# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - November 21, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 21, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4904 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4904?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-11-21 - **Last revised**: November 21, 2019 - **Length**: 34,604 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on November 21, 2019, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the second floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Owens presiding. The commission addressed three agenda items during the session, including the approval of minutes and consideration of two zoning map amendment requests. The commission took six votes throughout the meeting and heard from two members of the public during the comment period. Of the two zoning amendment requests considered, the F2 Companies Zoning Map Amendment was approved while the Aptitude Development Zoning Map Amendment was denied. ## Attendance The following members were present at the November 21, 2019 meeting: • Mike Owens • Headley Bell • Anthony de Movellan • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Bruce Nicol • Frank Penn • Graham Pohl • Carolyn Plumlee • Bill Wilson **Absent:** • Patrick Brewer No members arrived late to the meeting. Ten of the eleven members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included six formal votes on various planning matters, with most passing unanimously. **Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:02] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the minutes from October 21, 2019 and October 24, 2019, seconded by Bill Wilson. The motion passed unanimously with all 10 members voting in favor. **PLN-MAR-19-00014: F2 Companies Zone Change** [timestamp: 02:30] Frank Penn motioned to approve the zone change for F2 Companies from B-4 to R-5, seconded by Larry Forester. The motion passed unanimously 10-0. **F2 Companies Variance Request** [timestamp: 03:00] Frank Penn motioned to approve the variance request for F2 Companies, seconded by Larry Forester. The motion passed unanimously 10-0. **PLN-MJDP-19-00045: Haynes Brothers Property Development Plan** [timestamp: 03:30] Frank Penn motioned to approve the development plan for Haynes Brothers Property, LLC with revised recommendations presented by staff, seconded by Larry Forester. The motion passed unanimously 10-0. **PLN-MAR-19-00013: Aptitude Development Zone Change** [timestamp: 05:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve the zone change for Aptitude Development from R-4 to B-2A, seconded by Graham Pohl. This motion failed in a roll call vote with 6 ayes and 4 nays. Voting in favor: Mike Owens, Headley Bell, Anthony de Movellan, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, and Bruce Nicol. Voting against: Frank Penn, Graham Pohl, Carolyn Plumlee, and Bill Wilson. **PLN-MJDP-19-00050: The Marshall Lexington Development Plan** [timestamp: 05:30] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone the development plan for The Marshall Lexington, seconded by Bill Wilson. The postponement was approved unanimously 10-0. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the council during the public comment period regarding the Aptitude Development zone change proposal. **Blake Hall** [timestamp: 03:45] spoke in support of the Aptitude Development project. Hall emphasized the need for urban development and increased density in the area, advocating for the proposed zone change. **Jessica Winters** [timestamp: 04:00] addressed the council representing the Aylesford Place Neighborhood Association in opposition to the Aptitude Development zone change. Winters raised concerns about the potential impact the development would have on the historic neighborhood character. She also questioned the necessity of such a development in the area, arguing there was insufficient need for the proposed project. The public comments reflected divided community opinion on the zone change proposal, with supporters citing urban development benefits and opponents expressing concerns about preserving neighborhood character and questioning the project's necessity. ## Contested Items The November 21, 2019 meeting featured one primary contested item that generated significant community debate. **Aptitude Development Zone Change** The proposed zone change for Aptitude Development encountered substantial opposition from community members during the meeting. Residents and stakeholders raised concerns about two main issues: the potential impact on the historic character of the neighborhood and the overall scale of the proposed development project. Community members who spoke against the zone change expressed worry that the development would alter the established historic nature of the area, potentially affecting the neighborhood's architectural integrity and cultural significance. Additionally, opponents argued that the scale of the proposed development was inappropriate for the existing community context. The opposition represented broader community sentiment regarding development pressures and preservation of neighborhood character. Residents appeared concerned about maintaining the balance between growth and historic preservation in their area. [Note: The provided data does not include specific transcript timestamps, participant names, vote counts, or the final outcome of this contested item. Additional meeting materials would be needed to provide complete details about the resolution of this zone change proposal.] ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:02] The commission reviewed and approved minutes from two previous meetings during this agenda item. The minutes under consideration were from meetings held on October 21, 2019, and October 24, 2019. Commission members Carolyn Plumlee and Bill Wilson participated in the discussion of the minutes. The review process allowed commissioners to examine the accuracy and completeness of the recorded proceedings from both October meetings. Following the review, the commission voted to approve the minutes from both the October 21, 2019, and October 24, 2019, meetings. No specific concerns or corrections to the minutes were noted during the discussion. The approval of these minutes ensures that the official record of the commission's October proceedings is formally accepted and will be maintained as part of the permanent meeting records. ## F2 Companies Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 02:30] The council considered petition PLN-MAR-19-00014, a zoning map amendment request from F2 Companies to rezone property at 840 Angliana Avenue from Wholesale and Warehouse Business (B-4) to High Rise Apartment (R-5) zone. Key speakers during the discussion included Frank Penn and Larry Forester, who presented information regarding the proposed zoning change. The petition sought to convert the current commercial zoning designation to allow for high-rise residential development on the Angliana Avenue property. The council ultimately approved the zoning map amendment, allowing F2 Companies to proceed with their plans to develop high-rise apartments at the 840 Angliana Avenue location. The change from B-4 to R-5 zoning will permit the construction of multi-story residential buildings where previously only wholesale and warehouse businesses were allowed. ## Aptitude Development Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 05:00] The Planning Commission considered petition PLN-MAR-19-00013, a request from Aptitude Development for a zoning map amendment affecting properties on E. Maxwell Street and Stone Avenue. The petition sought to rezone the area from High Density Apartment (R-4) to Downtown Frame Business (B-2A). Key speakers during the discussion included Carolyn Plumlee and Graham Pohl, who presented arguments regarding the proposed zone change. The amendment would have allowed for different types of commercial development in an area currently designated for high-density residential use. The commission engaged in deliberation about the merits of converting residential zoning to business zoning in this particular location. The discussion centered on the appropriateness of the proposed B-2A Downtown Frame Business designation for the properties along E. Maxwell Street and Stone Avenue. Following the presentation and discussion, the Planning Commission voted to deny the zoning map amendment request. The properties will retain their current High Density Apartment (R-4) zoning designation, maintaining the residential character of the area rather than allowing the transition to commercial business use that Aptitude Development had requested. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of the minutes from October 21, 2019 and October 24, 2019 - **PLN-MAR-19-00014** — passed (10-0): Zone change for F2 Companies from B-4 to R-5 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Variance request for F2 Companies - **PLN-MJDP-19-00045** — passed (10-0): Development plan for Haynes Brothers Property, LLC - **PLN-MAR-19-00013** — failed (6-4): Zone change for Aptitude Development from R-4 to B-2A - **PLN-MJDP-19-00050** — postponed (10-0): Development plan for The Marshall Lexington --- ## Full transcript I'm on to the point of no return Your brother, he said he needs you. Your brother, she says he loves you. Your brother's the anchor you want. High five High five To the point of your return To the point of your return Well, I love I love Today I found the message floating In the sea from you to me Lord, that when you could see it Cried with fear, the point was near Was it you that said How long? How long? How long? To the point of no return How long? How long? To the point of no return No return Hello. Seats. We'll get started in just a minute. Thank you. Good afternoon everyone. It is a minute after 1 30. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is the November 21st zoning planning commission hearing and I'd like to welcome everyone here. We do have a crowd. We have a few items on the agenda. We will get to it. First on the order on the agenda are approval of minutes. We have had two sets of minutes from October 21st, 2019 and October 24th circulated. There were corrections made on the October 24th. If there are no other corrections to be made at this time, I'll entertain a motion. If there are corrections, please let it be known now. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Move approval of October 21st minutes as were sent and October the 24th minutes as corrected. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Wilson for approval of the minutes from October 21st and October 24th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Next on the agenda would be postponements and or withdrawals from today's agenda. Do we have any? I have not heard of any. We do not have that many on the agenda. So I think there are none. I'm seeing none, so we will move on. We will sound the agenda quickly to see if any of these items could be heard in an abbreviated fashion. Ms. Wade? Thank you, Chairman Owens. The first item on today's agenda, I believe, has opposition that's present this afternoon, and the applicant wishes to make a full presentation on that item which appears on page two so we'll move to page four of the agenda this is PLN MAR 19-14 F2 companies and there's an associated variance as well as an associated development plan the development plan is PLN MJDP 19-45 for Haynes Brothers property llc the the address for this zone change is 840 angliana avenue so i'll see if there's anyone in the audience who's here to speak about the zone change for angliana avenue seeing none this item can be sounded or abbreviated by the commission we can move forward with that first this afternoon thank you so our first item is uh at the top of page two is f2 companies zoning map amendment