that our proposed b4 zone and particularly this proposed b4 use is perfect for this location it's certainly appropriate now the same owners of this parcel own almost all of the kind of commercial land adjacent to it they own the man-of-war place that is anchored by the kroger they have the burlington coat shopping center that's anchored by burlington code they have the smaller strip center that is right there on locust hill if anyone has a best vested interest in ensuring that this property is well developed and is a vital use to this neighborhood it is the current property owner they also have great insight into what works in this sub market specifically when it comes to the type of b6p uses that are in existence and also other retail that kind of appear in the B3 corridor along there and so they are here today to answer any questions I'm going to get into a lot of information that they provided me but I do think that it shows signs that the person that is most affected and probably the most knowledgeable in Lexington if not only this region is in full support of this justification here is what the existing moving tavern looks like this is a proposed demolition and redevelopment of the site and I think it becomes very apparent why that is this building purposely was designed on a peak it's a movie theater you have theaters that slide down on both directions that does not lend well for Target shopping routes this is not something that even if it remains B6P can simply just be kind of remodeled because the entire basis of it the entire design the slope and everything ensured that the building was shaped like this as we go kind of around the site you will be able to see what kind of conditions you are and harken back to what the sam's club looked like that i showed you this is the face that that basically looks at the neighborhood this is looking out onto locust hill it is not exactly the inviting neighborhood node that it's being portrayed as this is the back of house notice how narrow this kind of area is right here it would be impossible to fit any type of delivery bays in this location for any type of 18-wheeler that would be focused on delivering goods to these type of big box stores or even a lot of the kind of smaller strip centers there simply is not room to make any movements and there's certainly not room to basically back up and deliver these goods this aerial i think does an excellent job at really showing how isolated this parcel really is 85 if not more of this parcel is entirely landlocked yes it has some front frontage but very little and that cannot change there's nothing in here that would be able to tie into this neighborhood there's about a five foot elevation change here you'll see the drastic elevation change here there's simply just not enough room to really do anything with this particular parcel so you are stuck with what current conditions are especially regarding access there is one access point through this center right here but the main access is kind of right here are off locust hill i'll talk more kind of about that issue but it certainly would not be good whatsoever for any type of trucks that are coming through kind of this access to enter this site limit visibility is one of the biggest hardships that this site really has as you can see almost all of this site is basically blocked by something major restricting view from any of the customers that are trying to get this. This is a small wedge of unimpeded visibility. That is the only place where you can accurately see what this building is, and even there, you would not be able to tell anything that is back in here if this transitions into a typical looking strip center similar to what the Locust Hill is right here. I'm going to kind of walk you through what the pedestrian sees in just a second but it's kind of compounded by this the site dimensions that we're dealing with again it's an incredibly deep and incredibly narrow lot this shows you how deep it is this is taken from the back of the parking lot this isn't even the back of the lot i stopped i didn't get in the storm water facility this week i just didn't think it was good for my suit but this is from the back of the parking area all you can see is a giant sea of parking there are 254 parking places on this site for 31 000 square feet that is over parked no matter which way you cut it you cannot see in any way the outside world you there is a sliver right there that you think might be a building but you cannot tell you certainly cannot tell there is a major kroger facility there's another shopping center in the burlington coast right here this is looking back it's only about 130 feet in width with a 20-foot utility easement so the back of this parcel is incredibly narrow this is burlington coat right here this is richmond road you cannot tell in any way shape or form you really can't tell when you're on the other side looking back this is the front of the house at the very basically the highest point on this parcel looking back again you cannot tell in any way that there's a commercial development right there this is it this is the winning thing this is what you have to sell retailers on this is how customers are going to see your brand there's a sliver of area right here a wedge going back through the kroger parking lot if you're out of your car you're going to be able to tell what's in this facility that is it here is on the outbound Richmond Road at the start of the turn lane when you have to make your decision I'm going to go find whatever is in this commercial center if this stays B6P where is it I dare you to find it here's when you're actually at the turn line see that right there barely the top that's the top of the building that is the only place you can see it on Richmond Road this is inbound again completely invisible at the turn lane completely invisible here's on North look or North Locust Hill right at the access driveway by the Kroger it's right there tell me if you know what that might be here's midway up okay we got a commercial building completely blocked by trees you cannot see what is on this property until you are right on the entrance even if I get you inside the shopping center out of your car eating at the Athenia Grill you have no idea what is in this shopping center imagine trying to sell the back parcel lots on this for a retail spot you cannot do it here's coming in on the right in right out I know I'm belaboring this but this is how strenuous I feel about this visibility issue you've come in off Richmond Road you're trying to decide where you're going in the giant Kroger parking lot you can't see this facility you go halfway up that access drive okay we can see this very tall building now if this converts into the one-story traditional strip centers that are the only thing that are basically being built on richmond road that goes away you're not going to be able to see that if it's the same size as this right here so you have significant site problems you have significant dimensional problems and i think it's compounded when you look at if this stays b6p what do you do with it do you try to turn this into a big box we talked about the access problems that delivery trucks will have so you can't get back in here so are you going to flip this around make it a traditional front of house where essentially you are just turning this sideways you can't push it back because a lot is too narrow it's already is back as far as it could go with the utility so essentially if this is front of house is this now going to be your delivery bay you're gonna have all of your customers parking back here walking past the delivery bays in order to get around to actually the front of house where you're coming in it simply just does not work and again what are the other b6p uses they could be if big box doesn't work here okay you have the like looking at what currently is being built in new construction on Richmond Road you have the kind of very visible strip centers and out parcel restaurants you just approved one of these type dealership or type developments right at a is it the Don Franklin Chevrolet I think it is highly visible strip centers in back out parcel restaurants here the other office or the other possibilities is office and multi-family i can get to each one of these why they will not work i've already talked about the visibility but let's look at the actual marketplace this is all the vacancy of those types of uses that are just within about half a mile office this is right at the corner of man o war and richmond road office that is ready to be inhabited today that has been fit up and ready today at the one of the most visible intersections that Lexington has 405,000 square feet are vacant right now how much demand is there going to be for an office space that's going to be a new building that might be built within the next year that's not visible that's not a lot of traffic that's not at your major intersections retail this area just got struck a blow if you want to talk about major changes which I'm not justifying this zone change on but Walmart walking out of your retail corridor that is a major economic change for any type of sub market I'm not telling anyone a secret when I say that national retailers pay attention to what Walmart does if Walmart vacates a area a retail corridor that's that it has been in for a while because it determined that it's not financially feasible dominoes will fall in this area so this is what's vacant today 122 on Walmart man-of-war place with a great anchor in Kroger with great visibility with great access with great parking has 56,000 square feet of available space today just a mile away Woodhill Center I'll say it again great visibility great access great parking another 50,000 square feet of vacancy. This doesn't even get into what you all just approved on the Don Franklin site. So even more square footage is coming in. I think that was for 38,000 just on the strip center, not the out part, not even including the out parcels. So we don't think that there is availability, or at least the not availability, there's tons of availability. There is not demand for additional retail and office. Now, so that leaves the new B6P uses. So let's do multifamily. All right, I've been in here a fair amount getting apartments approved these days. The typical width that we're talking about, the length of these apartments are what? 190 to 210, 24 units. This is 135 right back here. You might be able to get lengthwise something right here. And so what would you do if this multifamily basically just mimic these three buildings right there possibly spread them out with the amenities that are demanded today you're looking at 70 units most likely total that's not fiscally that just does not make economic sense to try to convert 70 units in four acres it also I think goes against what the comprehensive plan stands for with kind of poor density right there. So the new uses don't work. Well also one point on multifamily as well. Miss Wade kind of pointed it out. There are 480 units right here on Raintree. There are 232 units right here on Stony Brook. Richmond Place just up the road about 0.2 miles is 360 senior living facilities and there's also the charter kind of inpatient rehab facility right there all in all within two miles we have two million square feet of existing apartments square footage right now today so I've not been able to find any reliable statistics on what the vacancies of those are but I certainly do not think that having that much necessitates that this would be a very good multifamily use so no multifamily no office no retail no big box I don't know why you want to stick with B6P I perfectly understand the desire on the staff's behalf to wait and see after the B6P changes have gone into place it's been six months I know that is not a long time I know there's other changes that are coming down the pipe to it but none of those changes get at why this site doesn't work as B6P how many times have we said every time a Zota is being discussed that this is a countywide decision it is not individual parcels it is for countywide determination that text amendment was not a magic bullet that solved every single B6P parcel every single issue that might have it every single reason why that site not might not be at its best adding more floor area changing parking generators it doesn't impact any of these site constraints it doesn't add visibility it doesn't add access it certainly doesn't add width back here at the back it just doesn't work what does self-storage I couldn't think of something more perfectly designed for a narrow and long parcel like this it's exactly kind of what I showed you with Nashville this is a perfect example of what you can do with these type of site constraints limited access that's perfect we don't want a lot of access for self storage limited visibility I think some people in the community would say great put it back where we can't see it works for us again the configuration I think works fantastic self storage is also an excellent neighbor especially for residential developments we have traffic generators for this building at about 20 to 30 car trips compare that to any B6P use I think a residential would take that type of car load with indoor storage you have a dramatic decrease in any type of