I really skip and I jump, jump, jump to it Jump, jump, jump to it And I jump, jump, jump to it I really skip and I jump, jump, jump to it And I jump, jump, jump to it And I jump, jump, jump to it We'll be right back. Move yourself You always live your life Never thinking of the future Prove yourself You are the move you make Take your chances, win or lose See yourself You are the steps you take You and you and that's the only way Shake, shake yourself You're every move you make So the story goes Owner of a lonely heart Owner of a lonely heart Owner of a broken heart Owner of a lonely heart Say you don't want to chance it You've been hurt so Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to welcome you to the January 24th, 2019 Urban County Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to welcome all those you are in the audience. I'd like to welcome our staff members who've supported us so wonderfully, and I'd like to thank my commission members who've nothing else put up with me. Approval of the minutes, Ms. Plumlee. Mr. Chair, move approval of the minutes of November 29, 2018 and December 13, 2018. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Mundy that we approve the minutes of November 29, 2018 and December 13, 2018. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. Thank you. postponements and our withdrawals. Mr. Carter. Good afternoon. If you turn in your agenda to page three, I have one postponement it's plnmar 18-00023 lata llc we request one month to the february 28th we still need some time to work out some issues with planning on this is there anyone in the audience would like to make any comments or any have any thoughts related to this particular agenda item of postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. It's Monday. Excuse me. We're not agreeing to anything except there's a postponement recommendation. Not for the whole meeting. Well, it's for PLNMAR 18-23. There's a request for postponement. Okay. now what i asked for was the anyone in the audience that had any comments related to the postponement they're requesting a one month postponement all right anyone on the commission anyone on the commission also i would add there's a development plan associated with this too that i didn't mention the name but uh for the record i can mention that if you want Okay, as long as we know what the reasons are, the bylaws just say that you've got a reason. I don't need the details right now. Okay, any commission member, Ms. Mundy? Mr. Chair, excuse me, before the motion is made, perhaps if we'd state the address, that would help clear up any confusion about the location of this application. Okay, the address for this is for property located at 1810 Bryant Road. Yeah. Is that helping anyway? You all still look like you're confused about something. Oh, you're okay? Oh, okay. I just want to make sure you're in good shape. All right. Ms. Mundy has made the motion. Mr. Owens? No, you haven't made the motion yet. I'm sorry. Ms. Mundy? Thank you, Mr. Chair. now I move for postponement of PLN MAR 18-23 LATA LLC to February 28th of 2019 and also and I don't see it but anyway the development plan as well Second. Okay. It's been moved by Ms. Mundy, seconded by Ms. Owens, that we postpone PLN MAR 18-23 Lata, Inc., and that is for property located at 1810 Bryant Road until February 28, 2019, and this was along with the associated development plan. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Okay, that motion carries. motion carried let me be clear let me just double check one thing for you all came because you thought you had some you wanted to talk to that particular issue oh okay i'm sorry i just want okay all right miss anything else mr carter that's it thank you okay thank you any other postponements chairman wilson yes we understand from the representative for zoda 2018, sorry, I don't have my... Yeah, that's page 5 in there. Yes, the bottom of page 5, 2018-5, an amendment to update Article 15 related to the height of front yard fences in multifamily developments. We understand from the applicant that they wish to postpone this item one month. Anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular postponement recommendation? Anyone on the commission? I'll entertain a motion then. Mr. Chair, I'll move for postponement of Zota 2018-5, the amendment to update Article 15-4B for one month until February 28, 2019. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Owens, seconded by Mr. Larry Forrest. that we postpone ZOTA 2018-5 Amendment to update Article 15B to increase the allowable height of yard fences and multifamily developments for one month or until February the 28th. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay, that motion carries as well. Okay. There are no other postponements or withdrawals, then we'll move on to the order of business of the day, which starts on page one. We'll start with a development plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. On page one of your agenda, under development plans is Major Development Plan 18-81, Leastown Industrial Park Unit 3. Ah, here we go. This is a final development plan for property located out in the Leastown Industrial Park. You can see the cul-de-sac in this location. Here is Alexandria Drive. It extends past the property. This is an existing building with an existing access off of Alexandria Drive. It was formerly University of Kentucky property. There's a cell tower in the area, AT&T cell tower in the area. And you may recall there was a zone change on this particular property, and it was brought in on a preliminary development plan that included all of this property. And at that time, they indicated this building would be removed, parking would be built on this lot to serve this use. And this access was going to be emergency access only, and that was due, again, to the concern about dumping industrial traffic and heavy trucks and things like that out onto Alexandria Drive. And that was the preliminary development plan that was approved as part of that zone change. Subsequently, as you see before you, they brought in this final development plan. And staff immediately said, we need to discuss about this change because now you're keeping the building. You want to keep this access, and we don't have any cross access, as originally agreed during the zone change. and again that raised issues with access and safety on Alexandria Drive. It took a little while but eventually the staff was able to meet with the applicant and meet with the representative to discuss the three issues on this plan and they are at the bottom on page two under your conditions and they're actually all related in essence And that's 14 and 15 and 16. Discuss proposed land use. Again, that was a concern with I-1, what kind of use was going to go in here now, and what impact would that have on Alexandria Drive. And we weren't aware at that time of the exact use. Discuss the proposed access to Alexandria Drive. Again, originally there wasn't going to be any, raised a big concern. And then the access from overdrive per the preliminary development plan. Well, again, we met with the applicant, we met with their engineer, and we received answers to these questions. And the use here is going to be the applicant's use. and they're going to store old vehicles and antique vehicles that they enjoy working on and that sort of thing. So there's not going to be any industrial use per se. Now, what changed for the applicant is this user is gone. They're no longer here, so they didn't need the parking. however again with our concerns with this access we on 16 it's what happened to this access and it's right here you can see it on the plan it's actually indicated there was to be access so in meeting with them we became confident that we could craft language to limit the use of that property to exactly what they intend to use it for, which is a very limited, low-intensity use. It's a personal use. This is a hobby. This is something that the owner does, works in stores on these vehicles. We have seen language that we're fairly comfortable with that will bring them back to this body to have this development plan amended should any change of use occur on this property. And number two, and more importantly, which we believe addresses any future redevelopment of this property, staff is recommending that they be required to create an access easement across this property to this lot. And that needs to be done, and that needs to be certified and recorded prior to certification of this plan. And that will ensure that any future development for another use will bring the appropriate access of this property out to overdrive. Any industrial use, any other new use that would impact traffic in a negative way will have to use that access easement. And after meeting with the applicant, staff is comfortable, again, that we have language that can address those issues. And so with that, staff is recommending approval of the plan, changing 14, 15, 16, and I hate to hit you all with this many, but it's a simple change, which is resolve, that we can resolve these issues. They will be putting the use on there, on the plan. They will, again, there will be language addressing any future use of the property and amendment to the plan. and as well as actually creating that access easement to ensure appropriate future access for any new use on the property. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Ms. Mundy has a question for you. Sorry, Tom, just for clarification. So at this time, they will have access to Alexandria. Yes, ma'am. But if there is any change in the use of the property, that goes away, that access goes away, and they have to use the other easement. Yes, ma'am. That's the intent. Where will that be documented? It'll be on the plan. On the plan. On the plan. Yes, ma'am. And any change of use with the new CO, our compliance people will review that and sign off on it, and they will check those notes and check to see that there is compliance. So someone wishing to buy it would be made aware of that as far as? Oh, yes, ma'am. It will be on the plan. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you. That's why we had language that we're working out with the applicant. It is to go on the plan. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Applicant. For the record, my name is Matt Carter, Vision Engineering, and also with me here today is the applicant, Josh and Michaela Carnes and their son. and we're in agreement with the conditions that the staff has shown you, including putting together a final record plat, dedicating the easement on the adjoining lot, the access easement, prior to certification of this plan. And also we'll be adding the note that Tom described to the plan as well. okay any questions for mr carter okay thank you is anyone in the audience like to speak to this particular development plan anyone on the commission okay and we're ready for a motion if that's agreeable to with the commission and we're noting number 14 15 and 16 changing that word from discussed to resolved Mr. Owens. Mr. Sheriff, everyone's ready. I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 18-81 Leastown Industrial Park Unit 3 with the 16 noted conditions, changing 14, 15, and 16 to resolve. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Mike Owens, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN MJDP-18-81 Leastown Industrial Park Unit 3 with the 16 conditions provided by staff, changing 14, 15, 16 to resolve. Any other discussion on the motion? Please vote when it comes up on your screens. That motion carries. Thank you. good afternoon members of the planning commission uh we are now turning to page two of your agenda This is the first zone change for the day. PLN MAR18-00021 JLG Land Company. The applicant is seeking to receive a zone change from a single-family residential R1C zone to townhouse residential zone for approximately .88 net and 1.021 gross acres, located at 375 Pasadena Drive. The site is situated between Pasadena Drive and extending until Hillandale Road. Pasadena Drive is a two-lane collector street that connects Nicholasville Road to Harrisburg Road. Pasadena Drive currently accommodates approximately 8,800 daily vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity of the site. The subject property has frontage on both Pasadena Drive and Hillandale Road, Hillandale being a local road. hillandale currently stubs into the adjacent property located to the east of the subject property there is a the potential future connection to be made between hillandale road eastway drive and sun seeker court once 363 pasadena drive is redeveloped zooming in you can kind of see where those roads stub into each other here here and here the subject property is bound on all sides by single-family residential r1c zoning all of which is developed except for the adjacent parcel to the east the townhomes have been townhomes have been constructed to the southeast of the property along longleaf place and broadleaf lane located within the townhouse residential r1t zone and a planned residential r3 zone so you're R3 down here in the brown and the R1T here in the orange. Additionally, the single-family homes to the east of the subject property along Sunseeker Court are in a single-family residential R1E zone and were constructed at a similar density to the proposed townhome development. This is the aerial photograph of what we're seeing for the site. the petitioner proposes to rezone the property to the R1T, a townhouse residential zone, to utilize a vacant piece of land situated between Pasadena and Hillandale. The corollary development plan depicts seven units along the eastern edge of the site, with a proposed access easement extending throughout the property from the Hillandale area up to here, down into the property, stubbing before it reaches Pasadena Drive. Here are just some photos of the site itself. This is from Hillendale, looking into the site right up here and down here. You can see these bollards that were erected. This was mainly because of some issues of individuals driving through the site and a need to close off that access. Looking down into the neighborhoods on Hillendale, and then east into that Stub Street, you can actually see the other strip sub street on eastway right here next we're shifting over to pasadena drive looking into the site here and here looking west down pasadena and then east down pasadena before reviewing the findings we have handed out another sheet this is a loose sheet sheet to deal with some of the changes that have been made to the development plan that mr martin will review in a moment these are revised findings not recommendations for conditional zoning restriction so the petitioner opines that the rezoning of the subject property to the townhouse residential zone aligns with the other land uses in the area as and is in conformance with the 2013 comprehensive plan and the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 comprehensive plan the petitioner indicates that the rezoning of the site will accommodate the demand for housing in lexington responsibly prioritizing higher density and a mixture of housing types and it It also supports the infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area. Although a townhouse development exists to the southeast of the subject property, the proposed townhomes will continue to diversify the variety of dwelling units within this portion of the urban service area. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the development of the site will allow for greater pedestrian connectivity between Pasadena Drive and Hillandale Road. the connection between pasadena and hillendale allows for a greater emphasis on complete streets and will allow for pedestrian flow between neighborhoods the staff agrees with the applicant's justifications and finds that the rezoning is in agreement with the adopted goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan if you have any questions we are here to answer about the zoning at this point any questions No, I guess Mr. Martin is it? Mr. Martin will review the development plan. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, on page three of your agenda, This is Major Development Plan 18-84, Raleigh Bishop Carroll Senior Property. And this is a preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. And as you all are aware, this is not uncommon that you have a preliminary development plan. In fact, it's very common and it's important, and I want to stress that fact with you today, that this is a preliminary development plan and there will need to be a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan approved by this body before any development will take place on this property. Now, there we go. Again, you can see Hillendale, they're proposing an access easement. It's 27 feet in width that extends up towards Pasadena in this location. Here they're proposing three townhouses, a detention area, and then four townhouses. So it's seven townhouses. As you can see, it's a long rectangular piece of property. They've got linear layout of their townhouses and, of course, this little access easement extension. Interesting enough, it's simple geometry. It's a very complicated site. It is impacted severely by easements, gas easements, particularly in this area. There's sanitary sewer easements as well. There's an easement that comes through one of these townhouses. And, of course, that conflict will have to be addressed on the final development plan in order for them to actually build. So you can see it is, in a sense, it's simple geometry. Now, the key issue on this plan has always been the extension into Pasadena. And there was a lot of concern by a lot of people in the neighborhood very much concerned about this connection. Staff, your planning staff, was promoting the connection. Traffic engineering expressed very, very serious concerns with the geometry of this connection. Stone Road is right here. It would be slightly offset, and it would create enforcement, regulation of this intersection to help it function, particularly in the future with the offset and the possibility of multiple stop signs, that sort of issue. And they were very, very concerned. And we worked with them at time. And as you know, we are champions of connections. And we're going to continue to be champions for connections. But we understood traffic engineering's concern. There are additional concerns, by the way, and that's one reason I stress the nature of this plan. Because fire has a concern. And fire liked this connection as well. What has been worked out by not having this connection at this time is that Eastway, which sits right down here, will come through, hit Hillendale, and extend through and intersect Pasadena. This provides much better spacing. It's not ideal. It'll need a waiver. It's difficult to meet required spacing in these infill and redevelopment projects. But it will provide a street connection for that neighborhood to Pasadena. And just as importantly, because this gets lost in the conversation, but Sunseeker down here was developed quite a few years ago now. Sunseeker has an access easement out to Pasadena. That's going to go away once this connection is finished. Hillendale will be extended to meet Sunseeker right here, and Eastway will come up in here. Now, what's the time frame? We can't tell you the time frame. It's private property. As you all are well aware, it comes in at its own time frame to be developed. I would just point out that Eastway stubbed into this property below here that's been developed in 1959, but it did eventually obviously get extended. So it will happen. And that's what we're looking forward to and how we're going to accomplish the connections that we think are necessary. Now, they're going to have to come back with a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan. And they're going to have to ask you all's approval of this access easement, not a public street. but the regulations require that you grant them approval to utilize an access easement in lieu of a public street. And at that time, you can, of course, put conditions on that access easement. And quite frequently, staff recommends, for instance, that they get built to public standards, depth of pavement, subgrade, so it can handle traffic. In addition, what is important, particularly to help fire with their concerns, is to make sure some sort of turnaround or access, at least emergency, is available to fire so they can get in and serve this neighborhood and improve their response times. And that, again, is something that can be dealt with when they come back to this body for approval of this access easement. That's one reason I wanted to stress the nature of this plan. This is a preliminary development plan, and nothing's going to be built until they come back to the planning commission with another plan. So with that, staff has reviewed this and worked with traffic engineering and the applicant's engineer, and we are recommending approval of this plan. The two discussion items, proposed access to Pasadena and proposed access easement, Those, again, with this discussion you've heard, with the work that's gone into it, can certainly become, shall be, again, the discussed proposed access to Pasadena Drive. Well, we've agreed that that's not going to happen. Access to Pasadena, as I said, will come with Eastway's extension in the future. the number nine could be resolved proposed access easement at the time of final development plan or preliminary subdivision plan and again that's just going to address the technical issues of that easement how big it's going to be what standards it'll be built to and i would point out as well something that is important is that there is a sidewalk connection shown all the way out to pasadena so there can be good bike and ped connection from Pasadena down into the neighborhood and allow people to walk and ride their bikes and make that connection. So we think that's important, particularly in lieu of a vehicular connection. With that, again, as I said, staff is recommending approval of the plan. We'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for that. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Applicant. As I understand, there are several people. Okay, Mr. Carter is going to represent the applicant. I understand there are some people in the community that would like to speak to this. Okay, good afternoon again. Is this on? Yeah. For the record, Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Also with me is Jihad Halony with Vision Engineering. We're here today to ask for a zone change request for the property at 375 Pasadena. We're asking to change from R1C residential to townhome residential R1T. We agree that this is in substantial agreement with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and the goals and objectives of the 2018 Comp Plan. Also, this site, it does support infill and redevelopment for this area. It's a vacant site. It's about .88 acres. We're asking for seven townhome units on individual lots. They'll be allotted. It's not a large number by any stretch. In the site, it is heavily encumbered with utility easements. It is encumbered with utility easements. There's a sanitary line that runs the length here and a gas line also in this area. And in total, the easements encompass 40% of the property, so there's not a lot of land to work with. The key issue really seems for this development has been the connectivity between Pasadena Drive and Hillandale. And we've met with traffic and we've met with the neighbors, and both are really concerned about us making a connection up where the Stone Road is. So we've agreed to not make that connection, make Hillandale our only connection, and we seek to make this a private access road. Also, one thing I'd like to point out, too, is we do have pedestrian connectivity that runs. we do have a sidewalk that runs right here and it runs from Hill and Dale to Pasadena and this will be open for public use currently there's no pedestrian connectivity in this area at all During the process of this zone change, we did have three meetings with the neighborhood or just the neighborhood representatives. The neighborhood meeting was attended very well, and we got a lot of good information from that. And basically, from that, we've determined that the two biggest concerns that the neighborhood has was the connection to Pasadena. They didn't like it. And then the other concern was screening along this property line right here. There's two single-family lots on that side. So out of those discussions, the applicant has agreed to put some type of screening along the entire property line, and this would include either a six-foot-high continuous hedge along the entire length of the property or a solid wood fence. It wouldn't be both, but it would be one or the other. There's not a lot of room there to work with. We would try to keep all the trees that are along the property line, keep those in place. and also just a point both sides of this are the joining property in this development are both residential zones so there is no screening requirements but the applicant has agreed that he would he would try to put something in there I guess in conclusion we would just we agree with the staff's recommendations we also agree with the recommendations for the development plan changing discussion items eight and nine to resolve and again the owner has agreed to do some type of screening between this development and the properties to the west be glad to answer any questions any questions for mr. Carter okay thank you I understand there were some members of the community wanted to speak to this I think I want to emphasize a couple of things that I think everyone is saying that they agreed with the community on and that is that Pasadena access they've cut that out and the buffering but if you want to say anything you can still say it yes ma'am come forward my name is Gail Leitner and I'm the president of the Hillandale Neighborhood Association and we are in agreement with what mr. Carter said and but we would like to be on record as wanting to be included in the development of the final development plan. I didn't say that very well. But we would like to be included and our concerns heard along in that entire process. Okay. And we have additional petitions that I've submitted. we had a petition drive and we had 192 signatures on that petition and it was just so that our concerns would be heard okay thank you anyone else yes sir Jeff Schwab I live at 2445 Eastway Drive my concern is nice gentleman over there brought up the connectivity to eastway and i understand connectivity is a big thing in the city of lexington i also have a business on southland drive at 245 southland drive schwab's pipes and stuff um my concern is if eastway is opened up which mr carter didn't mention but this gentleman i don't remember your name i apologize uh mentioned is if you connect to eastway drive anyone hillendale or pasadena at any time in the future within you're all going going to say it's not going to happen, but within six months you will have to put a traffic light at the end of Eastway Drive and Southland Drive. They say a light can't go there because the train bridge, but as small towns in Kentucky do, and most of in the northeast of the country, they just put the lights on the other side of the train track, so when you come through, you know that the light's there and you know it's changing. It will back up past Holly Hill because of Lexington Catholic and the kids. As the gentleman said, they had buffers up there because people keep driving through there for the connectivity of Eastway Drive. That poor guy that has the yard there that they keep driving for is horrible. That's a new homeowner there. I really, truly, truly believe if you open up Eastway Drive, and I know you all don't understand this, but Regency is curbed and there's a blind curve on it, and nobody likes driving down Regency. So you avoid that light, you come straight down Eastway Drive, and we're all about avoiding things. It will back up from the stop sign at Eastway Drive and Southland if Southland becomes more and more busy, which is actually good for me. But if you put another traffic light on Southland Drive, which you're going to have to, I truly believe you're going to have to if you open up Eastway, that's just one more traffic light. We don't want to be Nicholsville Road. We want Southland, you know, people come from Harrodsburg, they come from Nicholsville. I know this is a bizarre concern for this, but to me it's a real concern, and I truly believe if you open up Eastway Drive, you'll have to put a traffic light there. My business doesn't want another traffic light on our street. Nobody wants traffic lights, but it'll have to happen. And our street doesn't want to be backed up to Holly Hill. I mean, I've only lived there two years, but I truly, truly love this neighborhood, and I love that street, and I love everybody on it. But I don't want cars lined up and down. And I'm telling you, if you look at Regency, nobody likes that blind curve that comes out there from Kroger down there by the Realty Place. it's backed up on my business is right at the corner of Regency and Southland it backs all the way up way past Evans all the way past the residential all the way up Eastway people trying to cut from Nicholson Road to get to Southland Drive it will happen immediately with Eastleigh Drive you open it up because it's a simple shot there's no traffic lights there's no nothing there's nothing that he's that traffic now mr. Carter didn't bring up Eastway Drive but that gentleman did and apparently he has a response which is perfect and I apologize if I was rude in any way. Okay, thank you. Well, not. Ms. Lightner handed in some letters and some documents for the record. I wanted to hand that. Oh, okay. Yeah. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. hi thank you oh excuse me I am Jessica Bartley how to meet you this is my son eight-year-old son Vance Bartley the two family homes that were mentioned a moment ago directly adjacent to the property we're one of those homes so we felt very compelled to be here for this purpose. My son is going to speak as well. That's why he is up here. He has sort of his information to provide as far as the impact of this neighborhood and this change for children and for our family and being in our neighborhood. But we're here specifically because we moved to this neighborhood from the Hamburg area because it was dense and it was crowded and it was dangerous. And we lived on a street corner where Pleasant Ridge just cars flew by so quickly. in fact, that a car wrecked and flipped over in our yard at our old neighborhood. We've been in this house for five years, almost five years, excuse me, and it has been glorious to have families, young and old, living all around us. It's a very safe neighborhood. The traffic is very protected and very safe. I have a few things that I provided. This is, and my son is going to speak to how we have essentially used our Hillendale Street as a cul-de-sac. It has been a dead end. Our kids have grown up in this neighborhood. On this street, he has a five-year-old sister. And when we moved here, the empty lot that we're all speaking about, the traffic was so bad with no road, no sidewalks. it's just an empty grass lot that we contacted very rigorously our council person, Ms. Amanda Mays Bledsoe, and through showing pictures of cars driving through this lot illegally, she was able to agree that it was dangerous to our neighborhood, and she helped put the concrete barriers on both ends of Pasadena and on Hill and Dell. And that was something that was really important to us as soon as we moved into the neighborhood because it became very quick to us that it was very dangerous for the traffic that was illegally coming through this area. So we are actually here to specifically say we don't want the zone change, period. We want for it to remain exactly as it is. We love neighbors. We don't care who moves in next door. We just don't want potentially 50 new people moving in next door with all of their friends. cars and more traffic I live and work in this neighborhood I have a business myself on Regency Road so we are a the the integrity of our neighborhood is that it is it's an older neighborhood with really really big trees and families of all ages and I feel like we are now venturing into the world of Regency in the world of Southland that takes away the integrity and what is important in this neighborhood. One thing I do want to add before my son is able to say what he would like to talk about. I was on my way to work one day last May and as I was driving a car chose to try to pass their, a driver tried to pass their friend on Holly Hill which would have led to a head-on collision with myself and his then four-year-old sister. On Holly Hill, if you know these streets, there's not room, it's not a passing lane. And if I had not slammed on my brakes and was able to see exactly the vehicle that drove past me, we would have been in a head-on collision. And I'm really concerned about the potential connectivity when we're talking about Eastway, connecting with Pasadena, connecting with Hillandale, all of these things that could eventually happen. It changes the complete structure and what our neighborhood is about. I'm afraid of the construction that's getting ready to start taking place on Clay's Mill Road, that everyone, four schools, students, parents, everyone's going to be working their best to get to schools as quick as possible, and everybody's going to be looking for shortcuts. And I'm afraid that's going to cause a lot of us to be potentially in danger. So, again, we're here to oppose the zone change completely. We would love a new neighbor, but not a ton. So I'm going to pass this to my son. Is that all I need to say? No, go ahead. Thank you very much. If you can, make sure he gets the microphone so we can hear. Okay, and he is working the button here. He knows what to do. He's ready to go. Make sure you speak right in here, baby. Thank you for letting me get out of school early today. I am here to say I don't want the townhouses. My friends and I always play in the dead end. We like to play soccer, tennis, baseball, ride bikes, roller skate, and play tag. I used to live in Hamburg. We couldn't play outside much because cars are too fast and too many people are playing on their phones. There was once a lady who hit our curb and flipped over in our yard. I like where we live now because it's safer and better for kids. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And young man, you did a really nice job. Thanks. And let me also say that you've participated in what is the most important thing we have as a part of a democracy. So I'm expecting to hear great things from you in the future, whether you're on my side or someone else's side. And also, thank you for dressing up for us today. I appreciate that. He's got a tie on and what have you. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'm ready to relinquish my chairmanship. and let him take over. Yes, sir. My name is John Muir. I live at the end of Hillandale. My driveway is directly across from this lot. I don't have the same opinion of this access to that lot. I, like Jessica, want to keep that lot a single-family place. It's originally 375 Pasadena. The access should be there. It should be a single-family home. the owner of that property for the last 10 years has completely neglected it it hasn't been mowed since july of last year when a storm blew trees down so these trees on the fence row they wait long enough they'll all be laying in the ground rotten in the way they've been in the paper several years as delinquent on their property taxes and they've been fine for having noxious weeds overgrown on the property and we want to reward an out-of-county owner with a rezone to develop this he he developed the eastway extension so there's already been a lot of houses built as a result of 375 pasadena my opinion is the commission should disapprove this only allow access from 375 pasadena from pasadena drive and force a sale to someone to build a single-family home he's had 10 years to do that a place on clay's mill drive just built a single family home why wasn't it forced to build a duplex if density is the issue there's no other duplexes on clay's mill but there was a room for it on that lot but they built a single-family house that's the way this should be kept in my opinion recently on the news there was a report of lexington has become more dangerous for pedestrians and we want to add traffic to a neighborhood that has a lot of dog walkers health walkers and and everything else by creating high density apartments on this i completely disagree with that approach there's plenty of traffic through that lot now even pedestrians bikes or whatever the drug dealers that we've called about that park at the end of hillandale to get to their suppliers over in the neighborhood across pasadena we'd love to have a sidewalk that'd be a great thing for them so thank you thank you anyone else yes ma'am hi my name is debbie muir i'd like to thank the planning and zoning commission for letting me express my concerns today. First, I am not in agreement with the recommendation of the Hillandale Neighborhood Association to allow entrance to the proposed townhouses from Hillandale Drive. When I walked around petitions to neighbors in an effort to prevent the building of the townhouses, I had no idea that the Association would suggest an entrance off Hillandale. If the zoning change is a done deal, as we've been told from day one, then we we should at least have a say about the entrance and where it's located. Making the entrance to townhouses off Hillandale is only adding salt to the already raw wound. The Hillandale Neighborhood Association represented here this afternoon will be impacted very little by the construction of these proposed townhouses. Some are two or three streets away from this site. These townhouses will be in our backyard. I would think the Commission would want input from the people who are impacted the most by this construction. With that being said, I offer the following, citing negative issues resulting from this construction. Property values will decrease dramatically. Traffic flow will increase on Hillandale. Safety issues for our children that play regularly at the dead end. Parking for townhouse residents will overflow onto Hillandale, impacting the houses located closest to the lot, such as hours. Pasadena Drive is not a part of the Hill and Dale neighborhood and should not have access to Hill and Dale Drive. Storm water runoff draining onto Hill and Dale. I earnestly ask the commission to consider the negative impact this construction will have on their homes and families. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak? Yes, please. Hi, thanks for having us here today. We appreciate it. My name is Crispin Gabriel. I live on 277 Hill and Dale, my wife over there. We have a two-year-old son, and we're expecting another child. I've lived on Hill and Dale for about two years, and I really love the neighborhood. I'm from Haiti. If you can tell by my accent, I'm not from here. And Haiti is a mess. We don't have stuff like that where planning and zoning is happening. People do whatever they want for money. What I've noticed in this development is it's an opportunity for the landowner to make more money. I guess he can sell those units for a lot more money than just sticking with that current zoning of a single family unit. He's trying to make seven times as much money by proposing this development plan. I understand the city has some priorities of connectivity. I think pedestrian connectivity is a good thing. I think that's great. But for that neighborhood, I don't think traffic connectivity is the best thing for the neighborhood. for the same reason as our fellow neighbors mentioned. Safety for our children. Traffic is going to be entirely messed up. There's going to be a lot of engineering that needs to be done so that they can fix all the problems that's going to be generated by this new development plan. Again, children, our kids, they play on Hill and Dale. They run. They ride their bikes. We don't have to worry about that. But if this development happens, we're going to have to literally go with them all the time and be with them while they're biking, just watching over them, because there's going to be a lot more traffic happening in that area. Quality of life, of course, is going to decrease. The reason that made me move to that area is because it was a cul-de-sac, There's no traffic going through it, and it's very quiet and peaceful, and I love that. Well, I'm going to sell my house, and I'm going to move out of there if this development happens, and I'm sure I'm not going to be the only one to do that. Yeah, property values are going to decrease because nobody's going to want to move to that area anymore because of Pasadena traffic crossing over to Southland. So these are my concerns, and I'm opposing this zoning change. I would suggest that they keep the current zoning. Maybe they can build two family unit structures, one accessing from Hill and Dale, one accessing from Pasadena, instead of proposing this new townhome development plan. Thank you very much. Thank you, and congratulations on your new expectation as well. Anyone else? okay mr carter you get of course mr carter would you like to address i made a couple of notes too that i'd like to ask you on behalf of the neighborhood as well just doesn't matter but uh you go ahead make any responses that you have or like to say to the i'd just like to say we we appreciate all the input that the neighbors gave and we tried to address all of their concerns we can't address everything but we did address two major concerns and one being no connection to Pasadena and also the screening along the properties to the west what we're asking for is seven units it's a modest number it's not going to add a lot of traffic and we don't feel like there's really going to be any noticeable impact to this neighborhood thank you thank you anyone in the neighborhood like to yes ma'am go ahead or go to the microphone so we're recording this please ma'am and what we're in and if you're not accustomed to our tradition here this is what we classify as the rebuttal stage so you get a chance as part of the community to respond to mr cart or whatever go ahead ma'am i'm ali rossi i live at 249 hillendale um i i know some you know it's gone through a lot of different committees and things so i'm wondering about the storm water issue because water tables are a big issue in our neighborhood well of some pups our basement floods and also the it's like karst topography on that lot there's a big sinkhole so it seems like water drainage is a big issue so i guess my question is just have those issues been addressed is that not going to be an issue because it seems like that's a serious issue in terms of just the logistics of it okay thank you we have discussed drainage and when we present our final development plan we'll have it in more detail but we do when we get into final design we've got to meet the requirements of the engineering manuals and that that will address any drainage issues as far as karst features we don't think there's any karst there is a depressed area at the northern end of the property but there's also a drainage structure there so it's just all the water currently drains to that low area and into the storm system. Mr. Carter just one other quick thing too of course one of the things we got a series of letters up here but one of the things that was the requested in the letter I think a lady came up and asked for do you all have any plans to meet with the community before your final development plan is put in place? We don't have plans but I mean if that's their desire we can have a meeting before we file. Well they've They've asked for, I think, at least a month prior to the submission or whatever for some review of the final development plan. So that's, just want to make sure that that's on the record. Okay. Okay, thank you very, very much. Now, staff, you have any last final comments? Okay, I mean, you don't have to. Okay, you're good? Okay. Now I'm going to turn it to the commission and see if they have any questions of either the applicant, the staff, or the neighbors. any questions or comments from the staff? Okay. If not, what I'm going to do then is close this part of the meeting from the audience perspective and bring it back to the commission for additional discussion and our motion as such. No, there's no questions. Like I said, if there are no discussion items, then we can have a motion one way or the other. Mr. Berkley. I just want to first say thank you to the neighbors for coming down and making your concerns known and and I think it sounds like to me if this does go forward that you all will have plenty of opportunity to be involved in any development plan process I think it's been well publicized that our community is moving more and more towards infill, which includes density. And for that reason, I'm going to move for approval of Plan MAR18-21 for the two reasons noted by staff. Is there a second to that motion? Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Wilbur, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN 18-21 JLG Land Company with the two conditions provided by staff. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? That motion carries. And for that reason, I'm going to also recommend approval of the preliminary development plan, MJDP 18-84, changing number 8 and 9 to resolve. Second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Will Berkley, seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve the preliminary development plan, MJDP 18-84, Raleigh Bishop Carroll Sr. Property, with the nine conditions provided by staff, changing eight and nine, both to resolve. Any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Wilson, the staff would ask that we also denote on the development plan that notice be provided to the neighborhood association at the time a final development plan is filed. That's fine. We can add that as intent. Okay, we'll put that. Thank you. That's good. I thank you for bringing that to my attention, too, because the intent was making sure that you had every opportunity to reflect the final development plan. So we'll make that notation that the note, the fact that the final development plan will be presented to the community before the community will be notified about the final development plan. Okay. With that, with a small correction on that, the second still holds, I think, Ms. Bundy? Fine. Any other discussion on the motion? Call for the motion. In that case, all those in favor. Well, please vote when it comes up on your screens in this case. Okay. That motion carries. And I too would like to echo the sentiments of Mr. Berkley. Thank you all for taking time out of your schedule. And young man, thank you so very, very much for participating in our democratic process. And again, you look good and you spoke well. Thank you. Members of the planning commission. We are now shifting to page four of your agenda. This is PLN MAR18-00028, IVC, Athens, LLC. The petitioner has requested a zone change from an agricultural rural AR zone to a light industrial zone for 11.52 net and 11.82 gross acres of property located at 5301, Athens, 301 Athens Boonesboro Road. The petitioner proposes to develop an industrial complex similar to the industrial land use to the east of I-75. The petitioner has not provided any details about the proposed uses, building square footage, parking, or other site details for this zone change. Subject property is located on the north side of Athens. Would you repeat that last statement? we were yes the the petitioner has not provided details about the proposed uses building square footage parking or other site details mr martin will discuss that more during the development plan discussion the subject property is located on the north side of athens boonesborough road approximately one-third mile north of athens boonesborough road interchange with i-75 while not located within the urban service boundary the subject property is located within the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, what I'll call the RAC going forward. Interstate commercial development, including hotels, gas stations, and restaurants, exist at the I-75 and Athens-Boonesboro Road interchange inside the boundaries of the RAC. However, this type of development has been more prominent on the east side of the interstate rather than where we're talking about right now. Industrial development also exists within the rack along the Blue Sky Parkway to the east of the subject property. Agricultural land borders the subject property to the north, AR zoning. This tract of land is primarily vacant with a small sanitary sewer pump station located on the center of the track, which services the Blue Sky Rack. The pump station is right there. You can see it a little bit better on the zoom in. an interesting aspect of this zone change is that the applicant is seeking to move the pump station in an effort to achieve greater amounts of developable space however this modification of the location of the pump station will necessitate a later zone change to deal with the remaining ar land located in the current pump station land which is denoted by that small green dot right there here we can see the aerial view of the site and you can see some of the issues of topography that the applicant will have to deal with going forward this area is significantly lower and if you are viewed through the site and we'll see some more pictures the road actually goes down into the site here we can see the entryway this is not the site itself here but it just gives us the way that you're going to get into the area that will be rezoned looking down towards Lexington on 8th and Spoonsboro and then looking out towards I-75. These pictures down here they're not great just because there is an awful lot of vegetation in the area. This is looking off the back of the BP gas station. You can see the road right through there as it's dipping down. Here's I-75 and I-75 is almost right on track with those treetops there so you can see that it's quite a bit of distance down into the subject property. The Blue Sky Rack is located at the intersection of Athens Boonesboro and I-75. This is a 406 acre area that is the only not publicly owned rural activity center. It is currently recommended for warehousing, light industrial, and interstate commerce development. However many parcels are already zoned industrial and they are underutilized they're currently utilized as a surface car lots you can kind of see that more on this edge over here and you'll see it more on the next slide of the 113 parcels zoned industrial 100 of them are under five acres in size and 58 parcels are less than one anchor acre in size along the industrial use along with the industrial uses highway commercial which exists includes gas stations restaurants for this site we do have the bp right here and then the wendy's right next to it there are restaurants five motels and some adult entertainment venues much of the b5p land east of the interstate is heavily wooded or farmed and has been developed due to it has not been developed due to the restraints in the topography The proposed zone change represents the remaining AR land north of Athens-Boonesboro Road. The petitioner proposes a rezoning to the I-1 in an effort to add available land to support the nearby industry and the Blue Sky Rack, while also being consistent with the surrounding uses and without changing the overall appearance, accessibility, and character of the area. the rural land management also provides two recommendations for the rural activity centers that are clearly associated with the blue bluegrass rack and the subject property the first is to maximize employment potential within the existing boundaries of the rural activity centers while avoiding impacts to surrounding agricultural agriculture rural settlements and view sheds the second is to conduct a small area plan for the blue sky rack in order to evaluate its potential for maximizing jobs and economic development. In each of these recommendations, there is a focus on utilizing the limited land for the best possible jobs and economic development. These perspectives have only been bolstered by the 2013 Comprehensive Plan and the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. Along with these perspectives, staff believes that it is best to seek the greatest intensity of the land, which does not impact view sheds, and employs land uses that engage a larger workforce at better wages. The current sprawl of car sales and rental lots located on the eastern portions of the Blue Sky Rack should be avoided on the subject property. The location of the subject property also has been identified by the Rural Land Management Plan as a gateway into Lexington and by the state as a scenic corridor. Gateways form the first impressions of those entering into the rural service area and should be favorably and lastingly developed. Features in a gateway must and can and should include welcome or directional signs, trees and landscaping, a pullover for viewing, grassy medians, focal points, or screening. Gateways should share common recognizable design elements such as signage, but the size for each gateway will be different depending on the opportunities that are available and the challenges that impact the site. The defining aspect of the subject property as a gateway and the recommendations of the rural land management for the higher intensity and better utilization of the land necessitates the utilization of conditional zoning. Staff recommends both a landscape buffer to protect the view sheds and a restriction of uses to encourage the best possible uses and reduce the possibility for underutilized land like much of the eastern portion of the Blue Sky Rack. The additional landscape buffer is focused on the area long I-75 and would incorporate evergreen trees staggered on center in two rows planted every 20 feet. This strategy allows for good tree planting while also allowing for underbrush growth. The prohibited uses are focused on uses that traditionally underutilize the land, are lower employment providers, and have a high potential to be a nuisance use. By nuisance use, we are referring to the higher potential for zoning enforcement or code enforcement violations. This is the aerial photography, and I just wanted to pull this up just because we wanted to talk about the areas that were looking for the gateway and greater buffering right here. There will be zone-to-zone buffering required for this as per the ordinance along the northwestern, northern portion of the property right in here. Before reviewing your findings, we have handed you a revised set of conditions. It's on a sheet there. It should be marked on the top. It's also a similar brownish color. With the conditional zoning in place, staff has recommended approval of PLN MAR 18-00028. The request is in compliance with the 2013 comprehensive plan and the adopted goals and objectives of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan as well as the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan. Though the increase in land available for you through the increase in land available for industrial uses, the petitioner suggests that the rezoning will support and showcase local assets to further the creation of a variety of jobs by strengthening efforts to develop a variety of job opportunities. The availability for greater job opportunities can also foster the success and growth of large employment sectors, protect and provide readily available economic development land to meet the needs for jobs, and potentially enable development that creates jobs near where people live. Additionally, the petitioner suggests that the increase in available industrial land will promote sectors of the economy that will aid in the economic opportunities and help attract young professionals. Staff agrees with these elements of the petitioner's application as the light industrial zone is one of the several zones within the community that supports employment growth at this point. Furthermore, while not indicated by the applicant, the proposed plan would add to the available industrial land within Lexington while also not impacting the urban service boundary. This proposed rezoning promotes the use of underutilized land in a way that enhances the existing urban form. Additionally, the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan emphasizes the maximization of the land use to produce employment opportunities while maintaining the RAC boundaries and minimizing the impacts to the surrounding agriculture, rural settlements, and viewsheds. The petitioner proposes the I-1 zone, which can support land uses that often yield significant job growth and is consistent with the historical land uses in the blue sky rack here again we see the staff's recommendations for conditional zoning including the landscape buffering and the prohibited uses the zoning committee has also recommended approval for this zone change and has asked staff to review potential buffering options which are represented here if you have any questions we are here to answer yep miss monday thank you You're talking about those landscape buffers. They would be required, right, on the where it bumps up against the agricultural. There would be a landscape buffer required there anyway, right? There is some zone-to-zone buffering, especially with agricultural land and industrial and two other zones. So, yes, within the zoning ordinance, that is there. Okay. Just double-checking me. Thanks. Mr. Barclay? I think you mentioned that the rural land management plan says at gateways that conditional zoning should be used. It suggests that the staff should look at the gateways as something that we should monitor to make sure that uses aren't going in that would impact someone's viewshed as they come in or impact the connection with the agricultural area for those reasons it does suggest buffering site kind of elements that would promote visitors tourism things like that I'm looking more at the uses I don't have any issue with the buffering and a lot of these uses I understand why they would be restricted but the first one I would I would wish if if you could make some additional comment as to why it's appropriate to restrict this particular use so the main reason that we are trying to avoid the sales and rental vehicles is because we have a very large area of it just on the other side in the blue sky rack this picture just goes over where the the car storage is it's not a very good use of the landscape as well and does not produce an awful lot of jobs so it's a utilizing quite a bit of our industrial land and not giving us the same return in job production mr. Owens thank you mr. how if you could in your case review of this page 2 it mentions a land swap yes I know that's historical but can can you touch on that for us yes again so in 1996 the owner of this land or the original owner of this land sought to incorporate it into the rural activity center during the comprehensive plan process it came out that there was no real want to expand any of the rural activity centers from what their current situation was during some conversations following that comprehensive plan there was an agreement between the owner or the owner of that property that they would swap out some of their land that was located south of the rural activity center in this area down here they would swap that out to bring this in this this was part of the b5p swap so it would be this area right here correct So it was not part of this swap. It's connecting everything in. So it wasn't part of the 11 acres that we're talking about today? Correct. Correct. Okay. So there was a land swap or there wasn't a land swap? Yes. I'm going to hand this to someone that is more experienced with this. And. so the the previous owner agreed to take some land out of the rural activity center boundary in order to add some it was about six acres and those two pieces one was down here in the corner so it notched out the corner in order to add this six acres and the at the time in 1990 actually 95 96 the Planning Commission agreed that if you were to take some land out we would add some we'll change the boundaries so in 2008 the owner applied for two zone changes simultaneously one to go from agricultural to be 5p up here along blue sky that land is shown on their development plan so it is related but it's not the subject of the zone change and at the same time they applied to remove six acres at this corner and go from B5P to AR. We held two hearings that day. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the up zone to B5P, and then the second hearing, we held the staff recommended approval to down zone, and then the applicant stood up and said, the circumstances have changed. We no longer want to down zone. And so we're asking the Planning commission to disapprove our request which is very odd um in retrospect but the planning commission agreed and so after that hearing there was really no need to forward that action on to the council of disapproval the applicant wanted disapproval they didn't want their land removed or have the zone down zone so they withdrew their application they withdrew the application for the down zoning on one side but got it on the got the b5p on the other side they did the b5p is shown today as part of this plan yes the the six acres that was up zoned in 2008 is shown on their associated development plan because it provides access to what's proposed for light industrial now. Okay, where is the B5P today? Is it still, for lack of a better word, active? It's vacant. The land is vacant. The preliminary development plan has expired, I believe. Has expired. The preliminary development plans are good for two years. Okay. They remain. Okay, help me there. You said it's expired, but it's good for two years. So it expired in 2010, and then the expectation is within those first two years, you would be working towards a final development plan. You would file your final development plan, and then a final development plan is actually active for five years. You're expected to pull permits on your final development plan within those five years, and if you don't, you would get it reapproved by the commission. So that needs to be reapproved? Their preliminary development plan, because it has expired, yes. And so that is part of their request today. So they're asking for re-approval of that today as well? Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Ms. Blumley. Thank you. In 1996, in a comp plan, the rural activity centers were to have a certain border and maintain that border essentially forever, so to speak. The goals and objectives, similar to today, recommend maintaining the rural activity boundaries. So to date, all those borders have been maintained. Is this the same border that was there in 96 within this rural activity center? Right. So, you know, you all are going through the comprehensive plan process today. So the goals and objectives were voted on, which recommended maintaining the boundary. And then when they adopted a map in 1996 related to the rural activity centers, they agreed with the applicant to change the boundary. In order to do that, they felt a six-acre swap would maintain the acreage of the rural activity center, so it wouldn't intensify the use, really, theoretically. so that's how they sort of got to the point of changing the physical boundary but not changing the land use impact of the rural activity center but the boundary is the same from 1996 to today yes miss monday oh excuse me miss plumley you finished okay miss monday i'm sorry in 2001 they added a property i apologize in 2001 there was one property added to this rural activity center it was the guilfoyle property on the opposite side for the auto auction that was my first zone change the only reason i remember um when hal did his presentation he said this is a private rack explain to me the difference why what delineates this as a private rural activity center as opposed to a non-private rural activity center it's currently not owned by the city so it's currently operated and owned by private owners throughout the area as opposed to the city owning much like Coldstream the the airport is a rural activity center and that's a quasi-public the Avon is state and federal owned quasi-public. The Spindletop is UK-owned public facility, so this is the one that's privately owned. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out if that's so, and we're talking about the property swap, then that, I mean, how do we, if it's private, I'm wrestling with how do we then say, okay this is what you can do and you can't do because it's a private rural activity center they're currently going through the zone change process so it would be like any property that would come in that wanted to get a zone change we have the opportunity to have this conversation okay all right thank you which we did in 2005 also when we added the gilfoyle property when they rezoned i1 buffering was added along eighth and spunesboro road so that you wouldn't be able to visually see the auto auction. One day. Mm-hmm. Yes. Gotcha, gotcha. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Hi. Okay. Thank you. We'll move. Tom will be presenting the... Yeah. Move to the development plan. Development plan. It's my electric personality that makes that happen. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the plan that is associated with this zone change is on page 5 of your agenda, And we have also passed out to you revised conditions on this orange piece of paper as well. And as you are aware, Athens Boonsboro Road is in this location. I-75 is here. This is the area of the I-1, the 11 acres, that is the portion of the zone change. This is your B5P area that you've been discussing, and one reason it is back before you is this important relationship of the road that is to be built here to serve this property. But again, there'll be access into the B5P area, so there is a physical and functional relationship between this area and this area as well, because they are proposing to construct this street. These uses were previously approved, again, on the preliminary. This is a 7,000 plus square foot restaurant, 17,000 square foot, three-story hotel. Now, you can see here, again, they're showing a lotting pattern. And what this is is a combination plan, preliminary subdivision plan, preliminary development plan. The preliminary subdivision plan in our industrial areas is actually more common than any other pattern that we've ever used. Out off Leastown Road, Mercer Road, in our industrial parks, on Newtown Pike with the industrial areas, what they would do is they'd get rezoned with a preliminary development plan. They'd come in with a preliminary subdivision plan, show a lotting pattern, and there would be no final development plans required on a lot unless they built two principal structures. Blue Sky was developed the same way. There's only a few development plans out in Blue Sky. There's only a few development plans in some of our well-known industrial areas, and that is due to there will be more than one principal structure on that lot. The Huffham property, the Huffham property on Alexandria extended that recently came before you, that they access. That's a prime example. Again, that's a preliminary subdivision plan that's been lotted off, and there'll be no final development plans unless they build two principal structures on one of those I-1 lots. Now, because of staff's concern about the topography, and you can see detention in this area here and here. You've heard about the, there are blue line streams coming through here, their steep slope. They're going to have to do a tremendous amount of fill on this property for it to serve their purposes. Here's your existing pump station. Here's the proposed relocation of that pump station should it become necessary, should they choose to relocate it. Now, because of these issues, staff had a condition which this revised plan has met, And there's a note on that plan that's going to require a final development plan on these lots before they can be developed. And staff thought that was appropriate in this case. And that is something that the applicant has agreed to. So should this zone change go forward as this property develops, you will see final development plans on the entire property. And again, due to the technical issues, the engineering issues, topographical issues, staff thinks that's very important. And that's why that note was added to the plan. Now, one condition that is on the current plan is to have this be 60 feet of right-of-way. That's a requirement of your subdivision regulations. That's the standard. They're still showing it as 60, 40, 50, kind of a transition through there. They just need to make it 60 feet of right-of-way. And we've had that discussion with them, and they can correct that. They can remove some cross sections, and that needs to be shown at 60 feet of right-of-way. And in a related matter, it'll go to this property line so that it can serve this area. Should this area ever come into the urban service area, should this ever be developed, then there's access right here. This road will extend if necessary. And anything that may develop in this location could conceivably achieve driveway access into this street. And this will be a public street as their intent to build it and dedicate it. The pump station, should it be relocated, staff is recommending that they delete the current note they have on here, which just basically says we're going to relocate it if needed. And we elaborated on that. You can see on the conditions that should it be relocated at the time of a PSP or final development plan, that it shall be to the approval of the divisions of engineering and water quality. And that, we believe, is a more appropriate note. And then again, you can see that we've addressed the cross-section on condition number 10, which is just show the correct cross-section for that street and 60 feet of right-of-way. And with that, again, you can see this is, again, a fairly simple plan in that regard, and we will see final development plans in the future on the property. Staff is recommending approval of the plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions, may I have? Any questions for Mr. Martin and Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. The pump station covers like .6 acre? Approximately. I'm not aware of the exact size. But the city doesn't own that property? Yes, the city does. The city owns that little square and owns that pump station. I just think that's probably something that's been deleted so far, so I just wanted to clarify that. Yes, ma'am. So the city does own that? Oh, yes, ma'am. It's our pump station. Thank you. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Martin, as far as it seems like there's a lot of easements that crisscross this piece of property, and I didn't hear anything about that in your presentation. Again, that's one item that impacts this property along with the topography. They can't build off this plan. Well, they're going to come back, and when they come back, They'll have to address those easements, any conflicts that exist, any new easements, release of existing easements. It is another aspect of the challenges that they're well aware of that exist on this property. Okay, and then help me. You're mentioning that nothing can be done until we do see a final development plan. I don't see that on these conditions. It is on the plan already. This is a revised plan, and there should be a note that addressed that. Shouldn't there be a condition on this? I'm sorry. A condition? They've already placed that note on the plan, so we didn't need a condition. It was a condition on the previous report. This revised plan addressed that condition, so we removed it. So it's on the plan itself? It's on the plan now, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay, applicant. Mr. Chairman, good afternoon. My name is Nathan Billings with Billings Law Firm. It's my pleasure to represent the applicants today, IVCP Athens, LLC. With me today, I have Josh Lewis, the applicant representative. I also have Jonathan Hale from Thoroughbred Engineering and Zach Cato, one of the other associates with my firm. Members of commission, staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of this application for zone change and an amended preliminary development plan and preliminary subdivision plan. There's a number of slides I have, some of which I'm probably going to go through a little quicker because staff's presentation is in agreement with our comments, or I should say maybe we're in agreement with staff's comments, and may use some of these slides to abbreviate a little further or discuss a little further, but some of my presentation may be abbreviated, because by and large, we're in agreement with staff in that this property should be rezoned. The preliminary subdivision plan should be approved. We do have a disagreement with staff on the types of conditional uses that should be put on the property and the extent of the buffer, but we do agree that some conditional uses are appropriate and that a landscape buffer along I-75 would be appropriate with some modifications for what staff has recommended. So as you know, we are recommending an approval of a zone change from AR to I-1. Mr. Owen, with respect to your question in the discussion a minute ago about what happened over a decade ago, my client, the applicant, we purchased this property in August of 2018. We knew at the time that there was some issue a decade ago about, this is probably not the fair term, but a bait and switch that somebody did. That's what it sounded like from when I first heard about it, and maybe that's not the fair characterization, but I wasn't involved in it. We didn't know about it until we started in this process, and staff has been terrific to deal with. We actually met with them in June in our due diligence period to actually investigate the likelihood of a zone change on the back part of the property, which was part of what we were purchasing. So we sort of knew the history of it, but we also know the land across the road, not this parcel. The land across the road is what was supposed to be taken out of the rack, not this parcel. We do know that this area is really important to Lexington in two regards. The first is that this is one of four corners to a gateway into the city. It is second, it's important because it is probably one of the largest acreage areas in the blue sky that can be developed as sort of raw land that we can envision what it can become, whereas a lot of the other properties are either already zoned or have other structures or uses already on them. So our proposed usage for here is exactly what we think the Blue Sky asked for, which is warehousing and light industrial. And the I-1 has some fairly, we think, good standards with respect to what is desired for warehousing and light industrial. Going back through prior comp plans, we're going going to see here in a minute that this has been this way for for 30 plus years it's always intended not without a lot of restrictions not without a lot of conditional uses um not as a as a new zone but it's always intended to be i shouldn't say always for the for the last 30 or 40 years this light industrial warehousing area um why does this matter um currently it's it's vacant farmland and when i say that it's not even farmland the people we bought it from their family ran cattle on here going back to the 1960s and they stopped putting cattle on it probably about 15 years ago on this back parcel. If you're familiar with this site, it has a significant topography issue that staff was referencing. At one point, the highest elevation of the right-of-way compared to the lowest elevation of this property is at least 35 foot differential and so there is a significant amount of balancing that will have to happen across this site to develop it, both dirt and rock, but also to do that there's a blue line stream that will have to be converted and covered there are easements the site constraints are significant but you have an almost six acre parcel of land that can come into the i1 area so there's a lot of investment that's going to be taken and made to bring this into a developable usable piece of land but at the same time it is a key feature into the gateway of Lexington that we want to be proud of. We don't want to hide it. Look at the staff report. We're in agreement, again, at a high level that this is going to support employment growth in the Blue Sky area. It supports the maintenance of the urban service boundary, and we hope that it will also lead to job growth in the area. As you all know, when I do my presentations, I always say, begin with what my professor taught me the first day in law school, which is when you do a presentation, talk about the issue, the rule, the analysis of inclusion, called IRAC. And every zone change has the same rule, which is under KRS 100, which is if the map amendment requests is in agreement with a comprehensive plan or the existing zoning classification is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate or major changes. In this case, we meet two of these standards very easily, which is it's in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan and the existing zoning classification is inappropriate and proposed zoning is appropriate. They've discussed the location of this property, so everyone knows. The zone change is only on the rear piece of the property, 5301. The preliminary development plan, although it's a dual plan, the preliminary development plan is only on the front portion, which is 5191. The preliminary subdivision plan is only on the area for the zone change. that's probably more technical most of the time than what you all get but that's why our development plan using the term broadly has a very technical name and we work with staff probably had five or six conversations on how to make sure this is appropriate and we've reached the agreement that to call it an amended preliminary development plan because the other one has expired on the front parcel which is the b5p is appropriate and to call it a preliminary subdivision plan on the proposed I-1 parcel is appropriate. And specifically, on the front parcel, if we weren't trying to create a right-of-way to the back parcel, we probably wouldn't have even touched the development plan on the front. The only reason we're doing that now is because we need to create right-of-way access to the back of the property because it doesn't right now have road frontage. You can see from here it's landlocked. Although it has frontage on I-75, you can't access the property from there. So the only access is off of Athens-Boonsboro Road. Two of the parcels here in front of it, which is the Wendy's parcel and the Gallops, don't have accessibility. And, in fact, on the back of those parcels, they're about 200 feet back to our property. They drop significantly down into the stream. So this would be the only way to access that property. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be touching the front portion at this point. Going back to the history of the comp plans, I just went back quickly into the 80s, and it's sort of been recommended, this light industrial, all the way through. 1996 is the same. 2001 is the same. 2007 is the same. And so all of those tell me that for the last 30-plus years, not with lots of conditional, not with any, in fact, conditional uses, this has been recommended for warehousing and light industrial. There's about 450 acres in the Blue Sky area. this area is about five and a half acres. There's been a recommendation for a small area plan for the Blue Sky area for a number of comprehensive plans, and none has been funded to date. As a result, there's sort of two probably key components that we don't have any guidance in other than the comprehensive plan and the rural land management plan, and that is, one, how do you promote economic growth in the Blue Sky area? and so with the absence of a small area plan we're just left with that governing document number two is um the rolling management plan says this is a this should be a gateway not just this parcel but this sort of general area and we don't really have that defined other than in about um oh i'm sorry this is embarrassing i thought i muted that i apologize mr chairman um so the um the blue sky area has has been recommended for the small area plan but without that guidance into what the gateway means we're left with a few scant references in the rural land management plan that was updated about 18 months ago to get there um overall you'll see there's a there's a variance in the types of zoning in the blue sky area just looking through here you can see there's uh remaining AR parcel, there's B3, there's joint parcels, there's B5 parcel, B5P, one of which is in the front. The significant thing about the B5P is at least 12 of those parcels are vacant and underutilized, which means people who have gone through this process and sought the B5 zoning with certain uses have not been able to find end users for those lots. However, the ones that are the I1 parcels are the ones that are being utilized in the blue sky area. What that tells us as a developer is the economic data suggests that B5 uses, restaurants, hotels, things like that along Athens-Boonsboro aren't a desired use at this time. And as a result, the current and at least foreseeable future is continued industrial and light warehousing space. and that the more restrictive the uses are on the property, the more we're going to have underutilized parcels like we do for the B5P. Going on, there's also a P1 out there, which is sort of an aberration within the Blue Sky area. It's been vacant for many years. The discussion during the staff presentation was that a development plan was approved for the front parcel, 5191, about 10 years ago. That parcel was to have a restaurant, a hotel on it. The development plan expired. And so even if we weren't doing a zone change, we'd have to come back to renew that plan today. But 10 years ago, they couldn't get a restaurant. I mean, 10 years ago, they got a zone change, and here we are, and they still couldn't get a restaurant and a hotel. And so we were able to buy this site and both parcels together. Currently, we don't have a plan to do anything on the front. That doesn't mean that tomorrow something couldn't change, but currently our plan is not the development and use of the front parcel. All of the other B5P vacant parcels affirms what we're finding in the market. That's not what the potential use is out there. It's the I1. The only reason, again, we're touching the B5P parcel is just because we have to create the right-of-way to access the five-and-a-half-acre parcel in the rear, which would be the industrial area. The 2017 Rural Land Management Plan says that this is a gateway area. And I think there's two different conceptual ideas for this idea of a gateway. And I think there's specific language that the rural land management plan says, and then I think there's a different idea of what a gateway is practically. So I'm going to tell you what my practical idea is, and this doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me or not, but this entrance is the second entrance once you interfaite county from the south. The southern one is right after the river. It is empty of any development. It is agricultural parcels or large acre parcels that aren't even used for agricultural. They're treed areas. There's no business there. This is the first interchange when somebody would come up on 75 North and say, I'm in Lexington now. And the very first thing they see is not our parcel that's on the northwest corner, 200 foot behind the Wendy's. The very first thing they see is if they get off on the two-lane exit ramp, they see an abandoned hotel and a bunch of dirt piles. When they pull up to there, they then see a couple of fast food restaurants, strip clubs, and then some other vacant land. You don't see car lots. You don't see rusted metal buildings from that. You see overall an underdeveloped interchange on the east side of 75. You take a left through that light and onto Athens-Burinsboro and you come back into town. Once you cross over 75, immediately on your right you have a new Wendy's. It's maybe three or four years old. They tore down an old one, you may remember, built a new one there. It's a nice new parking lot. There's new Gallops there, new gas station, convenience store, and car wash. Very nice parcel, very nice development. On the left-hand side is a speedway that they just expanded the backside of that speedway to make room for semis, tractor trailers, larger commercial vehicles. And another on the other side of that is a gas station that is abandoned, a site that's abandoned. So this parcel on the right is the third parcel you would come to, and the front is, again, a B5P. That's not the zone change aspect. The site we're talking about for zone change is 200 foot off Athens Boonesboro, behind the Wendy's, behind the Gallops, behind the front parcel where it's zoned B5P, and it is down in a valley. Now that site again, it sort of rolls all into itself and it will have to be balanced out. We think this is not final construction stuff because that's always going to be an engineer making that decision, not an attorney. He wouldn't want me to do math. We think it's probably going to be somewhere between 10 and 15 feet below the grade of the roadway would be the finished balancing level. Now it may not be perfect, but that's a pretty close idea of what we think it's going to be. And why is that important? Because as a gateway into the city, there's no, I don't think there's any fair debate that this entire interchange needs to be revamped. So that Lexington can be proud when people are coming north on 75. But when they cross over, this is not the site that they would see as they do that. Another perspective is that this is the last business interchange as you would leave Lexington. So imagine yourself in Hamburg. you take a right on 75 and you go south you're going to go under Todd's Road and I'm going to show you some pictures here and you would come down to this interchange and on the right you basically see the back of Childsburg on your right you have some farmland that's the I think mr. Duncan first of this is the nose of that's the not guarantee but potential another area that might at some point in some point in the future when nobody knows come into the urban service boundary but it cannot be developed today and I know mr. Murphy's here to represent that owner. And then there's this parcel. And this parcel, as you'll see, slopes down away from the interstate, 15 feet from the lowest point of the right-of-way, and the right-of-way then climbs up with an exit ramp onto Athens-Boonsboro. And from the pictures you see, what you'll find is that is not a gateway, in my opinion, insofar as it is people's first impression of Lexington. It is a site, however, that when people drive on the interstate, they can see and in fact we want them to see it. We don't want this parcel to be hidden. We don't want this parcel to be any more abandoned. We don't want this parcel to be any more obscure than it already is as you'll see with some photos by the scrub brush, the honeysuckle and trees that are on the site. We actually want this site to become one that when unlike the southeast corner with the abandoned hotel that people drive through there and see warehousing or industrial space that has a commercial brand name on it that people say there's economic activity going on at this interchange and and you know whether it is a um an equipment dealer who's selling construction equipment or renting construction equipment or it's a distribution center or it's a light warehousing space with a name that people know as a class a or class b tenant and not one that's hidden from view of the interstate behind the trees behind brush that the The state has the right of way to change, the state has the right to remove, not us. That's our vision for the gateway. So coming back to here, there is no question that this needs to be a gateway parcel. But the rural land management plan doesn't do a really good job explaining what that term gateway means or should mean. And coming back to that's the benefit if we had a small area plan, but we don't. So again, I sort of walked through, that's the property site. So this here is that abandoned hotel I was talking about. can imagine coming up to here crossing over this really isn't this property here is not really going to be what people see is the gateway parcel people leaving south this could be a parcel they would see on their right it's possible you could see it going this way but we don't think it's going to be the preeminent feature that anybody coming election for the first time would see but it could be a feature that they see it as they're heading south there's another map of the property with the existing zonings around there again you'll see overall this i this ir i1 area here is largely all occupied it may be underutilized as staff correctly notes with respects to the auto auction car lots but the b5p that you'll see right here is is all right around the interchange that's actually the property that's underdeveloped so we agree with staff that the application for the zone change is in agreement with both the 2013 comprehensive plan and the 18 to 2018 goals and objectives both in the staff report and our justification letter we think those are accurately addressed there's no disagreement with staff on that just quickly quickly through the goals to support local assets to further job creation and prosperity attract finest jobs we think that's key we don't think this should be a property that's just low income producing with low-class tenants. They need to be tenants who are paying, in our opinion, top dollar for rent, which means they're paying for top dollars for employees, which means they're generating economic activity, not just for employees, but also providing goods and services, labor and equipment to other businesses in Lexington. It's a desirable community that will help improve this interchange and it will continue to maintain the urban service area. I'm sort of in agreement with the rest of staff's recommendations. So coming back here, staff has a concern which we agree with, that we don't want more dirt rounds and we don't want more abandoned car lots. But I think that there is an illogical leap between saying we don't want those and some of the conditional uses that staff has suggested for the property. And I'm going to get at the end to say these are conditional uses that we think are appropriate, but we don't think they need to go as far or be as broad as what staff is recommending. So here are some of the pictures that I was talking you through. This is east of 75. If you come up the interchange, there's the abandoned hotel. There's some fast food restaurants. There's some of the other infamous or non-infamous locations. but you can't see the industrial area from here, from this road. Again, east of 75, east of 75, east of 75. This is, I think, what staff fairly comments we don't want more of in the Blue Sky area, right? We don't want a parking lot right on Athens Boonsboro Road where somebody parks an 18-wheeler or a trailer. We don't either. We don't think that is helpful. We don't think that's good economic activity. It's certainly not a good return on the money we're going to spend to develop this site. But I think it's also that's not what we're proposing. The Dirt Mound staff talks about as they're concerned. So here is, again, if you're coming up north on 75 and you take a left across the interstate, here's that view. This property here, this is the right-of-way. You see the Wendy's here. There's the Gallup's BP here. This site is down the hill over this edge here. from this edge of pavement down is about 35 feet if we build an industrial building at this point depending on what would be there a warehousing space it would probably be somewhere between 25 and 40 foot tall and so at even if you were to create a landscape barrier and add evergreen trees along it at this point you know what you're gonna see you can see the very top of the building the trees aren't gonna add anything you hopefully you would see the sign that we would put on the side of it so that if it is an Amazon distribution center, a FedEx distribution center, whatever that might be, that sign would be front and center so people could see it. But the imposition of trees on this site is not going to improve that location because the edge of this property where it starts there is 25 or 30 feet down from the edge of a right-of-way. Coming on in, this sort of shows a little better the slope of the land. You know, the right-of-way here raises when the state when the feds i guess in 65 i think it was at interstate 75 was constructed here and this exit ramp was created they did a significant amount of lift and raised it from the interstate you can see the interstate down here how low it is and how much this ramp comes up here is coming along the 75 south to the right side of the property this is our property line and you'll see here in a minute i'm going to come to an area that's going to show you what it looks like exactly. You'll see this, this is the blue sign, so you're heading south here. This is the edge of the property back into here. You'll see the Wendy's over there in the distance. This is if you take a right off of the interstate. There's the Wendy's again. Why I keep showing a couple of these images is to show you the topography that we have to address in this site with both the constraint for construction and uses and also the buffering. Again, that's sort of looking back, and you'll see here right after the Gallup slot, it falls down into this creek line here. So staff has recommended that we do two things for landscape buffering. The first is the creation of a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along 75, and we're in agreement to do that with perhaps one exception, which is from the place that – I'll come back to the development plan in a second – from the place where the property starts on 75 and comes north is to create a 25-foot landscape buffer on our side of the property so that nothing would be built in there, no parking lots, nothing for display. It is a landscape area. There's already a 50 foot building set back in that area anyway. And it is likely that there will be easements in that area for the sanitary storm sewers. So a 25 foot landscape buffer, we believe, is appropriate. We do ask that as that property tailors down, as it comes close to the corner down near Wendy's, that we'd be allowed to step that in. We're going to have to do cut there. And trees in that area, frankly, we just think won't do well. I mean, they're basically going to be an area of cut. They're not going to serve any buffering purpose. I don't know of the distance yet of which those trees, you know, that any trees we planted that area would be harmful. But coming north, we don't want to put trees along there anyway. So I may have confused myself or you all, but we're in agreement with that 20-foot landscape buffer all the way down. We'd like to narrowly tailor the landscape buffer as it gets to the corner. On the trees, if you put trees down there, they wouldn't survive anyway or they wouldn't do any good. But coming north, we want this property to be one that as we fill it and that building is there along 75, there's about a 10-foot difference. We want that building to be noticeable. We don't want there to be trees in front of it. There's already scrub. There's already honeysuckle. There's trees in the state right-of-way. We want a 25- or 30-foot building, whatever we ultimately have a tenant for, with a sign on the side of it that shows this interchange is not what else all the other things are going on. We don't want to hide this site. It already has constraints. We want to be able to market it. We want to be able to show that a building on here has a viable, business-oriented tenant that's something other than Class C tenants in used space. And I'll give you some examples here in a second. So this is the site plan. So what we're suggesting is this 25-foot landscape buffer would come down this way. I don't know exactly how to craft this today, but we like for that 25-foot buffer to maybe tailor in or dovetail in here, because it just seems that 25-foot buffer down here doesn't do any good. That's sort of the close end of it. So this is an overhead view of Google Maps, and you'll see there's a – you'll hear us talk about a number of easements on the property that somebody asked about in the staff report. There's a power line easement that runs across here, and it runs across the interstate. There's a pump station here. There's a pump station easement that runs right down