and haynes brothers properties it's plan mar 19-14 f2 companies there is an associate there is a variance with this as well as an associated development plan we do have revisions for the development plan that's on a purple sheet of paper that is before you mr barry so this is on page four of your agenda this is pln mar 19-00014 f2 companies the applicant is seeking a zone change from a wholesale warehousing business before zone to a high-rise apartment r5 zone for 5.6 net and 5.91 gross acres for the property located at 840 angliana avenue the proposed development includes six multi-family development six multi-family apartment buildings with a total of 385 dwelling units at a residential density of approximately 68 or 69 dwelling units per acre associated with this development will be amenities and parking associated for the residents on site we're located out off of between versailles road here here and then South Broadway which is extending right here. Angliana Avenue is a collector street that connects the two arterial roadways and has been changing over time. We'll zoom in just a little bit. You'll see that there is a mix of various different zones surrounding this property. To the west there's an R2 residential neighborhood which is a two family residential. and surrounding the property we're seeing b2 i1 and i2 so your warehousing your light industrial and then your heavy industrial these are characteristic of the neighborhood for which angliana is situated it's located right along the railway you can see that here coming down this way and with that there has been an awful lot of warehousing and industrial uses over time as the city has changed in its kind of makeup many of those industrial and warehousing businesses have kind of gone the wayside and been replaced with what is seen down in this area which is the r4 and r5 residential zoning so we're seeing more and more multi-family coming into the area this gives you a better view of the property itself this is a old tobacco warehouse it covers almost the entirety of the property unlike some of our other warehousing that we would like to see for adaptive reuse this is metal clad i'll show you some better pictures coming up here shortly there is a local street porter porter place right here that kind of loops back around to porter alley those are bordered by those b4 uses typically the shops of specialty trade um their porter place has your sidewalks and your typical road frontage however porter alley does not have those improvements and is just used as an alleyway in that location here we're getting a view into the property itself a nice very long frontage that we tried to display right here it was part of the golden burley tobacco warehouse and as you can see it is a tin clad building with a wood frame interior moving to the opposite side of the street we have some newer warehousing that has come in here is that residential slash uh shops of specialty trade area that is non-conforming in the area and then moving into the apartment complex this area in your aerial you can see was a site of tin clad warehousing but is now being replaced with some mini warehousing updated facilities. This is the rear of the property looking back along the rear of the property here along the side and then Porter Alley, Porter Place and the road that connects them right there. So staff is recommending approval of this zone change. The request for the high rise apartment R5 zone is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan. Their goals and objectives for the following reasons. The proposed rezoning accommodates the demand for housing in Lexington, prioritizing a higher density of residential. This has a 68.75 dwelling unit per acre count, which fits with theme A, goal one. Additionally, it is an infill and redevelopment opportunity for the city as it is an underutilized property just as warehousing. The property is also fairly dilapidated and starting to fall in on itself. So this would be an upgrade in the type of facility that is there. It's also located along some major transit routes. The 8, 12, 13, and 15 all are around this development site. So it could be a major benefit for the residents that live there, as well as reduce the potential of the carbon footprint that we are having with more residents coming to our area. So the proposed new transit stop along the frontage of the subject property will help reduce the dependency on the passenger vehicles, while also reducing our carbon footprint. This is also being targeted for University of Kentucky students. The location is advantageous for getting to the university with those bus lines, as well as getting down to any potential jobs that they might need. The justification and the corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies and development criteria of the comprehensive plan. Now that's also focused on the site design, building form and location, as well as the transportation and pedestrian connectivity, and the green space and environmental health. The recommendation is made subject to the approval of the development plan, which Mr. Martin will discuss right here shortly, but is also predicated on a variance in the parking, which we will discuss following Mr. Martin's presentation. If you have any questions just on the zoning aspect of this, I'd be happy to answer those now. Any questions for Mr. Bailey? Nope. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is located on page 5 of your agenda, and we have also distributed to you on this lovely lavender paper, revised conditions. This is Major Development Plan 19-45, Haynes Brothers property. You can see before you a rendering of the proposed development. They have buildings oriented around the exterior of the property with a larger interior building located here. Here is a pool and a pool house in this area. Again, here's Angliana. This is Porter Place with the access to Porter Place that they are proposing. This is a heavily treed fence line at this location with a red mile over here, and there's an old road that actually belongs to the red mile, runs all the way from Bersales Road that runs back through here in this location. The buildings that you see before you are four-story buildings. They are proposing 385 units, 430 beds. As Hal mentioned, the parking required for this would be 491. They are requesting a variance that he will review with you for 387 parking spaces. The total floor area combined of these buildings is 312,432 square feet. Their FAR is 1.28. It's right up there next to the limit of the R5 in this particular zone. Now, interesting enough, this building, this building, and this building are on platforms, and their parking is being provided at the ground floor in each of these buildings. Access is located here on this building, building F, this larger building, access and then access at this location into the parking, again, situated below these particular buildings. They're taking advantage of the grade of the property in order to do that. This is an open courtyard. One of the conditions you'll see on your plan is for them to correct their open space numbers. They're actually listing the R5 requirement. This is an infill and redevelopment project. And infill and redevelopment standards allow certain breaks, you might say, on the development of a piece of property. And one of those is required open space is reduced. in this case half of the required is all they need to meet in the infill relative to the r5 development they need to correct that number staff believes they can meet the requirement in addition to the the infill and redevelopment standards that allow some assistance and some allowances because of the difficulty on infill and redevelopment there's also a flip side to that And they have to meet Article 15-7 requirements that address some architectural issues and that sort of thing to help ensure compliance with these types of developments with the properties in the area. And those issues are things such as wall playing. The primary wall playing is very important. And this is also something you can see. The access they're proposing from the front off the street as well as the orientation. these are relative to your placemaker builder pardon me criteria as well and those are infill requirements in conjunction with that there's window requirements and some additional architectural requirements and those things have to be addressed on the final development plan because that's when they can pull permits as you all are very much aware this plan is to facilitate the zone change They cannot pull any permits or build off of this plan. So with that, you can see that the conditions on the handout that we've given you, your subdivision committee recommended approval, and your staff is recommending approval as well of the revisions that you see before you. Again, as I've noted, they'll have to denote compliance with 15-7 of the ordinance. They will be resolving stormwater quality and quantity features at that time as well. There are no known problems in this particular area along those lines, but they will be examined in much more detail at the next stage. And then provided you grant the variance and to resolve compliance with the place builder criteria per the zoning map amendment request. There is a bus stop in this area and they provided a direct pedestrian connection from development to this transit stop. That allows them a parking break and also helps address place builder criteria as well. As you can see, again, pedestrian linkages being important to that and mass transit and multimodal. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have on the development plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin. You mentioned parking variances. Usually we have something. Yes. Mr. Bailey is going to address that. Thank you. any questions for mr martin no thank you sir mr bailey so some other great photos of the site so the applicant or the applicant is seeking a variance uh requesting a reduction in the parking for the group residential project in the infill and redevelopment area When looking at any type of variance, the requested variance, there are certain criteria that the Planning Commission must abide by. Specifically, that it will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, and will not alter the essential character of the general vicinity. Additionally, it looks at an intentional circumnavigation of the site. So the requested variance arises from a special circumstance of the site that is not generally applied to land in the general vicinity. The specific application has provisions that are associated with a restriction of the site, the uniqueness of the site, or there are some circumstances that the restrictions make the site unusable. So those are the things that you would have to think about as you're going through your variance request here. so within their variance requests they're looking at the current parking parking regulations uh the current regulations for group residential within the infill and redevelopment are 0.9 spaces per bed or 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit the reductions for developments in the infill and redevelopment area include bike racks up to five percent for those lots that have greater than 50 spaces which this application has and then another 10 for a transit stop that is covered within 300 feet of the site itself this is right along the frontage so the applicant is also hitting that that gives you a total of 15 of a reduction or 58 i'm sorry it brings you down to 490 from what is required for the per unit count 577 to 490. now that is still well above what the applicant is seeking to place on this site within the infill and redevelopment area the applicant can also request or the planning commission can grant a request for a 50 reduction in the parking in the area