noise pollution and light pollution that are coming from B6P uses there is no late-night delivery trucks there is no 18 wheelers beeping and backing up there is no mass exodus of cars after a late-night movie 20 to 30 car trips all indoor activities this is a perfect example of why this works in residential developments all we have to do is look around at where these self-storage facilities are currently i just pulled the first couple that showed up on newtown this was just recently before you all it is right next to existing single-family residential and is buffering it from all of the other commercial uses including lex uh lexmark right across the street richmond plaza just down the road on richmond road this is a perfect example again there's an r3 zone right next to it and it's in between other b3 uses the lexan mini storage i had to put up there because it's the only multi-story indoor facility that i'm aware of that is like up and running today what is it next to single-family residential buffering them from other industrial uses this works and why is that no traffic noise is very low light generator light pollution is kind of excluded and you put it right up next to the residential blocking the intensity of the surrounding shopping centers you can talk hypotheticals all you want about b6p being a less intense zone than some b4 uses well self-storage right next to the Kroger facility I dare you to tell me which one you think is more intense of a use we did a demand study and this is kind of I told you I wasn't really going to get into my comprehensive plan argument but I do want to show that we have been a or they did a demand study looking at this area and while miss Wade did indicate that there is a substantial amount of square footage of self storage that's coming online it's not in this area there is one facility that was coming in there and I think that was only about 40,000 square feet of demand their study based on typical national average state averages and local averages of the amount of residences and small businesses in a 10 minute drive of where we are that there's 300,000 square feet of unmet demand for self-storage if you only look at climate control self-storage that demand number jumps up to 400,000 square feet within that 10 minute span we have one coming online of 40,000 this is a chance to take a parcel that is shoehorned in the back of a shopping center it's irregularly designed that does not work with the current uses that are proposed on this zone and take out a third of that demand on just four acres if that's not an infill development that's using a very efficient amount of land I don't know what is and so I've passed out findings of why we think that the b6p is inappropriate due to all the site constraints that are out there and that we think that b4 is appropriate especially the kind of constricted zoning or the zoning restrictions the conditional zoning restrictions that we're recommending go on there those are basically the same that exist on other self storage facilities that are right up against residential and we're happy to basically adopt those and as Tom indicated on the plan we're happy to discuss buffer at the time of the final film plan we have no concerns there whatsoever if you all have any questions I'm more than happy to answer it or these fine gentlemen over here might be able to help. Any questions for Mr. Nichols? I have one there. Yes, sir. You placed on the overhead there a listing of the places where the warehouses are the, what do you call it? Yeah. Yes. Did you talk to the communities or do we have any information regarding whether the communities wanted those facilities near them? I mean, they're there, yes, but did the communities want them? I did not go back to check zone changes, and I do not know how many of these were previously already B4 or I1 zones. I know that the the 755 757 Newtown was a zone change Rena Wiseman and I did the first one and we did the 757 zone change just about eight months ago there was not any objection from the community at that time it was just working out what the proper conditional zoning restrictions would look like Stone Road is fairly new I do not recall any objections about that I know that there was a lot of road improvements that went into play on Stone Road, but I do not believe there's any neighborhood objections. One thing I did want to point out, that this is a neighborhood business. People do not drive to the other end of town to use self-storage. It is within the kind of 10 minute drive that we kind of pointed out in the demand study. When you are dealing with a lot of apartments, especially a lot of senior living facilities, this type of use is vital. You are dealing with people, especially seniors, that go from houses downsized into senior living. And a lot of times they don't wanna give up their stuff, their kids want them to give them up, but they don't want to. And having this type of use right there is a huge benefit to the community. But again, you don't drive all over town. I'm not aware of any hard objections. The staff might be able to correct me there about the Bryant Road one I'm not sure if that one did okay I defer to the expert on the community outcry for any of them what did you say yes or no the reason I asked that question starting with the 755 7 57 57 I know for a fact that the community did not want it. Okay. The community that's closest to that is only 26 houses. Correct. Also know that there was a big issue with the buffer zone that was there. That was part of the conditional zoning restrictions. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I will indicate that the all of the adjacent basically boundaries of this are either multifamily or commercial development for the parcel here. This is not any single-family homes these are multi-story residential structures and I do not believe anyone from the neighbors are here to object at this time okay any other questions yes sir mr. Nicklin So you are requesting a zone change to B4 because that is the only zone that allows for principal warehouses to store it. Is that right? B4 or I1, we chose a restricted B4 that eliminated a lot of the traditional, we'll say not neighborhood friendly B4 uses voluntarily to make sure that this particular zone will play very nicely surrounding us. but technically self storage is allowed in I1 as well we did not think that that would be a a zone that you all would like going right there by the residential yep facilities are comparing to the So there Sure. There are kind of two main points that I would like to point out The rows and rows of overhead sheds. Those are kind of what Tom Martin was indicating that they didn't like that was right up against residential. The overhead doors that come up, they come down, they make a bunch of noise. Cars will back right up into them. What we are proposing is a two floor or two story facility that an overwhelming majority of the access is only through man doors where you would just walk through there with your stuff get on an elevator go inside to the facility and basically all of these storage activity all of the doors are taking place inside there are about I think five or six overhead doors on the kind of the Richmond Road side of this development that would give access to individual larger units but those are away from the residential and I think it only is about six total units in comparison to the all of the indoor units which is where I think majority of the 137,000 square feet are so the biggest difference is everything takes place inside that cuts all of your noise uh pollution drastically you also are dealing with kind of the type of things that need to be stored that uh tend to have i would say more kind of responsible property owners that want to keep their stuff inside climate control units in order to make sure that you know whatever it is i know the time i did it was all of my furniture i had to move out and put all of that inside but if you are moving into a facility that's entirely taking place inside a very large building you're not going to hear anything from the outside you're not going to see lights flicking it on and off when you're raising up barn doors that's just not happening yes it is one building yes so this will be separated into floors, rows, and units, but it is one building. There are about, I think, six different access points for individuals, but that all storage doors are basically taking place inside. If I'm gonna be honest, I think that self-storage has a negative connotation with some people, and I don't think it's necessary, and I think it comes from the historic kind of facilities and not where self-storage is going. It's not the type of use that the Nashville facility has. Like that is not the eyesore that people traditionally think about. It's not a acreage kind of gobbler. It can be done in a very efficient manner. So I think you are seeing a change in what self-storage is headed, what the direction the kind of use goes. And I hope that towns, Lexington in particular, will look at ways that self-storage can go in different zones. Because, again, it's throughout this community, it's next to residential structures. Mr. Bell? Nick, whether you or Mr. Schubert could comment, strategically, business plan-wise, is this a 20-year life, 30-year life? How do you see that, if you might just comment? come on up just to give us an idea of your other projects maybe and and how you see it would you please identify would you please identify yourself for alan schubert and i'm the managing partner citadel self-storage we got into this business to build really high quality high end we're building these really that we can own for a long period of time and i wouldn't put a 20 30 year life on them i'd put a 60 70 year life i mean they're all you know concrete floors it's top of the line i mean one of my business premises when i got into this that i wanted to do really good design and it's really proved out um so far in nashville and in louisville and cincinnati you know people like the design and they they come to us because of our design we probably Spent a little too much money in Louisville with our barrel roof. I don't know if I'm going to ever do that again. But we think that we have a long runway with it. And this is not something we're going to lease up in six months. It's going to take us two or three years. And I've tried to spend a fair amount of money on architecture. And I really want to distinguish myself from my competitors. and you know we're happy to work on buffering if you all seen that but it's architecture design and this is a 30 40 year project thank you anyone else okay thank you thank you is there anyone in the audience would like to speak either for or against this particular agenda item? Okay, then we can go to the rebuttal. Yeah, go ahead. Actually, the petition is supposed to go first, but he hasn't had anything, so if you don't mind, I'm going to let the staff go. Right, because you don't have anything to react to. Normally, you would get a chance to react. thank you chairman wilson there were um there was one thing i guess i'll start at the end mr nicholson pointed out the residential adjacency um near our b4 and i1 and ab is getting the map up so this was one of the sites he mentioned and we had actually spoke about it in my office so Lexington mini storage on Bryant Road where it's near residential zoning and this is true in many of the cases the industrial zone actually preceded the residential zoning so when that happens there's not really an avenue for us to avoid the conflict as much in this case ball homes made the argument that I won wasn't necessary here but residential was and in this case like many of our cases you have Pleasant Ridge which is a collector Street to provide the appropriate buffering and I mentioned that earlier too or you have a natural feature in here it's a it's a waterway for the interstate drainage facility that creates that natural buffer between the I1 and the residential or the street itself provides the buffer for that use so although the adjacency exists there are natural buffers that have been provided in in those locations or they've been incorporated into the conditional zoning restrictions to provide for a better buffer which again the applicants not suggesting that in this location in terms of a buffer to be created the staff just came to the conclusion a different conclusion than the applicant has and that is based on the existing conditions of the site and well I'll go back to my my points here the applicant did make a good case that retail won't work here but because of the limited visibility and frontage we think there's a possibility retail could work along the frontage with mixed use to the rear the residential to the back and again he mentioned that mr. Nicholson mentioned on behalf of his client that there are other b6p uses that again are allowed today residential and also that are we hope coming online soon in terms of a text amendment for hotels at this site or in this in the B6P zone so you can offer even though a site might have limited frontage offer for residential or office or even a hotel or a mixture of those uses in the vicinity would work absolutely remodeling could be difficult for a for a site that's been used for a movie theater for such a length