to here. It's going to have to be changed. The reason I show you this power line is for this reason. So you can visually, if you think about driving down the interstate, and you want to see an interchange that shows commerce, you don't want an interchange that is hidden behind trees. So if we're coming down, there's the same power lines I saw. So what we just did is we just took the Google Maps that goes on about every 25 feet and goes boom, boom, boom, and you can see to the right exactly what it looks like. So you'll see the site here, how it's down low. You'll see that's the old, what do you call it, the sewage lagoons, when it was a private sewer treatment plant. You'll see the site how it dovetails off to the right. It continues to go off to the right. All of this right here, that's state right away. That's not our property. We can't go in there and cut those trees down anyway. Same thing, goes off to the right, goes off to the right, goes off to the right, goes off to the right, goes off to the right. Goes off the right, goes off the right. This is where we're now on the exit ramp and it's starting to raise up. The reason I take you through those slides is just to show you that the site to us already is elevated down. And if we put those trees there, one, we don't know that the trees will actually serve the staff's internal purpose of hiding the site. Number two is we want the site to be visible. And because we've already got some constraints, we would prefer not to put trees on there as it limits, our belief is making this a great piece of commercial land. So staff has recommended 10 different conditional uses. They recommended this back at the committee hearing. We've gone back, we've considered these, we've looked thoroughly at this and at the various other zoning classifications, including the B4. And under Section 6.7A of the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission is allowed to adopt conditional zoning restrictions on a property, if appropriate. And I'm not going to go into detail of each of these uses. Let me come to... So here's what our conclusion was. In the I-1, which is similar but not exactly the same as the B-4, there are approximately 33 different categories of principal uses. And if you look at what staff wants to prohibit, we think about a third of those would be prohibited. And some of those, there are not definitions in the staff report, and I think we understand why they're asking for them. We just don't agree that they're necessary. And about half, a little less half would be permitted. Some of them are just ambiguous. We think that basically what this does is strips the I-1 out and creates basically a new type of light industrial zoning. And typically conditional uses are not a third of their uses. It's there, one, two, three, four types of conditional uses on the property. We just think that the number of them here is excessive and functionally changes the I-1 zone to a zone that doesn't exist under our current zoning ordinance. So with respect to the staff ones, there are things that we have agreed with and things that we don't agree with. And specifically, let me come here. I want to walk you through a couple of things that we think staff has recommended that we believe should be permitted. So one is they don't want the establishment of places of retail that lease or sale or service or do minor repair of farm equipment, contracting equipment, autos, motorcycles, boats, mobile homes, shell homes, manufactured homes. And we agree with that for the manufactured shell homes. This is not, that's not a use we want. But there are other uses that we think, and again, we don't have an end user for this property, but we think could be a very viable and it could, in fact, a very good use of this property. So, for example, one would be a United Rentals. So, you know, United Rentals is one of the leading construction equipment leasing company in the country. This is not because we have any contact with them or discussion. It's to show you an example of a use that staff has said we don't think it should be permitted on here. And we're saying we think this is a prime example of something that we would say we think it's a great use here. And I'm not saying that we're angry at staff for that. We just have a difference of opinion on what that means when this is a gateway to the city and how you generate economic activity. Are there other things that might generate more employment per square foot than a United Rentals? Sure, there's an office building. There's other things. But I'll also tell you that if we have United Rentals here, it means that we have enough construction that they've got to lease equipment. These buildings are not run down. These are national class A tenants. They are not fallen down prefab metal buildings that rust out over time. These are some examples that we pulled of what they look like. Matter of fact, we have one of them on Fortune Drive here in Lexington. You can go over and look at it, and it's a great example in that area of what a leasing building can look like. Here's another one. That's the one on Fortune Drive right there. That's another picture of it there. Tire retreading and capping. This should not be a primary purpose for outdoors, but here's an example of one from what state was this? North Carolina. This is a business. It's an industrial business. They do tire retreading and recapping, and that's their site. You'd never know it. So we agree that if it's outdoor tire retreading and recapping, it probably shouldn't be permitted. But if it's indoors, this, again, is an exact type of industrial use that we think should be permitted in the I-1. Truck terminals and freight yards. This is an example. It's an Amazon distribution center. You'll see an Amazon fulfillment center. Now, there is a provision in the I-1 that allows for basically what Amazon calls a last mile delivery station, which is basically a final parcel drop-off station. But the language of truck terminal and freight yard is defined in the zoning ordinance. It talks about the transfer of freight from truck to truck or trucks that are left more than 24 hours. And under that definition, a distribution center could arguably be prohibited on this site. And I will tell you, that is one of the primary uses that we want to pursue, well, not want to, we have been pursuing a tenant on. We think that is one of the best uses of this property is for warehousing space that allows the delivery of trucks that offloads and unloads onto other trucks for other delivery. and this site is a prime area for whether it would be Amazon or UPS or FedEx or United Freight or Old Dominion Lines, things like that is a prime example of a use that we think should be permitted. Here's other examples of what some of those sites look like. Those to us aren't bad. Those are things that we think actually should be illustrated, should be highlighted. Rental storage yard, this is some examples of what some of those could look like. This is one of the, and I'll find one. There's one here in Hamburg. There's a couple of these, a pods place. So we think that that is some example of the conditional uses. Again, they're too broad, but we agree there should be some conditional uses. So our suggestion is, and I have these in draft form to circulate, is that we would prohibit. Let me come back. Let me get there real quick. I'm going to skip ahead from the buffers. So we think that there are some conditional uses that are appropriate on here. We agree that any principal use of outdoor auto or truck repair should be prohibited on this site. That's probably not what we want. We're in agreement with outdoor tire retreading and recapping on this site. Now, we're in agreement that advertising billboards, advertising signs should not be permitted. Now, under the ordinance, if it's the occupant, if it's the tenant, they can have a sign on the property, but these billboards are for third parties who are off-site trying to lease on here. We agree that those should be prohibited. Commercial woodlots, the establishment of pre-cut, pre-fabricated or shell homes, also called manufactured houses, things like that. And there's this sort of arcane reference that I love Hal for finding this, ice plants. We have, I think, one in Fayette County that Tom talked about at the committee hearing. We have no desire to do that. We think that would, too, be inappropriate. But on the buffer, staff has suggested a 25-foot buffer, the length, which we're in agreement with, except if we could narrow that at the southern point along 75. But we do ask that the tree buffer not be required for two reasons. One is visibility. Again, trees that could impede having tenants like this on the site. Here's an example. This is a site in Nashville. If any of you have gone to Nashville, this is south on 65, about five miles north of downtown on the right. This site's been developed over the last two and a half years or so. It's a fill project. This one is up rather than down, like ours would be. But it's an example of a great industrial space that they did fill. they've done you know it is it is it the most aesthetically pleasing like park no but if you were to put trees all around that you know you're not going to see the tenant name on that building the other thing is cost that the trees are going to add our site constraints on here are already significant with that we would respectfully request that that that you all grant the zone change and the development plan we're in agreement with the staff's comments on the development plan I do have a motion that I will pass around Mr. Chairman. The final comment I would say is that Mr. Murphy is here for the property neighbor to the next door, to the north. And they've raised three issues, both at the committee hearings that you all may recall. The first one is, can you put up the development plan? The first one is that the right of access to the northern property, we've adjusted it to the planning phase so that we accommodate their need to access their property in the future. through a right-of-way second one is the access road that would come over to the back parcel he wants to make sure that the right-of-way extends all the way to his property line and that there's no spite strip or buffer that would stop there them from accessing farther down on that we've agreed with that our site plan shows that we've created that right-of-way that runs all along that property line i told him i'd make sure that i clarified for the record if anyone looks at the plan and think it doesn't say that we're happy to change it we agree the right-of-way needs to extend on their property line to their property line across because they think there's probably one point later down that they may want to add an entrance in at some point and the third thing that they've discussed is if we you know move the pump station there's a question that they would like an easement into that we I've told him we don't have a problem with that in concept we certainly don't want to agree that that there would be an easement just created anywhere on the lot that would prohibit the use of it we're going to have to move a forced main easement anyway. The city's going to have to sign off and agree to that. And I have told him, I've represented the committees, I'm representing today. We certainly have no problem creating an easement on the 75 side of the property in that landscape area that would come down to the Forest Main easement. We don't have a final plan today to show that, but we agree to create an easement on there. That doesn't mean that you could build on, I mean they could install the sewer, there's a whole bunch of other stuff outside of that but i'm recognizing that concern we're acknowledging that concern and we're agreeing to create an easement on the plat in that area to connect into the force main easement as well for their their potential use um tracy you want to start here yeah can i pass them out my approach mr chairman I'm happy to answer your questions. Okay, any questions for... Yes, sir. All right, I do have a question. Can you please go back to your slides where you're showing the future land map use of 2013 and identify the property and where it was, what the future land use was supposed to be before we got rid of the 2013 land use map so yeah so you're talking about the 2007 comprehensive plan seven yeah so 13 it was removed yes 2007. can you put up my presentation again i think i know which slide you're talking about let me scroll to there early on the presentation you're yeah earlier on it did show that your parcel was included and i just want you to verify that for me you asked me to verify that's in the blue sky area no that it was um future land use land you showed it as i won yeah so here is the 1988 comp plan and identify the property again it's right there okay so here's the here's so sometimes in this presentation i go through them quickly because i know my time sometimes limited but so this is the 1988 comp plan future land use map that we have just sort of copied out from the comp plan. This is the identification of the different zones areas, and the light purple pink is here is light industrial area, and this property is right here. This is the 1996 one. I don't know if I blew up this one or not. Yeah, there we go. Right there again. Again, purple is light industrial. 2001 this one's a little bit more grainy sometimes when you pull them off the website you'll see it right there the same triangle piece the 2007 conference this is the last future land use map that we have to rely upon you'll see there right there and i don't know if i have a legend on here yep i do Okay, so even though it was not included in the Rural Activity Center or the RAC, it was shown as potential light industrial. Actually, I think what this map is showing is two things. I think it's actually showing both the Blue Sky Recreational Area outline overall, and it's showing the zoning classifications, recommended zoning classifications within the Blue Sky Area. Tracy, may correct me if I'm wrong. No, that's correct. Just to clarify, the piece that came out is not the subject property. It's actually, if you'll point down to the lower left corner. The one? No, all the way. Yes, right there. That green notch, the green piece is actually what came out of the Rural Activity Center. So it's not related, except that they were previously owned by the same person. Okay, thank you. Do you agree with that, Nathan? I believe that's correct. And I think that person still owns this parcel. Yes. Is that? I think so. Does that help Mr. Nickel? Any other questions? Okay. Does anyone in the audience like to address this particular issue? Yes, sir. Hang on just one minute. Just a minute, sir. I've had the request from our commission members to have a break, and I know a couple of members have to go. But let's take five. Can we? Five minutes. Thank you for your proper turn from the recess. Now we were looking for citizen participation. I think there was one gentleman who was at the microphone, but where did he go? He's out of tape. Okay, yeah, please. I guess I didn't keep the actual time, so. Made it. Mr. Chairman, sorry. No problem. We didn't keep the exact time, but I saw everybody out here on our commission was back, so I just assumed everybody was ready to go. Sir, we're ready to hear from you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Fred Eastridge with ECSI, civil engineering company here in town. Steve Wilson and Phil Wilson of JFG Enterprises asked me to convey their interest in the pump station as located on the subject of property. If it's agreeable, I'd like to pass out some information to you all. It's a resolution with the Lexington Fayette County government where the pump station was accepted and outlined the design of it. Also a letter from Charlie Martin to the then mayor, Jim Gray, accepting and giving his opinion why it should be accepted. And then also I've got the agreement for the pump station. I want to apologize up front that I did not make enough for everybody. If you could share, I'd appreciate it. J.F.G. Enterprises, with partners of Steve Wilson and Phil Wilson, were the owners of the property, and they transferred the property to the applicant. Excuse me, you said the name is Bill Wilson? Zill. Zill. Zill. B-H-I-L. Bill. Bill. Bill. Oh, okay. Steve Wilson and Phil. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Just clarification. You have my list. Yeah, I was worried about that a little bit. Yeah. They own the property, and they own this property, and they own the property on the south side of Athens-Mittsboro Road, which is all in the activity center. They transferred the property to the applicant this last year. They are in agreement with the zone change. They would like to ask the Planning Commission to approve the zone change to I-1 as per the comprehensive plan. their main interest for me speaking for them to relay this message for them is they're sorry they couldn't be here themselves but they had other obligations today their message is is that they have a very strong interest in this pump station they're the ones that built it negotiated with the government and dedicated it to the government they spent four hundred eighty five thousand dollars on it this pump station was sized for their property in the rural activity center 500 gallons per minute and in any movement of the pump station they want to assure that this pump station is built and designed according to the requirements that were given to them by the lake smear county government and that it maintains that capacity and that it is assured that it's only used to be it was only sized for the property on the rural activity center and the The force main that the government sized to take care of this pump station and the pump station that replaced the treatment plan over in Blue Sky Park itself was sized only for these two pump stations that handled just the rural activity center. So there's very strict information on how it's to be sized and everything in these documents and what's supposed to happen. And so they were just wanting to assure, be assured and get it into the public record that this pump station is very important to them for the rest of their property. The applicant has rights to it to serve their property. And that if it is moved, that it is built according to the specifications laid out by these documents and that it does just serve these properties. I do have a personal note. I'd like to do. Barrister, I assure you. Sir, you have to speak to us because the microphone is. I'm sorry. I assure you that Steve Wilson Esquire and Phil Wilson Esquire are not switch and bait con artists. They own this property at the time of the change that you were talking about, and the conditions that that switch was agreeable with the planning commission and the council, and it went forward. I don't think somebody should be saying that these previous owners, these fine people, and attorneys are bait-and-switch con orders. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else that like? Yes, sir. Come on up. I'm sorry. Mr. Murphy, that gentleman there had his hand up for you. And then we'll get to you. planning commission members and staff i appreciate this opportunity to speak i've been here a few times over the years i've been a property owner and business owner in blue sky area for 40 years could you give us your name please yeah i'm sorry my name's uh bob crutcher resident and and a business owner at 284 Blue Sky Parkway. And this is kind of a bittersweet thing for me. Yeah, to see growth in the Blue Sky area is a significant thing because I've only seen one zone change, and that was at KASP property quite a few years ago. It was a precedent of all times. Basically, the sewer issue was the biggest main factor that kept anything from happening at the time. I have a piece of property located directly across from Blue Sky. I feel it would be and is very developable and should be always considered. I've been in line for 20 years at Comprehensive Plans and everything. I appreciate you all viewing me and my property as possibilities for future expansion. As far as that property we're looking at today, I'm very familiar with the area. I know the factors when you're addressing blue line streams. I know the problems with sewage capacities, and that's always been a factor out there. But, you know, as far as blocking views from the interstate, that's always been an issue. They won't talk about my property. But, you know, my property was up on a hill. It could easily have been landscaped. So I'm just saying I've been in line, and I would appreciate any future concerns as far as when you're looking at developing Blue Sky area. I'd like to be in line, but I'm not sure about the appropriate use of that land on the other side of the interstate. I was a bit jealous when I saw the truck fuel going in behind Speedway. I was wanting to create a beautiful travel center that would cater to all travelers on my property that would not impact any traffic going to town or in or out of town. Some of that traffic runs, you know, 60 to 70 miles an hour getting ready to get on a ramp there, and it's a lot of traffic. There's no brakes in the traffic except for the traffic lights at the interstate. But I think growth needs to be looked at out there. And I'm not saying I'm for or against this move, but just be fair in the future of blue sky. And I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm representing the major adjoining property owner, Encore Partners. If you could put up the development plan slide again, I could show you where it is. We're not here objecting to the zone change, but we do have some development plan issues. So Encore Partners owns the adjoining property along almost the entire northern boundary of this property. So we are the property with the greatest impact from this development. As I said, we are not objecting to the zone change. We had some concerns on the development plan, which I think have been addressed, and I'm requesting a couple of notes just to confirm that they are addressed. The first one we had, we addressed the subcommittees, was the configuration of the roadway off of Athens-Boonsboro Road. That has been reconfigured in a method that the Traffic Engineering Division approved, and we agree with that. This is a safer configuration than what was originally shown on that. The second is the access to this roadway, which will be a public roadway. Now, our property is a farm, and we have concerns about this regardless of whether we stay a farm for the next 50 years or whether it's ever developed. We want to assure that we have access to this roadway here. Now, as Mr. Billings said, the right-of-way is designed to touch our property line so that there would not be any strip, or what's commonly called a spite strip, to prevent one owner from accessing road. Now, my only concern is that there's a strip shown on this development plan, and that's apparently because the coloring shows the roadway surface, not the full width of the right-of-way. Usually the right-of-way is delineated with the solid lines, and my note one I'm requesting is just to show the northern edge of the right-of-way is the northern property line adjacent to the property to the north so mr martin i think has seen this note mr billings and they're agreeable with that and that would alleviate our concerns about the the spite strip and the second note we're showing is asking for is show a sanitary sewer easement from from the property to the north to the proposed relocation site of the new pump station and i want to emphasize we're not making any claim on capacity in that pump station but right now the pump station is located right here current pump station and there is an easement into it that's a utility easement which can be used for sewer lines as well so there's a easement into the existing pump station right now we just like to preserve the status quo on whatever occurs if the pump station is here and to show an easement into that location now we know it can move and as mr billings said that's a potential location for that relocation it may not be fixed in stone and all we're saying is well let's show a potential location the location for the easement into that potential location we understand this is a preliminary plan and location of the pump station location of the easement may move as well as i said we have an easement into the current pump station we'd like to have the same treatment the status quo if you will as showing the easement into the proposed location of the pump station relocation on the property i do want to state that as i said we're not making a claim on uh capacity in that pump station at the the agreement that mr eastridge handed out to you on behalf of the wilson brothers i've read that agreement and it limits the pump station to a certain capacity in gallons it doesn't necessarily limit it to certain properties it limits it to a certain capacity in gallons now if the development proceeds as discussed here today with a lot of warehousing type, mail order fulfillment type uses, those are very small users of capacity and there may be capacity left over in that pump station. If, however, it's developed as a hospital, there may not be any capacity left over. We recognize that okay we just want to make sure that we have that if the property ever develops in the future that we don't come in here before you 20 years from now and and somebody says whoops sorry we we forgot to put a sewer easement in for you 20 years ago which could have solved this and now you're now you're shut out uh what we're doing is planning ahead on this and as i said it has been planned for the current location of the pump station and we just ask for the same thing with the future and i think all parties mr martin mr billings have been agreeable with that note number two now i've got one third note i forgot to put up there which if we could put on the overhead right now which is there switching to that we just like to be notified i've got a note saying the adjoining property owner will be notified upon filing of final or amended development plans or plats and that would just keep us informed on what's going on I think the parties have agreed with that so again we have we are not objecting to the zone change we appreciate the cooperation which Mr. Billings and his clients have given us on that we just wanted to do these for clarification I I think he's already more or less taken care of these things, but it's better to be safe than sorry on this. So thank you very much, and we'd ask you to put those three notes as notes to your approval of the development plan today. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Anyone else like to speak to this particular? Okay. Mr. Billings, you have a final comment or any other comments you have in response to what you've heard? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the resolution that's passed out on the sewer agreement, we agree with all of the comments there. Those are of record. There's a significant amount of other stuff that's outside of this zone change process today. With respect to that, the capacity is there to be reserved. There's upgrades. We have a private agreement with the people we purchased from concerning that. They're in support of the zone change, so I don't think there's any disagreement there, just so the Commission is aware. With respect to Mr. Murphy's comments, we're in agreement with those notes. The only clarification I would have is just to make sure that we don't know where that pump station is going to be, and we don't know where that easement will be. And the easement is, I guess, technically not their easement. The easement is a sanitary sewer easement that is likely to be connected to the force main easement. It's just to sort of accommodate his request, I don't think it needs to be on there, but we're not opposing it to be on there. We just don't know where it's going to be yet either. I think we understand that. Thank you. We have no problem with it in these comments. It's the same things that we've been in discussion with since we started. We're working together on this. Fine. Staff, we need to hear from you all. steph just had a few comments about what the applicant has presented specifically in association to conditional zoning one of the major factors of the imposition of conditional zoning on this site is how speculative this zone change is. While the applicant has showed some very, very nice pictures up here, we don't have a use, we don't have buildings, we don't have site design or anything with this zone change. With that, we do need to impose certain things that would protect this area as a gateway into our city, as well as protect against some of those nuisance uses. Those nuisance uses are typically located not in the I-1. In fact, for the conditional uses that we presented, only one of those can be solidly put into the I-1 category. That would be the commercial woodlots, number eight. There is also number nine, the outdoor material storage, which is an accessory use in the I-1. The rest are B-4 uses, so carried over uses from the lower zone. Staff is looking at these as what has been done in the past in the I-1, and we are seeking to promote a greater kind of I-1 use. We don't want to see B-4 uses in the I-1. We would rather see I-1 uses being utilized in those spaces. In regard to Amazon or any distribution, there are actually two other zones within the I-1 and in the B-4 that cover Amazon or what Amazon types sources. So there's the warehousing and storage of materials, and then there's actually mail package parcel and delivery kind of services. Those are in the I-1 and in the B-4. Both are not taken out by conditional zoning in this case. What we're trying to avoid with the freight yard or the trucking terminals is those thin buildings with large trucks and lots of paving around them in which there isn't a lot of activity, a lot of jobs produced. It is a spot for trucks to pull in, park, move things around, and that's where they stay. Amazon, those big Amazon buildings are not traditionally what you see within a truck terminal zone or anything like that. Again, while this has been identified and targeted for I-1, it has been utilized more in a B-4 capacity. With the speculative nature of this, we do need to protect going forward, and we need to monitor and make sure that with any modification of the landscape, those things are not impacting the view shed of the area. So the APKIN has talked about how low the building will be or how high it will be. We don't know that because we currently don't know how much fill will be utilized, what the site will look like, what the topography will look like. The APKIN has talked quite a bit about moving a lot of material from that B5P area in the front into the back to bring that up. That will impact what they have for a building, their uses, what the view shed will look like. It's those issues as well as the speculative nature of this that forces staff to seek to tailor these down and not in an exorbitant way. There are lots of I-1 uses, lots of B-4 uses that are still available to the applicant at this site. If you have any questions, we're here to answer. Just one quick question. What about the three additional clarifications that Mr. Murphy presented? Have you all had a chance to review that? Staff believes that that should be fine. That shouldn't be an issue. Those three, okay. Okay, now that would be added to the pink sheet? Yes, sir. Okay, well, you all make, I didn't get to write it as fast. So you all got that taken care of, okay. Oh, well, Karen has. Okay, now I'll open it up. Mr. Bowens has a, thank you. Thank you. How are you there? Help me maybe one more time. With the preliminary development plan on the B5P, My question is where in this are we approving that as a re-approval? That's part of this. It's part of the plan in general. So by adopting this, you are adopting this as a. I just haven't seen anything in writing that says that. Go ahead, Tom. What they've done, Mr. Owens, is basically incorporated the previous plan with this one, so your action will be a re-approval of the existing. Okay. A couple of questions for Mr. Billings, if possible. Speaking to that, the B5P, I think I understood you. you did buy the b5p land as well as the proposed land that we're talking about for our win that's correct there's a the front acreage is about thanks al okay is six and a half in the back is about five and a half maybe the front six point seven i think i i'm not sure if this is question or not but during your presentation it seemed like you were arguing that maybe the b5p land wasn't appropriate out there anyway no this land is the b5p this is 51 90 when it comes to here comes down to here down to here back that was resumed to b5p about 10 years ago i'm not suggesting that zoning is inappropriate i'm suggesting that if this interchange for 10 years like several other b5p parcels there has not been a a user of that other than as the current semi-agricultural state and in the immediate future we don't see that as the developed i'm not saying that that zoning is inappropriate it doesn't make sense to change the zoning on that parcel at this point okay all right um pump station and i just heard a moment ago you've got on the plan proposed relocation of it but you're not sure that you're going to move it or not now that's correct so the relocation of this pump station is a very complicated and costly procedure and this is sort of a which comes first chicken or egg question. So we are proceeding down two paths simultaneously, likely with both of those have to occur before we could ever move that pump station. The first one is the rezoning process because if we don't rezone it, there's no need to move it. But the second one is for our likely use eventually, there is, if you look at the way the pump station is, it's sort of in a darker green right here in the middle. It is likely to be in an area where building and or access will be done so that would have to be moved that process we have to work through the city and its departments and that process has been initiated and is ongoing at the end of the day the staff recommendation notes and our agreement with those notes is until both of those coincide and agree upon we can't actually develop the site but we couldn't go through this whole process and get the pump station moved and then have the zoning fall through at the same time we can't go through the zoning and just ignore that the pump station is likely to be moved so we're sort of trying to move on two paths at the same time this proposed location is to say this is where at this point it makes the most sense to us there's some engineering and cost issues with respect to that relocation but it's not it's not the only potential location it's just where we think it's the most likely to end up okay thank you okay by the way sir i didn't mentions but all of that cost is is it is our cost it's the city pump station it's the city's force main so if we move it we pay for it yeah we understand that yeah we got that down uh any other questions mr nick i've got a question about the uh prohibitive uses um how did a great job explaining the intent of uh these 10 prohibitive uses one of them you were talking about was the use for an Amazon fulfillment center or a mail order fulfillment center. And what is prohibited here is the truck terminals and freight yard. And what Hal said is, with the I-1, you can have a mail center, fulfillment center in an Amazon type facility. So are you good with keeping the prohibitive use of truck terminals and freight yards? I don't think so. I mean, our suggested conditional uses are the ones that we have evaluated that I think we feel comfortable with. And, you know, I'll give you an example is Amazon now has this last mile delivery station. It's something that is brand new. It's come up in the last two years. There's it's I don't know if it is a technical commercial word or not, other than it's just called like the last mile delivery station. There was one put on the Lexmark property back in probably late October. Yeah, okay, so you all were familiar, Tracy says. So I don't know how those are defined. I don't know how they could be used or not used, or if other places like UPS or FedEx or other shipping may develop similar things in the future that could come into play with this or not. We feel like there are potential uses of that, that that might be a viable use of the property. I don't know that it's the most. I know that with what we are looking at to develop this site, the more restrictions we have on the potential use, the more it constrains our ability to find tenants and use it. And as an applicant, candidly, we want as little restrictions as possible. We already have private restrictions with the people we bought it for. That's not in the city's area, but we agreed with a bunch of private use restrictions on the property that already prohibited us. We knew it was going to be probably have to be an I-1 area. And we've agreed with staff and staff in their favor. When we met with them in June, they said, hey, you're going to have some things we're going to have to walk through on this site. It's not just going to be a blank slate. And we feel like we've tried to come back in good faith and say we understand that, but we also want, understanding that, more flexibility. And I don't know if that's bad that we have different ideas. I just think that on the applicant, we'd like to have more flexibility. Any other questions for Mr. Billings or anyone else? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Well, then I will close this hearing from the audience perspective and bring it back to the commission. A couple of things just to, I mean, as a matter of discussion, as a matter of picking the vote up here. One, you've got the idea of one possibility is to vote, depending upon how you want to vote on the zone change, but if you voted positively for the zone change, you could vote as with the staff's recommendations, including the prohibitive uses. That's one. or you could say well I'm for the zone change but I also want to make adopt the findings of Mr. Billings so that's another option so you've got a couple of options I'm assuming that all on the positive side more so than the negative because you know I don't like negative motions to begin with but you know I knew where we're coming from on that or any other discussion points oh Miss Blumley. Thank you. I guess I lament that we do not have small area plans for the rural activity centers that we have neglected to follow a comprehensive plan the rural land management plan for that advice. These are four areas which are essentially small little cities with with their needs and we have today's decision would be a lot easier if we had we did have small area plans so i'm sorry about that mr owens thank you mr chair um just a couple of comments yeah my major concern today is that we're looking at a preliminary subdivision plan without any sort of a preliminary development plan that we often see i understand there's a lot of moving parts here mr billings mentioned chicken and egg which comes first i have a hard time believing that anybody would go into a 11 acre project without some sort of idea how they were going to lay it out where there is streets roads building sites or whatever and there's so many different problematic situations here personally I think we need to see more I'm okay with the zone change but I'm very troubled over the fact that we don't have more information on it for for any sort of development plan. Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Berkeley? I didn't know whether you were calling or raising your hand. Go ahead. Yeah. I hear what Mike is saying on the development plan, but it sounds like to me they're just not at that point. I think if the property is zoned, it allows them to market the property better. You remove that question of could it be I won or not, or what can it be. So I think our job first is to decide if this zone is appropriate for this location, and I think that's what we're being asked to do here today, and I think we have to do that. Where I see differences, I guess, goes back to these prohibited uses, and I brought this up initially because, number one, A lot of those uses I see along other interchanges of I-75, I mean, go down to the Whitehall exit. There's, you know, an equipment company there that sells heavy equipment. There's somebody that, you know, there's those types of uses at these interchanges in other locations. So I don't quite understand why we're restricting that particular use or what is represented by number one. I think you've made some good points on some of these other ones. You know, the outdoor retreading, I get that. I agree with that. if it's contained within a building i don't see that it should be limited unless there's something i just don't know about that process um so you know i i'm first of all i'm in favor of striking the staff's number one uh prohibited uses i think that is a reasonable use of the property and and i'm not for certain or i didn't gather that rural land management plan was real specific as to how to restrict property and or uses some of the other ones that are on the applicants list i'm fine with the like i said the outdoor I'm fine limiting the advertising signs, commercial wood lots, pre-cut homes, ice plants. What else are there? We've got truck terminals and freight yards and I guess that right there the question on that one seems to be that a debate is to what type of use or what what's meant by truck terminal and. Okay. Uh and then rental storage lot was the other one that that you all want to district and they they do not have that. Yeah. So I guess again just kind of reiterate. You know if you want to go. you know number my number you can however you want to do it just reiterate your all's position on those and so if you look at number one establishments for the lot sale a display rental sales service of minor repair farm equipment contractor equipment automobiles motorcycles trucks boats traveler trailers etc those are those uses that are currently taking up at a large portion of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. They are not high employment centers. They are also under utilizing that space that they have right there. So that is what staff and in the rural land management plan it does dissuade car lot sales. It talks about it in a negative way for the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. Number two, ice plant is usually just a very large building that typically does not employ many individuals. It also is a very imposing structure that does not utilize the space in any significant way. Number three, tire retreading and recapping. Again, not a high employment factor. It's not a growing business at this point in time. It also is associated with a fair amount of waste in sight. Truck terminals and freight yards. Again, I mentioned that previously what the difference between what an amazon station would be or like a parcel delivery station would be versus a freight yard. Freight yards are largely a storage area for the trailers of trucks and the reorganization of those trucks. So it again is utilizing an awful lot of space but not utilizing it to the best of its ability for employment opportunities, things like that. major or minor automobile and truck repair those areas are typically not again high employment factors they take in a lot of space it's also a nuisance use it usually promotes a lot of code violation as well as zoning enforcement violations establishment for the display and sale of pre-cut prefabricated in shell homes again they were fine with that one rental storage yard again not a great utilization of the space that we have the limited space that we have in this area therefore staff was trying to find something that would be a better use of this i1 space commercial woodlots they were in agreeance with this is one of the i1 uses that staff is suggesting is inappropriate Outdoor material storage and sales as otherwise permitted. That's an accessory I-1 use. Again, outdoor storage. It's going to affect the view shed. It will impact this as a gateway. Advertising signs, billboards, the applicant is in agreeance with as well. You know, I guess one of the problems I have is, I mean, we're classifying or we're saying that property is underutilized in blue sky. I don't know of any of those businesses out there that are not in business. It is vacant. I mean, they're not vacant. And they do serve a purpose. So I just won't be able to go along with number one and and you know if we if you're ready for a motion i'll be glad to make one i've got some other comments mr owens if i may just you know listen to will um just as one example you know we're talking about various things but as far as tire retreading and recapping uh house and it's not a major employment job related uh you know it's going to look good if it's all done inside you know quite frankly i'm okay with that except for the fact you know of outside storage you know do we want an acre of tires sitting outside a building i don't think that's what we're looking at and you know that's where i get into a problem as far as storage lots lots for displays uh that's where my situation you you put it all inside i don't have a problem with it you know that's where i am just just a thought on my my end uh ms plumley and then mr nickel Thank you. Should this zone change go forward, I certainly would be in favor of the staff's recommendations. I think they've thought these through. They want this area, we want it to be as attractive as possible. We want it to have as high employment as possible. So we should stick with our 10, I believe. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. My thoughts on this are this property has been marketed, well I have two contradictory thoughts. This property is being marketed as a gateway to Lexington, which I think it certainly can be. And I understand the intent of staff to prohibit nuisance uses. We need to make sure that those are removed. That's one thought that I have. The other contradictory thought is that I believe that the market should be able to determine what businesses could be successful in this location. So I don't know how to thread the needle, but I'm interested to hear your all's thoughts. Thanks. What else? Let me just say from the chair's perspective, this is most unusual for me, too. Most of the time when we have, we have a little clearer indication as to what's going to happen to that particular property. and then the kind of the prohibitive uses sort of fall into place on situations like that. But here's where I stand, and you all can figure out. I think we should personally approve the zone change, but I think we ought to approve it with the staff's recommendations. I think those prohibitive uses are not at this stage. If I don't know what I'm doing, I think I'd much rather err on the side of caution on this particular instance. So that's where I stand. We're ready for a motion now. I suppose if everyone's had their say. Will, did you want to make a motion? I mean, I will. Well, I don't know what's going to happen. All right. We've got two revised sheets, right? Well, actually, you have two. One for the development. And you've got. Okay. Okay. I'm going to move for approval of plan MAR18-28 with the first three recommendations by staff being the same. under number four prohibitive uses I would like to see number one or number A on the original form one on the revised form I would like to recommend that that be taken out Is that the only one? That is the only one Okay, so it's just number one I'm sorry what yeah yes strike strike number one yes i'm sorry b1 yeah okay we got it numbered on one sheet and lettered on the other which is part of the problem and mr berkeley you were saying earlier i think there was discussion about outdoor tire retreading well i i uh that's a new so i i'm i'm fine with restricting that i think mike made a good argument uh about what comes along with that is outside storage um so i don't see how you get around that but uh well that's what mr berkeley's recommendation is approval the zone change approval with the conditions provided by staff except for the prohibitive use of striking number a or number one depending on which sheet you're looking at is that correct all right now the question is is there a second to that one more question mr. Berkeley is there a way that we could on a if you want to allow for a if you want to allow a could you strike mobile homes? For the sale of mobile homes? Yes. Sale or service? Sale, service, all the above. I would be fine with that because we really don't have too many parks around here anyway. So when you say when you're being there. No, I don't think I want to allow boats. Okay. In other words. I'm fine with boats. if mobile homes makes a difference to you, I'm fine with restricting that. Okay, so in other words, what your now motion is modified to say take out number one but include mobile homes, is that it? Because if you strike number A completely, that takes out mobile homes. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. All right. All right, so now what they're saying this way it is is that a should be mobile homes as a part of the prohibitive restriction with according to the motion and everything else is taken out is omitted. Am I clear? I mean, so what we're saying? Lots display rental sales service and repair of mobile home. No, wait a minute. Okay. I'm not clear on that. What have you got now? I can't see it. Established. It stays as a restriction. Maybe we just keep the mobile home in there. Oh, it stays as a restriction. Let me just took our mobile home. Oh, take it right there. Oh, take it. No, no. You would basically, this is your prohibited list, So you would prohibit the display rental sales service and repair of mobile. Okay, just going to keep me. But you could do all the other sales service repair of cars and boats and trucks and farm equipment and contractor equipment. All right, now Mr. Forrest has been trying to help me here. I'm getting, I think I thought I had it right at first. In other words, A now says that we keep mobile homes and strike the rest. Is that correct? And then everything else stays in line, is that right? All right, thank you, Mr. Forrest. That helped. All right, now, that's the motion. Are we clear on the motion now? And I'll second. Okay, well, let me be clear. Yeah. Okay, you know what we're voting for now? Okay. All right, the second has been moved by Mr. Berkley, second by Ms. Karen Mundy, that we approve PLN MAR18-28 IVCP Athens LLC with the conditions provided by staff, with the proviso on the prohibitive uses that we strike number A with the exception of mobile homes, and then we strike and we keep everything else that's in the recommendations by the staff. Does that cover it, you think? Okay, any other discussions on the motion? Heaven's not. Thank you. Let's vote, please. Okay, the motion carries on that. The development plan. All right. What we're talking about here is, what as I understand it, is everything that's on the orange sheet with the three additional comments provided by. Okay, wasn't it? Yes, Mr. Berkley, you would like to continue on this? I'll be glad to. Move for approval of Plan MJDP 18-102 with the 10 revised conditions, adding three additional conditions as proposed by the adjoining property. Okay, do we have a second? I'll second. Okay, it's been moved by Mr. Will Berkley and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve of PLN MJDP 18-102 JFG Enterprises Incorporated with the ten conditions provided by staff and with three additional provisions as provided by Mr. Murphy, In which case, one is to show northern edge right of way and the northern property align adjacent to the property to the north. Show sanitary sewer easement from property to the north to the proposed relocation site of a new pump station. And the third is the adjoining property owner will be notified upon filing of a final amended development plan or plan. And Mr. Wilson, I meant to ask staff about this before and it just slipped my mind. Mr. Witt came up and had some concerns for another adjoining property owner. Is there anything we need to do at this point to reserve his wishes? Mr. Crutcher's concerns? No. No. The engineer for the property across the street. Mr. Eastridge? Mr. Eastridge, I'm sorry, I said Mr. Witt. I believe that the agreement that the city is under with, in terms of what was built, covers the government as well as would direct the applicant in terms of replacing it. Yeah, I think we're covered. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Okay. Call for the question. You've heard the motion. It has been properly seconded. The discussion has been had. If there's no additional discussion, please vote when it comes up on your screens. Okay. The motion carries five to two. Okay. Okay, that takes care of that. Okay, I think we have one other item, the staff has an item. Thank you, appreciate your help. I've got 15 minutes out of this. One, two, three, four, five, six. We've got six. Can't afford to lose anybody. Everybody's leaving. Can't lose anybody else. Okay, Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, staff is referring to you today a minor subdivision plan, 19-5 Fayette Mall, lots 1 and 1A. This minor development plan is being referred to you today because they are actually dedicating a little bit of right-of-way, And staff does not have the authority to accept right-of-way. The Planning Commission actually has to accept right-of-way dedication. That's specifically in our regulations for minor plans. So that's why it's here for you today. And you can see this is the plat in this area. It is at Fayette Mall. It's the BJ's Brew Pub property. They're in the corner. They had initially recorded this portion where the restaurant sits. They're now consolidating an additional part of the parking lot to serve the restaurant. And that's a minor plan, and you wouldn't see it as a consolidation. But they're dedicating some right-of-way through here, which, interesting enough, goes back to 2001 when public improvements were done, and the city widened the road. And there were public improvements in the area. A lot of documents were filed, a lot of plans were approved, but somehow the actual dedication of that right-of-way got lost in the mix and all the things that were happening and what needed to be done. So, subsequently, when the applicant became aware of this, they've brought this plat to our attention as a minor plat, but again, because of the right-of-way issue. This was an opportunity to clean that up, but we still had to bring it to you. And we brought it to you today because they need to close, frankly, on this property this month, and they need to move forward. They're helping us because they're cleaning up this right-of-way situation. So that is why it's brought to you today. It wasn't listed on the agenda. We neglected to do that because we had it in our head we were going to bring it to you in February. but that was not what they requested, so we're bringing it to you today. We handed out a sheet with three conditions. Engineering, traffic are going to approve this because they're the ones that, of course, are involved in the technical side of this, and then just delete the Urban County Engineering Certification because it's not necessary on the plan. So staff's recommending approval, and I'll answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? If not, anyone else have anything to say about this? Okay, great. Ms. Plumlee? Ms. Plumlee? Oh, you want to speak? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm Kevin Phillips with Enders Engineering. I don't want to have anything to add other than just to thank the graciousness of your commission and of the planning staff to bring this forward today. that's helping out the client tremendously to get this done so they can close on the property for the end of the month and appreciate the effort very much. No problem. We'll send you a bill for it. Okay, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. A move of approval of PLNM and SUB 19-5 Fayette Mall, lots 1 and 1A with the three conditions as recommended by staff. Okay, it's been moved by Ms. Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Ms. Karen Mundy that we approve PLN, MN, SUB 19-5, Fayette Mall, Lots 1 and 1A with the three conditions provided by staff. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your screens? Oh, I'm sorry. Why do we have some? You mean we're offline now? Okay. This is called voice voca. That's a Latin term. There are only three Latin terms used in parliamentary procedure, and it's one of them. All those in favor? Okay. Mr. Berkley, you voting? But then raise your hand because that's all we can do. All right. Thank you. Anything else to come from the commission, from the staff? Mr. Chair, we have two items to remind you all that the Planning Commission will meet a week from today, January 31st at 1.30 in this facility for the continuation of the comprehensive plan. And that's the only item on the agenda for next Thursday. And then I also want to tell you all that Andrea Brown, our attorney who has been assisting us over the years, has left quite abruptly. She didn't let us know that very much in advance. But she left right before Christmas, and she is working for Metro Louisville now. So she's out of town. But we have Chad Edwards, who has taken her place. Chad's been with the government for about five years. He's worked in property and general services, so he's somewhat familiar with some of the things that we do and will be helping us out in the future. Thank you. And also as a quick reminder that tomorrow, the 25th, I think the staff is going to post the latest revisions to the place builder? Yes, we will post those and we will also be sending you all of the comments that we have received in writing over the past two weeks or so. So you'll get a full update on that tomorrow. I also have some other great news for you. uh... these two ladies miss plumley in this money of couple just a superb idea which i'd like to discuss with the staff after in a few years to come before this body if not the standard jerry We'll be right back. We'll be right back.