however the the planning commission is supposed to look at how it connects to the surrounding areas where there are bus stops those kind of aspects of trying to connect pedestrians or multimodal transportation to destinations for those potential residents in this case the applicant is actually seeking to minimize or reduce the parking request to what is required for the per bed count that 387 or 0.9 spaces per bed so in reviewing this staff is recommending approval of the reduction in the in the parking in this area. The proposed variance for the property and the reduction in the parking utilizes the infill and redevelopment incentives that would give them down to a certain percent, but does not get to that certain level that they would like. Article 7-6B states that the Planning Commission may grant a variance up to that 50%. The applicant notes that with the visual photography of the area, there is not as much need for some of the parking. we can actually go back see some of these other pictures that we have and you can see some of the areas of empty parking midday that the applicant is showing that they don't quite need all of the parking for this request so additionally the bed count for this is 1.12 this is on the lower end of bed counts the applicant has shown that they are doing more studios in one bedrooms rather than two and three bedrooms that's specifically because of the shift in student wants and needs it's also a good indicator of what could be these apartments could be used for which are non-students those transitioning from a college student age into a young professional and that would give them the ability to move from this area into the downtown it's an advantageous location not just for students but also for those working in the downtown area finally the request is not a result of a willful violation of the zoning ordinance the applicant has taken care to go through the necessary process for this project and has requested the variance prior to commencing construction this recommendation is made approval of approval is made subject to the following conditions provided that the planning commission approves the requested zone change to the r5 zone the development shall be constructed in accordance with the final development plan all necessary permits shall be obtained from the division of planning traffic engineering engineering and building inspection prior to the construction and occupancy and action of the planning commission shall be noted on any development plan for the subject property going forward. If you have any questions on the variance I'd be happy to talk about this now. Questions for Mr. Bailey? Yes. Just one clarifying question. Yes sir. When you reduce from 491 to 387 does this have any impact on the number of handicapped spaces you have to have? It does not. Okay. Any other questions? If not, thank you sir. Applicant? Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Jacob Walburn on behalf of F2 Companies, who's the applicant in this case. I think you'll probably get tired of hearing my voice on the next case, so I'm going to constrain my remarks on this one, that we are in complete agreement with staff's recommendations and findings. To give you just a little bit of information on this process, I think staff would attest the development plan that you see in front of you today is wildly different from the initial submission, and that has come together through very hard work with staff, so I want to express my appreciation with staff for working with this applicant to come to an approvable development plan. A couple of notes just for your interest. I know the R5 zone is called the high-rise apartment zone. This is not a high-rise building. The request to R5 is really more of a function of FAR than it is building height. So that is what is driving the request to R5. I think Hal has done a good job of explaining the variance. My limited commentary would be that the 1.5 a bed calculation versus the point, excuse me, 1.5 a unit calculation versus the 0.9 a bed, we're actually meeting that 0.9 a bed standard without taking any of the reductions that we would be entitled to for transit stops or bike racks or anything like that but because we have a higher number of units relative to our bed count we're held to the per unit standard which in my opinion based on the existing condition in the area that you see would actually lead to over parking of the development which is of course something that the comprehensive plan explicitly discourages so with that i'd be happy to answer any questions matt carter of vision engineering is here with me as well to answer questions about the development plan but we would request your approval in line with what staff has suggested thank you mr wahlberg we do have a question mr penn yes sir this development plan is just for students not explicitly that is the that is the intent of the development but it is not we would rent to someone who's not a student i just wanted on record because we're going to grant a parking variance on the record thank you any other questions if not thank you mr. Walburn we always appreciate brevity in this situation thank you my best with the fact that there was no one in the audience no one else in the audience wishing to speak if there's no questions from the Commission does staff have anything else to add no okay I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among the Commission members and or motions as far as motions we would need if it all goes forward we need three one for the zone change one for the development plan and then one for the variance Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MAR 1914 for the reason provided by staff. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Forrester for approval of Plan MAR 19-14 F2 companies for the reasons provided by staff. vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes and now for the DP. Mr. Chairman I move for approval of PLN MJDP 1945 with the revised plan with revised recommendation from the staff on the pink sheet purple sheet whatever that is. Thank you. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Forrester for approval of plan MJDP 19-45 Haynes Brothers property with the 12 revised conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And now for the variance which is on page four of your agenda. Mr. Chairman I move for approval the variance requested for the zone change in the development plan. Thank you. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the requested variance in association with the Zone Change Plan MAR 19-14 F2 companies for the reasons provided by staff. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Now we will move back to our first item on the agenda, which starts on page two. It's Aptitude Development Zoning Mount Amendment in Lindhurst Subdivision Block 2, Plots 2-7, which is Plan MAR 19-13, Aptitude Development. do have revised staff recommendations that are before you as well as a development plan which we'll get to that's on a green sheet of paper. Mr. Bailey. So we are now shifting to PLN MAR 19-00013. This is the aptitude development. I will be hand right currently you have a stack of documents right in front of you, including some of the historic background of the property. This includes a memo from planning staff and a memo from the historic preservation staff, as well as a letter from the historic commission for LFUCG. I also have 87 letters of opposition, which I will hand out now. The applicant is seeking a zone change from a high-density apartment R4 zone to a downtown frame business B2A zone for 1.81 net and 2.274 gross acres for the properties located at 201, 207, 209, 211, 215, 221, 225, 227, 231 East Maxwell Street, as well as 245, 247, and 251 Stone Road. The applicant is seeking to develop a 10-story high-rise structure that would contain two floors of parking, 208 dwelling units, and associated resident amenities. The development includes a total of 235 parking spaces located internally on the first two floors. While the applicant has cited that the project would be targeted towards students, this development could be utilized by anybody in our community. Students are not a protected class in that sense. The Maxwell Street is a minor arterial roadway that provides southeastbound one-way traffic flow extending from Versailles Road to East High Street. The roadway experience is approximately 11,000 average daily trips. There are three local roads that border or intersect the subject properties. Lexington Road here on the west, Hagerman Court which intersects the property here in the center, and then Stone Avenue right here on the east. Both Stone and Hagerman Court are short roadways extending between High Street and East Maxwell Street. While designated as a local roadway the cross-section for Hagerman Court is substandard and has restricted parking on the west side of the street. Zooming in on the property itself, the subject property properties are located with an area that is primarily comprised of multi-family residential zoning R4 and R5 zones. The subject properties have been zoned high-density apartment R4 since before the 1969 comprehensive rezoning of the urban county the residential nature of the this portion of east maxwell street is primarily focused on student housing with a smaller population of longer term residents there is a small portion of professional office p1 zoning located across lexington avenue over in this location and then over here which includes parking for the surrounding uses as well as an office for a recording and video technologies company. This is Good Sam Hospital as well in this area. The majority of the properties located on the southwest side of East Maxwell Street are owned and operated by the University of Kentucky. As such, these properties are not subject to the zoning restrictions of LFUCG and are currently being operated as offices, classrooms, and research space. The two remaining properties are located on that side of East Maxwell are multifamily dwelling units. The property located at 200 East Maxwell Street is a 10-unit apartment complex, and the property located at 238 East Maxwell Street is a sorority house owned and operated by the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. There is also a nearby historic or H1 overlay zone however this property is not included in that overlay zone it's one block away over here the Aylesford neighborhood we'll discuss that here shortly there are areas of downtown business frame or the B2A zoning within proximity to the proposed rezoning along South Martin Luther King Boulevard here which includes residences multifamily primarily and then along Lexington here and Hagerman Court fronting on High Street. This portion of Lexington is within the original core of the urban county. As such, there is a tremendous history associated with the area. Here's the Sanborn fire and insurance map for the area, and you can see that the buildings are at the same location as they were originally laid out, except for the outbuildings out behind those areas. One property has been modified. This property in the back, you can see that there are two structures here. It has been subdivided since this map has been made. This portion of Lexington is also reflected in the Southeastern Lexington Residential and Commercial District, which was entered into the Federal Register on August 1st, 1984. The district lies south of Main Street and east of Limestone Street, is bound approximately by the rear portion lines of lexington avenue east maxwell street linden walk rose lane transylvania park and east high street the district recognized a total of 393 contributing structures and is primarily comprised of residential structures however within the district there are pockets of commercial areas including woodland triangle and portions of euclid