of time but they've shown that redevelopment is clearly an option removing the structure and providing a new structure or structures that do fit in that area so that's I don't think an impediment to the project or the site and certainly the Zota that the staff proposed and was approved by the Planning Commission the council is not a magic bullet there that doesn't change the market it provides more opportunities certainly but we don't want to make sure that the lack of maintenance or lack of activity at this site over an extended period of time that that doesn't create a reason that the sites inappropriate the the applicants are the current owners in ability to either market it correctly or provide either the appropriate price I don't know so there's a lot of options there in terms of our opportunities that may have been missed that the staff not is not aware of in terms of marketing the site the price of the site again those are things that we're not involved with but the zone itself is what's it question for us today and the applicant in our minds haven't really made the appropriate justification they've talked to you a lot about their use what a self storage use is and what it can be and what its future is but our concern is more the zone before zone a lot allows more than just a storage facility it does allow the property be used for even with their conditional zoning restrictions nine fairly intense other uses in terms of distribution which would involve large trucks even if they weren't right adjacent to a residential neighborhood so a distribution facility could create more noise and lights and once a structure is built once a zone is in place it's much more difficult for the planning commission or building inspection to say no that use can't be here because you're not doing it correctly it's a buy right use then and so there's there are a number of other uses that even the applicant didn't strike they consider the most intense but from the staff's perspective all of these are too too intense for this site between the residential and the the current business climate in that location so again the staff's recommending disapproval and we don't want to create a situation where we are shoehorning inappropriate uses in the wrong locations thank you okay mr Nichols. Thank you all. First of all, with regards to any type of marketing efforts, to my knowledge, the callers are not in the business of just sitting on vacant parcels for years upon time. They've been actively marketing this site itself for five years. They've received three total calls. One was from us. One was from a different self-storage user. So that leaves one call that looked at this site maybe as a b6p use and determined that it did not work that tells you something um it while yes the b6p zone is changing and yes it may change in the future even more at some point one call in five years that screams with regards to any of the other intense uses i have shared my conditional zoning restrictions that were proposed with the the staff for about two weeks even as late as yesterday I specifically requested do you all want me to add any other uses on this site that you would like to see conditionally restricted and they never came back with any I'm happy to discuss adding more uses that list that list came from the Newtown Road zone change that just came through eight months ago so I don't that's a little frustrating to me to point out when I've offered multiple times let's let's talk about any other type of initial zones or conditional uses that you want to restrict we're happy to talk about adding others we're happy to talk about adding buffer we've said this from the very beginning I just proposed those a week ago or so because that's what other self-storage units have had and those were against single-family uses we're up against multifamily right here and right next to a fairly intense Kroger and Burlington Coat Shopping Center as well. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all have them. We'll open it up to the commission to ask either the applicant or the staff if they have any additional questions or need clarification on anything. Okay. And if that's the case, what I'll do is close it off to the audience and bring it back to the commission for discussion and our motion. Okay, Ms. Mundy has a comment. Go ahead. I have a little bit of a comment, I guess, on this project. I understand I'm looking at both sides, obviously. That's why I'm here. But the other thing that has hit me as we're sitting here wrangling through this, believe it or not even with a new barn I still have a storage unit that's there on man-of-war I drive six miles to that storage unit to pilfer around and get tools or whatever still in there we're we just approved the peninsula it's not that far away there's gonna be a lot of houses in there there's gonna be more apartments in there we have more infill coming and I know you gave a large number Tracy of of units that are possibly available they may be further away than my drive six miles to get a shovel but they they you know they may be further on the other side of town or whatever but I feel like with the infill that we have coming looking at the peninsula looking at things that are going on around this that this probably does more fit now than it did before. So that's my comment on it. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Berkley? I think the applicant has made some very, very good points with the site. efforts that have been made to market the site and you know the one point you know they they are probably the most vested people in this area so I'm gonna I'm gonna vote for it anyone else are we ready for a motion okay just a minute I'm sorry mr pen I think this is I think this is a classic case of what happens when you develop and you wind up with what I like call out parcels you wind up with parcels that really and truly don't lend themselves to much anything else because of size or because of width or length I don't like the idea of changing the b6p to a b4 but I'm having a hard time trying to decide what b4 use you could do in there and still keep the zone the same I want to talk more about the zone it seems like anymore now we worry about the development plan and we just assume the zone change and I'm not going to cite cases Mr. Nichols that we've done that but they haven't been some of our finest hours so I'd like for us to talk a little bit about as a commission about what B4 fits and what what we could do there with the B4 with the B6P we pretty much know what we can do in there because we've been doing it for a long time even though there are changes coming coming down the pike so I want us to consider is this an appropriate zone change and I don't want to get blindsided by the development plan because that we have a tendency to do that we all want to look at development plans what's going to look like how deep it's going to be what's going to generate how many jobs but we really don't look at this it's a zone change appropriate where it is or is it inappropriate? And that is, if you look on either side of this, the discussion ought to be, is this an appropriate zone or is it better zone changed? And I haven't heard us talk about this to any degree among ourselves. I haven't heard questions asked like that. I'm really not confused, but I'm really concerned about the fact that we assume the zone change and automatically jump to the development plan. I don't think that we're doing our job if we don't decide number one is just the right zone change and if it is then we talk about the development plan and I don't want to pick on this one but I want to use it as an example of kind of the trend we've gotten into as a commission and that's just a comment and I don't know the answer to what I'm asking any other comments any other thoughts and not to belabor the point let me set these motions up for you so that we'll sure one of the things that chair does not like a negative motions per se so here's the point if you're in favor of what the applicant proposes you make the motion in favor with findings as provided by the applicant if you are in favor of the staff's recommendation you don't vote disapproval negatively you vote for the staff's recommendation is that clear you've got a frown on your Okay. We've had challenges here, Mr. Nickel, in the past, because whenever we've had a negative vote, people get confused as to whether they're voting for or against and what have you. And to work our way around that, I've said the easiest way, according to parliamentary procedure, is just to put everything in the positive. So if you want to vote, I think it's easy. If you wish to vote for the applicant, you make the motion, but you have to include their findings as such. That's it. If you're supporting the staff's recommendation, you make the motion saying I approve of the staff's recommendation, and you don't have to worry about going to a negative vote. You always are voting in the positive, but you're voting for either one motion or the other. Any other confusion? I mean, I just want to make sure everybody knows what they're voting for. Okay. And if that's the case, then if anyone would like to make a motion one way or the other, then the chair is ready to entertain a motion. Mr. Berkley? I saw your hand go up. Yes. Mr. Chair, I am going to move for approval of, it's on two sheets here, MAR 18-18 with the findings provided by the applicant and also subject to their list of prohibited uses. okay Mr. Berkley moves and second to Mr. Bell that we approve PLN MAR18-18 Citadel Storage Partners 2LP with the findings provided by the applicant and with the subject to the prohibitive uses as identified also by the applicant this is for the zone change okay would you please vote when it comes up on your screens the motion carries net next for the development plan and NJDT 18-71 with the eight conditions. Okay. Do they have a second? Yep. Mr. Bell. Just a point of clarification that that landscape buffer were resolved at final development plan. it says the resolved landscape buffer along r4 zone is that is that is that okay i think mr martin is trying to clarify that it be resolved at the final development plan stage rather than in the next two weeks that's fine okay okay so resolved landscape buffer at the final development stage plan presentation okay it's been moved by mr berkeley second by mr healy bell that we approve pln mjdp 18 day 71 locust hill shopping sill shopping center as amended with the eight conditions provided by staff clarifying number eight and that is resolved at the final development resolved the landscape buffer at the final development stage presentation any other discussion on the motion hearing none Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion. Okay, thank you. That's it for that. Do you like to take a five-minute break? Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, I would remind you all the way there's a 6 o'clock council meeting, so please make your break quick. Mr. Duncan, since I don't have a parking place, I don't care. Planning Commission back to order. Would you prepare for the next agenda item, please? Next on our agenda is on page three. This is Plan MAR 18-00016. This is 525 Upper LLC. We have received 13 letters of opposition. I will hand those to Sav for the record, and I'll pass around these. Excuse me. You said 1-6. I have one. Oh, okay. Thank you. I just wanted you to know I'm awake. The petitioner 525 upper LLC has requested a zone change from professional office P1 zone to neighborhood business B1 zone. For approximately .14 acres of property located at 521 and 523 South Upper Street near the corner of Cedar Street and South Upper Street. The site is comprised of two small lots located along the north side of South Upper Street. We'll zoom in. It is located within a mixed use block that is bound by South Upper Street, Pine Street, Lawrence Street, and Cedar Street. So, South Upper coming down this way, Cedar down this way, Pine up, and then Lawrence right in the back. The location of the site is surrounded by the two-family residential R2 zone and the neighborhood business B1 zone, but is within a mix of zoning, including wholesale warehouse business, B4, mixed use, MU2, single-family townhomes, R1T, planned neighborhood residential R3, and high-density apartments R4. The subject site is located very near the University of Kentucky campus and is directly across South Upper Street from the mixed use hub development, which is currently under construction. This is a look at the aerial. Other than the hub, there have been several new developments in the area near this site in the past decade. This includes the construction of the town homes along Lawrence Street, located here. The construction of the Center Court Mixed Use Project, located here. And then the Raising Cane's Restaurant, located over here. A single commercial use separates the subject property from Cedar Street, currently occupied by the Rooster's Nest Barbershop and Shave Parlor and Cha-Cha's Hair Salon. The Bleed Blue Tattoo Shop is currently closed, that is directly next door. The applicant proposes to modify the use of the property to create a mixed use of retail and residential use with off street parking to the rear of the property. The parking lot is physically separated from