avenue you can see the nomination form in the packet that you have right in front of you that includes the various different properties as well as the description of them. The Historic Preservation Office has also provided you with a color printout with some photos of those properties. Included in those are the descriptions that are actually pulled directly from the nomination form from the National Park Service. Over the course of time the uses within this area have modified. Businesses have shifted to residential use and residential uses have shifted professional office primarily but the physical layout of the area has remained relatively intact. The nomination form for the National Register also indicates three properties individually listed per a previous nomination recorded on July 21st 1983. These properties are located across the street from this proposed development and include 218, 226 and 232 East Maxwell Street and are currently under the ownership of the University of Kentucky. The nearest H1 overlay zone is the Aylesford Historic District and is located one block to the southeast of the subject properties. The Aylesford Historic District was established in 1998 and contains a large portion of the southeastern Lexington Residential and Commercial District. Those properties located within the Aylesford Historic District but not within the southeastern Lexington Residential and Commercial District are representative of the same architectural style and are of the same construction period described in the nomination form. Additionally, the South Hill Historic District is located nearby to the northwest of the proposed rezoning and is also protected by an H1 overlay zone. The historic attributes of the South Hill Historic Neighborhood differ in both form and context from those properties located within the Aylesford and Southern Lexington Residential and Commercial district. Here's the aerial photo of the subject properties. It gives you a better understanding of how the area has developed over time. You can see some of the newer structures that have been built over the past 10 to 15 years. It also gives you a good view of the much larger structures located on UK's campus and Good Sam over to the west of the subject properties, as well as those properties located along Martin Luther King. Moving to the street level of the subject properties, this can also give you a better understanding of how the area has developed over time. You can see some of the newer, I'm sorry, you can see some of the changes that have been made over time, specifically this structure right here has had a fair amount of modification since the establishment of the historic overlay, I'm sorry not the historic overlay, the historic district, the National Register District. This property in the lower right here is not within this zone change that's the fraternity house that's right on the corner of stone and east maxwell moving to the hagerman court this is the driveway that leads out to east maxwell street and then looking into the parking lot area behind the structures and the areas that are the rear of stone now moving on to stone avenue you can see the three different construction types and then looking down stone towards east maxwell up stone towards high street the applicant opines that they're in compliance with the adopted goals and objectives from the 2018 comprehensive plan they state that the proposed rezoning encourages the expansion of the housing choices by prioritizing a higher density residential development theme a goal 1b and c while also supporting infill and redevelopment that replaces an aging housing stock with modern safe and dense housing types theme a goal 2a b and c the applicant also indicates that they are seeking to provide a well-designed neighborhood theme a goal 3b by varying mobility patterns of potential residents and promoting alternative modes of transportation including pedestrian cycling and mass transit the proposed site is located near the lextran transit center and is also nearby a transit corridor the applicant has also indicated that they are working with lextran to review a possible stop at this location theme d goal 1a and c finally the the petitioner opines that by locating the development in a downtown area situated between the University of Kentucky's campus and the core of the city and by increasing opportunities for various mobility patterns, they are able to reduce Lexington-Urban County's carbon footprint, theme B, goal 2. Staff agrees with these aspects of the applicant's proposal and that these goals and objectives can be met. In the period following the subdivision and zoning committee meetings, the applicant met with staff to revise their development plan in order to address concerns described within the original staff report and the comments presented during the committee meetings. These concerns were primarily focused on the pedestrian nature of the area, activation of the frontage of the property, and the context of the development. With their revised materials, the applicant relieved many of the staff's concerns regarding the development criteria relating to the site design, building form, and location, transportation and pedestrian connectivity, and green space and environmental health. However, there were continued concerns for staff as to how the development integrated into the surrounding area. While the staff agrees with the applicant's assertion that the downtown place type is appropriate for this location, it is also important to recognize the localized context of the proposed development. The subject properties are located along the western edge of where the downtown and the second tier urban place types converge, which necessitates the restriction of some of those uses that would impact the neighborhood negatively or adversely. In an effort to reduce the impact of the proposed use and the development on the neighborhood and