Cedar by the parking lot of the adjacent commercial use at the corner of Cedar and South Upper. So to access the parking lot, you need to come out onto Cedar and then cut in. these six spots in the back area over here this is the subject property right here the structure on on the property has historic value although not located in the historic district overlay zone or registered with the bluegrass historic trust or the National Register for Historic Places it dates to the middle of of the 19th century and was reportedly built and owned by freed African-Americans before the Civil War. This is looking down on it. You can see the main portion of the structure and then the other side. Until the mid-1990s, the subject property was located in a high-density apartment R4 zone. The subject property was down zoned to the two family residential R2 zone, despite the property being historically bordered on two sides by neighborhood businesses, B1. The property was rezoned in 2005 to be professional office, P1. At that time, the applicant contended that the property could not be used or redeveloped as a duplex, nor increased the intensity without removing the historic structure. At the time, staff could not offer a rebuttal and sought to retain the historic property. The designation of P1 or professional office zone for the subject property also permitted acceptable step down in the land use intensity at this location. More importantly, through the use of conditional zoning on the property, staff provided a mechanism to protect the historic elements of the structure that would not have been protected by the previous zoning or in any current zoning that was there. Furthermore, the P1 allowed for residential use of one or two dwelling units above the offices located on the first floor of the historic structure. A form of mixed use that was common historically and more effectively utilized the urban landscape. During the 2005 rezoning, the petitioner opined that the request was compatible with the adjoining businesses and residential land uses. and that the proposed development respected the area's context and design features. The petitioner sought to develop underutilized land for a greater function while utilizing the existing infrastructure and transportation networks, which are adequate to serve this use. The petitioner also cited that the potential to create new jobs in where people lived and the potential for existing businesses was also a good thing for this project going forward. The planning commission and the urban county council agreed and adopted the following conditional zoning restrictions, prohibiting branch banks and drive-through facilities, and then requiring the retention of the historic structure and limiting the size and height of permitted signage. It is important to note what is preserved and what is not preserved by the conditional zoning. Specifically, these two smaller portions, this here. And this here represent a more recent construction episode and are not covered by the conditional zoning They do not make up a large portion of the site and then as such the site's use is heavily restricted by the size of The original structure in the back and the current parking restrictions The current application requests to rezone the to rezone the subject property to a neighborhood business be one zone and and makes a similar justification from the previous. However, through the proposal for the zone change, the applicant indicates both a inability to occupy the property with professional office uses, suggesting an inappropriateness of the current zoning, as well as a desire to expand the potential uses in an effort to attract commercial uses. The petitioner indicates that any new business that would occupy this space would more directly service and support the University of Kentucky students, faculty and staff populations, although they can also address the nearby neighborhood wants and needs. For PLN MAR 180019, the staff and the zoning committee recommends approval of the zone change. A restricted neighborhood business B1 zone is substantially in agreement with the 2013 and 2018 comprehensive plan for the following reasons. The site has been an underutilized site with professional office zoning. The property should be considered for a change to restricted neighborhood business zone in order to permit the use that will better serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhood and communities. By maintaining the existing historic structure, the development plan has also sought to respect the context and design features of the surrounding area and existing urban forum associated with theme A, goal 2B. The integration of bike infrastructure on the subject property will also prioritize multimodal options that de-emphasize single occupancy vehicles and walkability and bikeability, theme B, goal 2D. The incorporation, I'm still on this slide. The incorporation of potential new uses will incentivize the renovation, restoration, development and maintenance of historic structures outlined in theme D goal 3b and finally the staff agrees that the retail that is focused on the needs of the surrounding community can act as a draw for young and culturally diverse professionals seen in theme C goal 2d this recommendation is made subject to the approval of certification of PLN MJDP 18-68 Pegasus Holdings LLC amended prior to the forwarding a recommendation to the Urban County Council. This certification must be accomplished within two weeks of the Planning Commission's approval. Under the provisions of Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance, the following use restrictions shall apply to the property via conditional zoning. We will continue with what had been thrown out there in the past, and that is a restriction on branch banks and drive-thru facilities. The portions of the existing structure on the property originally constructed in the 19th century are to be retained and maintained. We will limit freestanding signage to a maximum of 5 feet in height and 8 square feet in size. And wall-mounted signage will be limited in size to a maximum of 3% of the wall area to which it is affixed. These restrictions are appropriate because they have been offered by the applicant and will limit inappropriate uses and maintain the historic character of the property. If you have any other questions, I'm here to answer. With that, Mr. Martin will review the staff's review of the development plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page four of your agenda is the development plan associated with this zone change. It is a major development plan, 18-66. This is a final development plan for this zone change and they selected a final development plan status as opposed to a preliminary for the very simple reason they are not doing anything to this property. There are no physical changes being proposed. They're maintaining the existing building which is a little over 2,500 square feet. It's got two stories. It's 30 feet in height and has already been explained to you. There are six parking spaces in the rear. It is served by an existing access easement across the rear of the properties. The B1 zone allows a landscape buffer, which they do currently meet. It's five feet next to the residential with a six-foot fence, which is currently on the property. As you can see from the agenda, there were only a few conditions that were placed on this plan by your subdivision committee and they did recommend approval. I know it's not a lot of fun when you have a plan that doesn't change. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of the applicant. 525 Upper LLC. I've had to prepare a PowerPoint, and not because I'm in disagreement with anything that has been reported to you by staff, but because I anticipate that I may have some citizen opposition here today. So if you'll indulge me, I'll engage in what I've affectionately termed a little pre-bottle, and then give the citizens an opportunity to speak and hopefully address some of the concerns they raise as well. I actually thought the last zone change was actually a very interesting setup for this one because I thought Mr. Penn made some comments that are actually very appropriate to this zone change. This is a zone change about use, not about development plan. As Tom mentioned, we're not proposing to change anything on the site at this time. We've committed to conditional zoning restrictions. were in agreement with the conditional zoning restrictions that have been suggested by staff about maintaining the historic structure and about trying to adapt this site for a use that is appropriate to the neighborhood. So really all you're looking at here is a use question, and I think it is a fairly straightforward one. This property was zoned P1 13 years ago. In 13 years, it's never had a P1 user. That's not for lack of trying. The prior owner actively marketed the site my clients own the site for four years we're simply unable to find anyone who's willing to occupy this space for a p1 use why is that well there's a couple of reasons one you're in an area where you're very very restricted parking wise and many office and p1 style uses need parking to be viable you think about the classic doctor's office even if i had a fairly small one exam room doctor's facility, by the time the doctor parks, a couple of staff people park, we're running tight on space. It's not great for P1 type uses, what I would like to term destination uses. You set out to go to an office. You're not just wandering around and say, hey, I think I'll dip into the doctor. As contrary to B1 uses, you might be walking down Upper Street as a University of Kentucky student, resident of the South neighborhood and say hey I might like to go in there and get something to eat that shop looks like it might have interesting things let me go in and take a look B1 uses are less parking intensive because they can attract passerby traffic we did agree to carry forward those conditional zoning restrictions I'm going to talk a little bit about conditional zoning restrictions in a minute but I want to make it abundantly clear we have no objection to the conditional zoning restrictions that have been advanced by staff and of course we do have recommendations of approval from both the staff and the zoning committee we've heard a lot of concerns about form based projects you all may recall the fairly spirited discussion about the hub development that you all had across the street using the form based code to get a fairly significantly large development I wasn't involved with that one but I paid close attention to that to that matter as it pinned it in front of this body. I know that was a very hot topic of conversation so I want to address briefly what I think are some fears that may be unfounded about this zone change in the form-based code. Form-based projects require at least one acre of space. Now I've been walking around all week saying I've been dealing with a fifth of an acre zone change. Actually when I sat down to put this presentation together it's a seventh of an acre. We only have point one four four net acres that we're dealing with on the instant zone change. Now, my client does own the piece that is on the corner. I think Hal has a fondness for talking about Cha-Cha's Hair Salon. He's brought it up a couple of times now. But we own that building as well. But even if you combine those two properties together, we're at .2841 or a little bit more than a quarter of an acre. If we owned every parcel that faced Upper Street on this block, which includes Mellow Mushroom and a couple of other properties, we would still not have enough property to do a form-based development. That would only get you to .8334 net acres. We'd more or less have to own the whole block. That would get you to an acre and a third. That's a comparable size to what you saw on the hub development. This is, as you'll see here in a moment, a several-parcel block, unlike the hub development, which was one parcel owned by the University of Kentucky. It's very unlikely, if not impossible, that we could ever get enough acreage here to do a form-based development, and certainly not our intent whatsoever. There are many practical limits on our site to what we can and can't do here. Committing to preserving the historic structure obviously is going to impact a lot of what we can do. Now, I appreciated that it was pointed out that the entire structure is not historic, really just the front half so you may see an amended development plan in here one day but again a development plan alone can't take away that conditional zoning restriction we basically have to go through another zone change to remove that conditional zoning to retain the historic structure but maintaining that building is going to significantly impact what we can do on the site parking is going to be a limiting factor we don't have a whole lot of additional room for parking. One popular thing to do over in this area previously was to lease spaces from UK in the Jersey Street parking lot to satisfy your parking needs. Of course, as you all are aware, that's not possible anymore. So parking is going to be a practical limitation to what can and can't go forward on this site. And actually, if you're looking for symmetry, this kind of matches what's on the northern corner of this block. 503 Upper Street, that's the Mellow Mushroom restaurant, if you're familiar with the area, has about 95 feet of frontage on Upper Street. From the corner, including Cha-Cha's Hair Salon, down through the proposed rezoning, would be about 104 feet. So give or take about 100 feet of B1 on the corners of this block. I want to talk a little bit about the intent of the B1 zone. If you'll notice, the intent of the B1 zone uses the word neighborhood a lot, oriented to neighborhood services that need to be in a neighborhood compare that to the p1 intent statement that does not mention or contemplate neighborhoods at all b1 is a u is a zone zoning category that we consider to be compatible with our neighborhoods so we keep hearing that this is encroaching on the neighborhood or it's chipping away at the neighborhood I don't think that's true at all I think it's enhancing the neighborhood because b1 uses are are contemplated to be compatible with neighborhood and residential uses. B1 calls for orientation to an integration with a neighborhood. I think this proposal goes directly to that. We're not proposing to rezone any residential parcels. I know sometimes, and I've actually brought zone changes forward to this commission, where you take residentially zoned properties and try to change them to a commercial category, business or industrial zoning categories. That's not true here. These particular parcels were already recognized as not necessarily needing to be residential parcels. These are P1 zoned parcels that we're proposing to rezone. So I don't feel like we're encroaching in the neighborhood in that way. And no parcel on this block is owner-occupied. All of them are absentee landlord. And I'll point out a little bit what I'm talking about here in a second. But one of the reasons I bring up about integrating with the neighborhood, if you look at this area, and this is pretty typical in the University of Kentucky area, you see a wide diversity of zoning, but you see a number of categories that allow for pretty intense residential uses. This teal color here is R4. Now, those haven't developed as apartments, but could theoretically redevelop as apartments. This lighter blue color is R2. I think you'll find that almost all of the properties that are in that R2 category are non-conforming. It was part of a larger down zoning. You have the center court development, which has a significant residential component. Up here, that MU3, I believe that's the Lex development on South Broadway. Again, another significant residential development. And that doesn't even contemplate the hub, which is highlighted here, which, yes, does have a commercial component to it, but is largely residential, if you'll recall from those conversations. Now that's not to say that we're not thinking about the people that live in South Hill. We hope they'll patronize these businesses as well. But you all well know as I do, Upper Street Corridor is a heavily traveled corridor by the UK student population. And that population, both that lives in the area, works in the area, studies in the area, would also like to be provided services in the area to the tune of retail and restaurant uses. That's what we're seeking to do here today. I wanted to point out a couple of things about this block specifically. First, we'll talk about this corner here, 217 Cedar, I believe, is the address here. This building is actually oriented towards Cedar Street. It's a non-conforming commercial structure. I think it's an alarm company. I couldn't verify that for certain, but it's a non-conforming commercial structure in the R2 zone, in a residential zone. And then if you look at these interior R2 uses, what I thought was very telling about these units is if you look at the amount of parking that's actually behind these buildings here, these aren't being used as your typical two-family duplex. These are student housing. Students are living here. So I think that, again, just goes to the appropriateness of B1 in this area. Now, you're going to be asked to disapprove the zone change by the neighbors, I feel quite confident. but you're going to be offered an alternative. They presented me with a list of approximately 26 uses that they would like restricted on the basis of conditional zoning. And so I want to talk a little bit about conditional zoning. Don't have to talk about it as much because I think you all got a pretty good primer on it in the last zone change. In fact, I came up with a couple of examples, but you can use your last case as an example as well. Conditional zoning is simply a recognition of the uniqueness of a piece of property. Yes, we think generally this would be a good B1 property, but we need to protect or account for this one specific thing. We need to landscape to prevent violating a viewshed. I picked this B4 example. Carnivals are an allowable use in the B4 zone. You also think about some of the other uses in B4. It might involve heavy truck traffic. Maybe we don't want to mix those two in certain heavily trafficked corridors. It's recognition of the uniqueness of the property. Now, we've accounted for the uniqueness of this property already by retaining the historic structure and agreeing to those other conditions, but B1, pulling all of these uses out of B1, I think is actually contrary to what the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance calls on us to do. B1 uses have been adjudged by this body when it considers ZOTUS and by the Urban County Council. We put uses in that category that we think are good next to neighborhoods because that's the intent of the zone. So I don't think we need to go through and pull out a bunch of uses that may one or two people may find undesirable in a particular location. I don't think we need to parse it that finely. If we have that big of a concern about the uses in the B1 zone, then I think we need to look at comprehensively the B1 zone and not conditional zoning on one particular piece of property and as I contend the conditional zoning that's appropriate for this site has already been requested by staff and already agreed to by the applicant so in conclusion our goal of this application is simple we're trying to broaden our uses to attract a user has not been successful in 13 years we do think it will be successful as a B1 property I had some interest as a B1 property so we think that this would be an appropriate change in use. B1 is a neighborhood oriented use and it contemplates residential uses as well. University of Kentucky campus is actually one of the places that you'll see our mixed-use development type development tends to work a little better. Students don't mind living above these commercial uses. I think it would be very appropriate in this location. Our zone change is exceedingly small. Remember we're here talking about 1 7th of an acre and I don't think imposition of numerous conditional zoning restrictions is appropriate I think it goes contrary to what we we teach and what we ask of our zone change applications so I respectfully request your approval I'd be happy to answer any questions I will conclude now so as to save a little time for rebuttal if needed but happy to answer any questions and thank you for your time thank you any questions for mr. Walden oh mr. nickel can you give me a little bit of the history of this property and its current zoning of p1 because i'm as i'm looking at this map it's a p1 surrounded by b2 and r2 yeah so this property was actually brought in as p1 in 2005 it was not by my client it was by a prior owner to the property i think hal gave a little bit of the history in his remarks but was contended at that time that p1 would be a more appropriate use for this site they thought that it could be commercially viable turns out it was not as far as adjacent properties go you'll find that UK is an odd hodgepodge of zoning sometimes that does not match the use that's on the property there is actually a number of industrial and B4 uses over in this area in fact I think if I go back and the brown colors here that's B4 that's the zone change you just considered that's the area behind as the center court development. Then R4 here, R2 here. That's R1T, I believe. That's the townhouse zone. This is, I think, B3. The orange color is B3. I think that's the car wash. You have another significant R4 down here. That's the South Hill Lofts, I believe, or something like that. It has the train sign on the side of it. So this property, I believe, was previously R2, was zoned to P1 in 2005, we're never able to find a user. My client obtained the property in July of 2014, has had the property since that time, has likewise found it difficult to fill up with a P1 user, and that's what brings us here today. Any other questions? Okay, thank you for this. It's now time for citizen input. For those of you who'd like to either speak for or against, let us know or come down. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission and the staff. I'm Jennifer Kaufman, currently serving as the president of the local neighborhood association, South Hill Neighborhood Association. I think it was said that you have 13 letters in opposition, and I don't know whether they're all from South Hill, but I'm sure some of them are from South Hill. I did send a letter on behalf of the South Hill Neighborhood Association, and I would like to share our concerns today. First, I think it should be said, first and last, I think it should be said that we do want to work with the developer. Mr. Walburn came to us, and they came to our Neighborhood Association board meeting, and we've talked about this and shared concerns, and indeed some of his remarks were specifically tailored to our concerns, and I appreciate that. Just to speak to our concerns briefly, first, it is telling that no particular use or tenant beyond just what Mr. Walburn said generally, retail or restaurant, has been proposed for this property. it's difficult to measure then whether it is a neighborhood friendly use and I noted earlier the definition of neighborhood friendly whether it meets the ordinary and daily needs of the surrounding neighborhood with no purpose specified beyond generally retail or restaurant we can't measure whether it's neighborhood friendly this I thought the word hodgepodge was interesting, accurate, and actually good. It's reflective of the area. That's one reason it's an interesting place in which to live. It does include the University of Kentucky. It does include single family dwellings. I live in the 300 block of South Mill Street. We have an interesting mix. But we would like to know whether this will be neighborhood friendly. No particular tenant is is planned I believe there's no need for additional retail zoning in this area the hub is across the street from the subject property and it will include residential but it will include 20,000 square feet of retail space now that already has a tenant supposedly target is going to be there but we have existing commercial space along Maxwell, along South Upper and South Limestone, and indeed there are vacant retail spaces in that area. So I'm hard pressed to see the need for additional B1 zoning in the area. Second, the B1 zone change does encroach into a residential area and set a negative precedent for residential use. This property does adjoin existing residences. As Mr. Walburn noted, these are, I think he said completely, owners who live elsewhere. So it's rental space, probably university, students, student space, which, again, makes it an interesting place in which to live. Third, the neighborhood objects to this zone change because we think the existing zoning is appropriate. It's an appropriate step down, and I think you, Mr. Nickel, asked about this. It's a step down from the B1 around there. It is B1, too much B1 is too intense for the neighborhood character that we would like to see preserved. there are other office uses in similar buildings along the way some creatively used including office uses along Maxwell I can't name to you exactly what they are but there are even some very tiny houses that have zero parking that are used as offices along Maxwell fourth I would speak to the comprehensive plan There are portions of the comprehensive plan that actually support retaining the existing P1 zoning. The comprehensive plan promotes provision of housing and job opportunities, and the existing P1 zoning of this property accomplishes those objectives because residential uses are permitted above the retail, I mean, above the professional use. So we understand that they have not attracted a professional user. I don't know how it's been marketed. I can't really speak to that. I will say this. In addition to those four reasons, we have said that if you do approve this zone change, that we propose some conditional restrictions. We are concerned. We are concerned because of this form-based development that has occurred across the street. If you just walk the neighborhood, you'll see that the hub is a massive development, and it's kind of a jolt to those who live in this neighborhood, particularly in the 500 block of South Mill, just to walk around the corner and see the mass is the only word I can think of of the hub. We are concerned about the owners amassing enough property to have some other form-based development. The conditional restrictions we have proposed are important, but I would highlight some that are particularly critical. First, liquor stores. Now, I'm not talking about a little wine and cheese shop, which would be a nice retail establishment, which could be for the use. What was that phrase used earlier that Stacey used earlier? Tracy used earlier, ordinary and daily needs. Wine and cheese might serve that, but not a liquor store. We have a couple of liquor stores already there. Secondly, arcades or pinball machines, pawn shops, tattooed parlors, foreign-based neighborhood projects. And then the live entertainment, that adds even more noise to a residential neighborhood. Having a variety or hodgepodge of residents is one thing. Having more noise is quite another. And that includes restaurants and brew pubs with indoor, live entertainment, and certainly outdoor. And then, of course, parking lots. We listed several conditional restrictions that we would propose, but those are really important to us. I want to conclude by saying that our desire and our goal is to work with developers in a proactive way, and indeed, even at the break. I talked with Mr. Walburn. We want to talk to his clients about getting recruiting some businesses. If you do approve this zone change, that would be friendly to our side of the neighborhood as well as the UK side of the neighborhood and would hope there is significant overlap. We are we are working with several developers. In fact, we've just settled the dispute with one developer, and that'll be coming before this planning commission. But we would hope that we can work together and work out something amenable to both of us. Thank you. Thank you. And let me say that one of the things, and this is my mistake, we normally have three minutes to make a presentation. And since I didn't note it, no problem. but if you would please think and would you please start the timer so that they can see and keep up with their own time that's okay no problem if I'm gonna make a mistake I'd rather make it in favor of a community irrespective of that so you're okay hello my name is Mary Morgan I'm the owner of schedule media which owns the property at 517 south upper street i also live on the upstairs floor i am not an absentee owner so i'm very close and i know that with as far as a bar with outdoor seating or anything like that there are noise requirements and i am like 12 feet away there's between my building and this building there is no space for any sound within those ordinances but even though it's been zone P1 for a long time it has never been P1 and that is true there's never been office there it has always been residential should have never been changed to P1 much less going on to be one that's all I have to say thank you thank you Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. I'm Tim Kondo with the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. We'd just like to commend the owners for offering to place the restriction on the property such that the 19th century portions will be retained and maintained and appreciate staff recommending that as well. The staff report touched on this, but I'd like to elaborate briefly on the significance of the building. Architecturally, it's not anything high style necessarily, but it's an excellent example of the type of common building that you saw for middle-class housing for 19th century Lexingtonians. Historically speaking, it was built, the one-story portion was built in around 1840 by free African-Americans Billy and Hannah Tucker, who owned a confectionery shop downtown, which I found rather interesting. The two-story piece was built around 1850. Needless to say, it is a very significant piece of Lexington history. And so we ask that should you vote to approve this zone change, that you do incorporate the restriction that that 19th century portions of the building be maintained and preserved so we can keep this piece of Lexington history. Thank you. Thank you. Put that on here. Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Walden, if you'd like to make any final comments. Only very, very briefly. First, and I'm sorry, ma'am, I didn't catch your name. I apologize. I only assess is there absentee or not based on where the tax bill goes. I think your tax bill goes to your business. That's why I made that assumption. So I apologize for that. I was not aware of that. And it's also equally hard for me to be mad at Judge Kaufman. Judge Kaufman actually administered the oath to my father to become United States Attorney back in 2011. So I'm not going to pick at her either, only to say that I think we've pretty conclusively demonstrated, and I think actually some of the objector testimony supported the fact that P1 is not a good use for this property. It's failed to attract a user for 13 years. Outside of that, should you have any specific questions, I think I did a fairly decent job of anticipating the arguments. And unless you have specific questions, I would rest on my earlier comments. Okay, thank you. Does anyone in the community have any additional thoughts? Okay, then we'll move to staff. Oh, Ms. Owens, did you have a comment? okay are you are you okay then if you would i'll be relatively quick um just a few things uh point of clarification the r4 area cannot be developed as multi-family per a legal agreement um that was just something that came up during uh mr walburn's presentation so it was one of the areas in the back where the townhomes were um a few reasons why staff did not seek any additional conditional zoning was primarily due to the fact that we had the maintenance and the continued operation of the historic structure as well as the small size of the site many of the uh the zone conditional zoning uh requirements that were requested by the neighborhood association would have been precluded already by the size of the site as well as a few other issues pawn shops are not allowed past 1990. This does not offer the size spacing for parking that would allow for a lot of the uses, other things like that. So staff believes that the size of the site and the maintenance of the historic structure preclude a lot of what has been asked for already. If there are any other other questions we're here to answer those. Okay thank you. What we'll do now is open it up for the commission to ask either the staff, the applicant, or the citizens any questions that you may have mr owens did you wish to thank you mr chair um mr walberg uh staff with one concern being mentioned uh as far as a resident living next door and noise any possible thoughts as far as restrictions to limit noise or the time of operation or anything like that i have basically deferred to staff and their judgment about the appropriateness of conditional zoning uses so no i haven't come prepared to voluntarily offer any additional ones today certainly if the commission were to take that up i could offer commentary on that but i i did not pre-offer any additional conditional zoning restrictions beyond those that staff had suggested thank you for staff you know you've got a few here that's and then also those others a list of others have you had a chance to look at the other ones that have passed around or any thoughts in regards to my initial question as far as noise many many of the uses that would generate such a noise would be precluded by the size and the parking requirements associated with such a use so staff believes that because we're maintaining that structure you're not going to be able to add the parking to allow for to occur and you wouldn't have the significant buffers to allow for those to occur mr pan and i guess this is for the staff is it necessary for us to put a number nine in there that says that the 19th century portion of the building must be maintained May I address? Yeah, while they're working on it. Yeah, I think actually in this scenario conditional zoning would trump the development plan. It's a more restrictive thing, so we wouldn't object if you added that to the development plan, but I don't think it's necessary legally. I think through the imposition of conditional zoning, we couldn't do it anyway. We generally list conditional zoning on a development plan. It will be on the plan. So it will be on the development plan. Thank you. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Finn. I appreciate that question. I had that same thing. Any other questions for the applicant, the staff, or the citizens in the year? Mr. Nickel? I've got a quick question for the staff. Just looking at this neighborhood, once again, it's residential and residences that have been converted to business. if at some time these businesses want to be converted back into R2 zoning is that a pretty easy thing to do from the comprehensive plan yeah I could the process is the same so whatever you're requesting it's the same type of four to six month process that someone comes and has to have a public hearing from the Planning Commission notices sent I don't I don't know that we'd really be to answer that question if how easy that would be to convert back i just was thinking that it looks like this area is for business and residential and if they wanted to return someone the residential would be one of the uses that would be acceptable yeah upper street tends to be a more commercial area in this vicinity so i would i would be a bit surprised if it converted back to residential yeah and thank you mr walburn just mentioned mr nickel you can do you can do residential on the second floor in a business zone as well any other questions any other comments for the if not i'll close this part of the hearing bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion Yes, sir. Okay, Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN-MJDP-1868 with the eight conditions. Second. clarification where'd you get 1868 from yeah I get ready to say it should be oh I need to do the zoning first okay go go we want the zone change first yeah I'm sorry get the zone change first You got me confused. I was working on a development plan. I know. I know. There you go. All right. The only person doesn't make mistakes, the person doesn't do anything. No, that's it. You ready to go again? Yeah, let's go. All right. PLN-MAR-1819, 529 Upper Street. Okay. With the staff's conditions, correct? Yes. Okay. Whatever you say. Mr. Penn moves, Mr. Mike Owens seconds that we approve PLN MAR 18-19-525 upper with the conditions identified by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing no, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Now, Mr. Penn. Now I'm on the right church in the wrong period. All right, here we go. PLN MJDP 1868 with the eight conditions. Approval. Okay. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Frank Penn, seconded by Mr. Mike Owens, that we approve PLN MJDP 18-68 Pegasus Holdings, LLC, with the eight conditions identified by staff. Any other discussions on the motions? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries as well. Thank you. Okay, we're moving over to the other part of the, we've got three other items to do or work on. The public hearing on zoning ordinance, text amendments. Zota 218.3, 2018.3. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson. Again, our next item is on page 5, and it's Zota 2018-3. This is an amendment to allow hotels and extended stay hotels in the Commercial Center B6P zone. This is a request by Justice Plaza, LLC. They have filed an application to Article 12 of the zoning ordinance to add, as a principal use, hotels extended stay hotels and motels within the b6p zone so as we usually do we tell you where b6p or where hotels currently are permitted so i'll go through that they are allowed downtown in our b2 zones as well as our highway service b3 zone they are also allowed in a b5p which is the interstate interchange that has locational criteria. Also hotels have more recently been expanded into our professional office projects in the P1 zone. University Research Park allows some hotels as does our mixed use 3 zone and as a supportive use in the ED zone. So extended zone so extended stay hotels are also permitted in the r5 and p1 zones as well when they but they have a few more restrictions so the b6p zone formally our planned shopping center zone was recently updated and with that there were significant changes to required parking building setbacks established minimum floor areas and with that there was the addition of the multi-family residential land use but at that time there was not any other consideration given for new uses in the zone at this time the applicant is considering adding b6p are adding hotels to b6p zone and they do have a site here in Fayette County in mind for their particular use but of course with Azota as we mentioned earlier we always take into consideration every piece of land that's already zoned in that zone as well as there should be some thought given to where b6p may go in the future and then also when you can contemplate adding a principal use to a new zone we want to make sure that the Planning Commission considers the general impact of that new land use and that would be height scale massing parking requirements and whether that use is compatible with the other uses that are also principal permitted uses in the zone because once it's principal use again someone can go to the division of building inspection or come to the planning commission with a development plan and seek that use so in the cases of hotels and extended stay hotels some of the characteristics that the Planning Commission would want to consider is the environmental externalities traffic impacts of a hotel how large the hotels might be how tall how long they operate for instance there's activity 24 hours a day seven days a week typically parking areas associated with those the fact that hotels do support tourism in our community as well as support other adjoining or nearby businesses typically and then the general activity that might come with those businesses so the staff did evaluate the existing B6P zones and with the idea of adding hotels as a principal use there are can't read it from there but over 30 existing sites that are b6p 10 of them do have some vacant property within them and when the staff looked at those sites it became and I have one it became important or it became clear that the smaller sites are generally located within neighborhoods and the larger sites that are above 10 acres had frontage on arterial roads and tended to be more of the community and regional size and those are the locations where it made more sense more logical sense to put a hotel right people are already traveling on our arterial corridors that's where the other locations are for for instance hospitals the mall uk those locations are already consistently on our arterials and so we'd want those hotels to serve again the locations where we have tourists or visitors coming to the community on those heavily trafficked areas so the staff feels it's important to make sure that hotels don't become a nuisance for residential neighborhoods in terms of especially single family neighborhoods so pushing them or moving them or only allowing them in our larger b6p zones is what the staff is recommending the applicant asked for b for the use to be permitted across the board but the staff's alternative text is a recommendation that hotels extended stay hotels and motels only be allowed in b6p zoned properties that are at least 10 acres of contiguous b6p land So that's the staff alternative is a recommendation for approval. In addition to the change or the proposed restriction to 10 acres, the staff is also suggesting a side and rear yard setback be added to the B6P zone. And it would be for 10 feet around the entire site, other than where it fronts onto a street. and that that yard be increased if the height of a building increases above generally 30 feet. So at the 30-foot point, you would start to need the building to be pushed away from that rear side yard where it's adjacent to a residential zone. So that's the staff's recommendation in terms of changes to the B6P zone at this point. And those recommendations are listed on the agenda as well as the staff report that the Planning Commission has in their Granicus system. But the staff does recommend approval because the proposed text will enhance the viability of the existing commercial center zone developments by permitting a complementary use to traditional retail sales. in addition allowing hotels will allow for higher floor area ratios which we are trying to reach for the community and encourage more dense development along our corridors within suburban areas of the community be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommend recommendation related to this application mr owens thank you mr tracy as far as you you touched on it nicely I think just clarification concerns as far as residential areas next to B6Ps your restriction or proposed restriction for it being 10 acres or more do you have y'all look as far as 10 acres or more how does that affect residential areas are the b6ps do they have neighborhoods next to them that they do almost all of them have adjacent residential uses so it doesn't it's not that the b6p and the residential is incompatible and again that kind of goes back to some of our discussions earlier today it's that the massing of the building becomes incompatible so as it gets to the 30 foot level then you start to see the shadowing and the activities near the neighborhoods to become an issue or concern for neighborhoods so this builds into the zoning ordinance sort of a performance zoning as you go up you just push a little bit further away from those neighbors there is an enhanced buffer that's built in already to be 6p it's I say that it's a six foot buffer width but the the number of trees and the shrubs is greater than a typical business to residential buffer and it's a it's for everybody it's not just a long residential I would presume I would be safe in saying because I think it has occurred before. Height restrictions can be imposed as well. Can be imposed by the Planning Commission. Well, or yes. Yes, absolutely. And then in terms of a site plan, obviously the Planning Commission has authority over any development plan, so where the hotel is located can always be a discussion item. Okay, thank you. Any other questions, comments? Okay, applicant. What she said. Okay, moving right along next. No, I'm Darby Turner, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant on this text amendment request. And this, I really don't have too much to say because I agree entirely with what Tracy said in her recommendation. This all transpired over actually from discussions with the staff, not only for this client but also for another client, Fayette Mall, as to some innovative approaches and uses within these large B6P tracks that would be compatible with the commercial. We had the Fayette Mall folks in their eyes just lit up. They thought of doing a hotel that opened into the mall and those types of things where people could make it a destination without having to get back on the road. It was, you know, it opens up all sorts of possibilities and opportunities. And so it's very, as Tracy said, particularly on the, when we were talking about it, we didn't think about the size at all when we filed the application. But it does make a lot of sense, particularly where the 10-acre sites are located and so forth, that it's much more compatible. and that's a very reasonable addition and amendment to our original request. So I'd be glad to answer any questions, but we're in total agreement with the staff, and I think it fits very nicely with the new approach to underutilized properties, to tend to increase the intensity of some of these uses and decrease the seas of parking lots that you have and so forth. So we're in total agreement. Thank you. We may come back to you later. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular agenda item? Just please come down. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. And we have, I'm not going to speak very long, we have some concerns about it. We support some of it. I think staff's correct in saying this should be dealing with larger areas like 10 acres plus. I mean, that makes sense to me. It seems to us this could be a little bit out of order because the new B6P, as projected, really calls for multifamily housing and, you know, growth of commercial uses and things like that. However, you don't really have the authority to make that stick yet. It's not in ordinance, and you're starting out by adding hotels before you really have the authority to get your more intense residential development into it, which is really one of your main goals. So I mean, the order of it is concerning. We also are glad that staff is adding side and rear setbacks for this use, but we're concerned about the amount of the setback. I mean, currently it's only six feet, but you don't have hotels that go up five stories or something like that. And that's like two pedometer steps, if you think about it. And if you go with what staff is doing or suggesting for, let's say, a five-story hotel, which is possible, and if you build that up to residential, I think it would increase to about 16 and two-thirds feet, which is maybe about five pedometer steps. And if I were doing it, I don't object to the concept of it particularly, it would make more sense if you're going to have something that's multiple stories and potentially high, it would make sense to put a design incentive there to put that in the middle of the development instead of right on a residential boundary, and then I think it would help the residential area. I have more thoughts on it, but those are my primary ones. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Well, actually, I would suggest just taking it back and thinking about it a little bit more in terms of how the design of it would work. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Amy Clark of 628 Castle Road. You did a lot of research putting together the comp plan goals and objectives, and I think the two main things you learned that everyone agreed with is there's a dearth of affordable housing, and we needed significant land for significant employment, meaningful major employment. And the B6P zone was recently relaxed, and you can see that the intent of the zone was rewritten for the new objectives, And the objective was to add FAR, add floor space in relation to the precious land to increase intensity, to give affordable housing an opportunity for jobs, particularly good jobs. Hotels are not great jobs. There will be collateral restaurant uses and so on. They're mostly not great jobs either. But my main concern is affordable housing. What could be more antithetical as a use to affordable housing than hotels? What developer would choose to put the same expense into a five-story building and not make it for a high-yield hotel instead of an apartment building that's affordable, given the opportunity? opportunity. I think we need to protect our B6P land for affordable housing. I think it's a great promise. It's a great new step. And the other thing I would say, so the issue is you're increasing a requirement of FAR so they can build a hotel and meet it with that and you still don't have your affordable housing. And these are large lots. These are 10-acre lots where there's promise for affordable housing, for multifamily housing. The other thing is we have just put enormous public investment into downtown to increase the amenities. We're doing the convention center. We did the courthouse. There's the town bench trail. There's a TIF on 21C. There's a TIF on the center project which has two hotels as I understand it. What happens if you open up the new use hotel for all our suburban sites, large sites for hotel use? Will we get the density and intensity of hotel use downtown on that very expensive land where we've put enormous public expense in? So my thinking is really B6P is a good place to target the affordable housing. But it isn't going to be more possible if you say you have a choice. You're going to put building investment, construction investment of five stories. Even the parking use, a hotel will have a parking use. I'm not sure you could mix and match in the way that you hope to with a shopping center type uses. So thank you for your consideration. So thank you for your consideration. I really think it's not the direction you were taking with that. Initially, B6P had a 50-foot perimeter yard. The new B6P now has, we're glad to have 10 feet of that back along the side and rear. I would certainly support the independent amendment to increase the side and rear setback. setback. There is provision made for the height of a hotel, for the height of a building like this, and in fact it would go for any building. It's a good provision, the three to one, but consider that the three to one setback increase gives you maybe two to three feet per every extra store you add. That's not a lot of distance for big mass and scale next to a single-family neighborhood, for example. So thank you, but really think about the downtown and think about the affordable housing that is such a priority for us in this community. Thank you. Would the petitioner like to make any final comments? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but not really. The issue of the setbacks and so forth, think tracy well answered and that that would come to you all in a development plan to determine you know to apply the the the criteria and even your discretion with regard to what works and what doesn't work in a particular location but it offers a tremendous opportunity to really efficiently use some of these larger tracks and even so i think it fits very nicely and it's really an innovative approach to some of these users that will be compatible with the existing B6P uses. And I certainly don't see it as competition for the convention center in downtown hotels and business that exist down here. Thank you. Citizens, you have another shot at it if you want to. Okay, staff. I was just putting the intent of the zone into the record, which I showed you up there, which highlights the housing need and how this new B6P could meet it. And it's not exactly correct that we're inhibiting development, but we'd like to guide the development by design so that it's not right on the property line. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Staff, get the last word. I think I just wanted to clarify the in the intent that Miss Clark was mentioning while there is one section that talks about affordability the way it reads is not the intent of the v6 p zone is not to create opportunities for affordable housing. housing but actually here's what it says increasing the supply and mixture of housing types available throughout Lexington thereby improving overall housing affordability so the I just want to make sure that the intent is not affordable housing it's to increase housing opportunities which would make housing across the community more affordable and that's maybe a splitting hairs but I just okay anyone on the Commission have a question for you the applicant are the petitioner or the citizens ma'am what's up yeah okay at this stage of the game any Commission that have any questions is my question of anybody okay then what we're going to do is close we're closing this part of the committee part and it's up to the commission to have a discussion of their own what do you have any thoughts or would you like to make a motion mr chair yes sir uh look Larry's there no you go Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of ZODA 2018-3, the amendment to allow hotels and extended stay hotels in the commercial center B6P zone with the staff alternative text. Okay. Mr. Mike Owens moves and Mr. Larry Foster seconds that we approve ZODA 2018-3 amendment to allow hotels and extended stay hotels in the commercial center B6 zone and with the staff alternative text. Any other discussion on the motion? Would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. Thank you. We have commission items. Mr. Duncan, do you want to say anything? Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have two commission items for you, initiation of two different text amendments. I believe Tracy's going to say something about them for us and then we can also fill in any blanks you have. Okay. That's why I like it. Keep me straight. Keep me straight. Keep me straight. Keep me straight. I'm going to put a whole lot. I'm going to put a whole lot. Lay it up there too. Lay it up there. You can see. The staff is asking for initiation of two items today. The first is a zoning ordinance text amendment to update article 21 of the zoning ordinance to address compliance with the comprehensive plan. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Berkley? Yes. I'm going to put this up so we can bring it. Go ahead. Go on the overhead. I've raised in our work session a couple times just some of the legal issues and the compliance with KRS 100. If you'll notice here this is KRS 100-201 and I think this request is for to update article 21 is is out of order for for this reason here. It says when all required elements of the comprehensive plan have been adopted which we have not adopted the comprehensive plan in accordance with the provision is that this chapter then the legislative bodies and physical courts within the planning unit may enact permanent land use regulations including zoning and other kinds of growth management etc i just see this thing as being out of order i have issues with uh the language that's been proposed and I think we need to continue to work on it. Frank, I think you made one of the best comments is we need to make sure we've got it right before we put it out there and I don't think we do. So I'm gonna move that we do not initiate that today and we take it back to our work session. Okay, a motion is on the floor to not approve this, but to send it back to the staff. Is that what you're saying? Well, to our work sessions where we can have some further discussions. I mean, I don't know that we've had a real full discussion. I made the suggestion of having someone come in to speak to us about the KRS because we've not been presented anything about KRS in regards to this, and I think there are issues with it. I see it as another layer in the process, and I don't know that it's really necessary. Okay, well, do we have a second, I guess, is the second part to that. Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded that we send this back to staff for additional consideration with that. Do we have any discussion on the motion, Mr. Penn? mr duncan is is this a request to initiate uh yes mr penn we were asking the planning commission to initiate the text amendment that would allow us to update the chapter 21 the article 21 of the zoning ordinance and so what the initiation means unlike the the action you just took on the b6p which was to to recommend approval to the council, the initiation then starts the formal discussion. There is no timeline for concluding the discussion on this. We can set up additional work sessions. We can schedule a public hearing. We can schedule a public hearing and continue the public hearing to another time if we feel like we're not able to get enough information. But the proper venue in the past for text amendments is to initiate them and then to begin the discussion. and particularly if they're initiated at the planning commission level with no time limit on there, then the staff then has direction to provide information. But until it's initiated, it really isn't something that we're responding to. And that's my point. I don't think it's out of order to initiate what we're trying to do here because all that does is start the process. So to say we're out of order to initiate the process, I understand if this was a text man that was coming forward to us and we were going to vote it up or down. But all this is is a motion to initiate, and it goes right back to what Mr. Berkley's wanting us to do. So what he put up on the board there is premature because all this is is to initiate it. Well, until we have a comprehensive plan that's adopted, how do we know what we're dealing with? Sir, we do have a comprehensive plan that's adopted that's active. The 2013 comprehensive plan. Yeah, but we're changing that completely this time. Our comp plan this time is a lot different than our 213 plan. And you're trying to incorporate into this Article 21 compliance with the comp plan, which we've not adopted yet. I mean, you all made the argument. Once the zoning ordinance is adopted, it would be any comprehensive plan. I don't interpret it that way because this is going to apply to the plan going forward. Right, and you can have a time to Mr. Penn's point. Okay, well, let me time a text amendment to be implemented at the same time as the adoption of the comprehensive plan. Okay, we can put this to bid very quickly for the most part. A motion is on the floor, it's been a second. If you're in favor of sending this back to the staff, vote yes. If you're not in favor of it, vote no. Would you please vote when it comes up on your screen? Okay. Sorry. Did Ms. Mundy second that? You did. Yes. The motion was second. Okay. What we're saying here is Mr. Berkeley has indicated that he does not believe this particular text amendment is appropriate at this time. And we had this discussion in our work sessions, quite frankly. and in fact it matter i even asked our attorneys to give us an interpretation the implication that i had and i even indicated this publicly at the time that it seemed to suggest that we were doing something quite frankly out of the legal order we were assured that that's not the case in fact this is the way that's just generally been done now in respect for mr berkeley i was did everything i could to try to figure out where he was coming from because i respect his opinion you know now with that said a motion has on hit the table and you can either vote it up or down that's right yeah I'm sorry well Frank's question in my view is the one that I would hold to and that is this is simply an initiation it has nothing to do with passage it has nothing to do with anything else in other words everything that mr. Berkeley has indicated would be discussed and in fact it could even die on the vine if you really think about it but it would have an opportunity formally to present this to the staff so that and for us so that we could actually work on it no here's what mr. Berkeley is saying is that we should not initiate at this time because we still have some concerns or he has some concerns about this initiation process based well based on what he had we're saying he's bringing up the issue he feels uncomfortable with it not and mr. Berkeley I'm sorry for speaking on your behalf he feels uncomfortable with it and he's expressing a concern connected with it what I have tried to do is to figure out where his concern was coming from because it appeared to me that he was arguing that we were not potentially legally in compliance so I asked Miss Jones over there I said Miss Jones you're not gonna allow us to walk off a cliff are you and she said no. So this traditionally has been the way that we normally we've been doing it this way for 22 years for the most part. And it's not to say that we're against change but the process is just to simply get things moving so it can be discussed. Just discussion. It has nothing to do with anything else. So Mr. Berkeley's comments will be addressed and they can be addressed but not at this time. Now that's just the sense of the chair. I'm just doing that. Okay. Now, any other questions that you may have? And I know I've been speaking on behalf of the chair here because I had a difficult time trying to figure out why the problem or the concern was just simply discussing something. And I've been trying to figure that out and work that out. But Mr. Berkley's made his case. You've heard it. He's made a motion. It's been second. Now, if you're in favor of his motion, you vote yes. If you're not in favor of his motion, you vote no. please vote when it comes up on the screen okay the motion fails now with that said mr. bell you didn't register oh okay well the motion the motion fails now with that just to get things on record here could i have a motion then if of the a different if you want to do a motion just to make sure that it's on the record that we work on the initiation of zoning ordinance. Would someone make a motion to that end? So that we can initiate. I'll make the motion that we at least initiate it. That's right. It's getting too confusing anyway. That's all we're asking for right now. Thank you. Okay. It's been moved by Mr. Forrester, seconded by Mr. Bell, that we initiate a zoning ordinance text amendment to update Article 21 development plans. Any other discussion on that motion? Hearing that, would you vote when it comes up on the screen? Okay, the motion carries. Now, let me say this. I know the motion's over and all that's been taken care of, but I think in support of Mr. Berkeley here, I definitely believe that this issue will be taken care of, but I understand understand what you talk about it's the timing here based on what you're thinking I don't agree with a lot of the language okay and I just don't think it's a good piece of legislation to put out there okay I respect that and we'll have a chance to discuss it like I said it doesn't necessarily mean it has to go anywhere but at least we can initiate let's move to the second thing okay our second item is a request from the Lexington tree board to update the planting manual the planting manual is an adopted portion of the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance by reference so when we update that as well as the big box guidelines those come through the Planning Commission for sort of a text amendment process in this case the tree board is asking that column or trees which are being planted in lieu of large and medium trees only be counted as small trees and that's because of the canopy coverage so article 26 lays out the canopy coverage for small medium and large trees and it's a hundred square feet for a small tree 450 for a medium tree and then 750 for a large tree in most cases the columnar trees are they can be tall like the medium and large trees but they don't have the same canopy coverage and so what's been happening is people are planting these taller collumer trees and getting credit for the canopy but that doesn't in the tree board's opinion get to their goal of increasing tree canopy in Lexington we have a goal of I think 32% tree canopy coverage for Lexington and we're in the in the early 20s right now so we want to make sure to allow collumer trees in the appropriate locations and also just count them as you know pretty much the size they are not give credit for canopy that's not there okay uh if you all got my in my email related to that of that cryptic remark i had at the end as such but i have been educated to what these trees are and i can appreciate what's being requested here the applicant is not here are no they they understood that the staff would present so they'd like to initiate this discussion related to to address these column columnar trees yes sir can i get a motion on that okay mr chairman i move that we initiate a text amendment in regard to the columnar trees amendment recommended by the election tree board okay it's been moved by mr frank penn second by mr healy bell that we initiate a planning manual amendment to address column our trees any discussion on the motion please vote when it comes up on your screen okay that motion carries mr duncan anything else mr chair thank you all for your time this long afternoon that's all we have well I would say this I indicated in my email that we'd be out here but 5 it's 5 05 and I thank you all again I thank you for your service without objection meeting is adjourned thank you