lessen the potential impacts caused by future redevelopment of the site, staff recommends the promotion of uses that are typical of a mixed-use walkable landscape. This necessitates the restriction of uses that are not conducive to a walkable environment, nor should abut neighborhoods. This includes establishments for the display, rental, or sale of automobiles, motorcycles, trucks not exceeding one and a half tons, and boats limited to runabout boats, passenger transportation terminals, wholesale establishments, minor automobile and truck repair, establishments primarily engaged in the sale of supplies and parts of vehicles and farm equipment, pawn shops, stadiums and exhibition halls, telephone exchanges, radio, and television studios cable television system signal distribution centers and studios adult entertainment establishments parking lots and structures not associated with a principal primary use automobile service stations retail sale of plant nursery or greenhouse products miniature golf or putting courses carnivals special events festivals or concert on concerts on temporary basis, rental of equipment whose rental sale would be permitted in other B1 zones, and drive-through facilities. Furthermore, the comprehensive plan states that new construction should be at an appropriate scale to respect the context of the neighborhood structures. However, along major corridors, it should set the future context in accordance with other Imagine Lexington corridor policies and place builder priorities. This is ADS 4-2 of your development criteria. The proposed structure is both situated along the edge of historic neighborhood and is located along an arterial roadway. Since the likelihood of any modification of the properties located along the southern portion of East Maxwell Street is very low, and the proposed development is situated along the east edge of the Aylesford neighborhood, it is important that the height of the development incrementally increase. The staff recommends that the portions of the proposed structure established along the East Maxwell Street frontage be limited to a maximum of 75 feet. In addition, any portion of the structure with frontage along Lexington Avenue shall be no taller than 50 feet, and any portion of the structure with frontage along Stone Avenue shall be no taller than 47 feet. The height of 75 feet is similar to other developments that have occurred in Lexington, which are located nearby historic neighborhoods and support similar uses. For new development located along established neighborhoods, urban design principles suggest the incremental growth of development can be tied to the width of the fronting roadway. We have discussed this over the past couple of work sessions. For properties within a residential context and located along an arterial or collector roadway, an incremental increase in height should allow for the structure 1.5 times that of the right-of-way width, or a ratio of 1 to 1.5. For properties within a residential context and located along local roadways, an incremental increase in height should allow for the structures equal to the right-of-way width, 1 to 1 ratio. These limitations along with the prohibition of certain land uses will ensure that the proposed development meets the comprehensive plan's goals, objectives, policies, and development criteria, while also appropriately increasing the intensity of structures. Finally, the staff recommendation is contingent upon the approval and certification of the major development plan that will be discussed by Mr. Martin here shortly. This concludes the zoning portion of the staff's presentation and if you have any questions on what I presented now I would be happy to answer. Questions for Mr. Bailey? Yes ma'am. Thank you. The change is to B to A of frame? Yes ma'am. So that B to A is specifically meant to kind of frame the outside of the core of our downtown area. It's supposed to incrementally decrease in the intensity and uses that are available to those who are seeking that zone. We just don't get that real often. The most recent one was a very small one, which was your Saunier Street over close to Broadway between 2nd and Short. That one sought the B2A zone to have a banquet facility. So to speak, downtown would be the picture, and this would be the next level, the frame. That's correct. Okay. Now the zoning is R4? Correct. And if someone wanted to develop this R4 now, how high would that building be? Try this again. It would depend on their ability to meet the requirements of the R4 zone. And that would involve them meeting setbacks, FAR, lock coverage, that sort of thing. We couldn't predict an exact height until we saw the plan and saw that they could meet all the requirements of the zone. So what Mr. Martin is saying is there's no maximum. The primary distinction between an R4 and R5 and the R3, R3 has an actual cap on the height. R4 and R5, you're really looking at your height to yard ratios. So that would set you in. And then as Mr. Martin was talking about with the layout on the site, there's a proportion of the site that can be covered. So those are the limiting factors of the R4 and the R5 zones. Thank you. Other questions? Yes. Mr. Nickel. All right, I have a question about place type, because I think it's important for neighbors to know or stakeholders in the community to understand what their place type is. And also reading through the packet that we received, there was some debate on what type of place this was. It looks like you concur, or excuse me, your decision was to call this as a downtown place type, as opposed to a second tier urban place type. staff is reliant on the applications justification for their choosing of a certain place type at that point staff reviews that and makes a recommendation whether we agree or we disagree with that place type in this location there there is a lot of discussion about whether it is a downtown or a second tier urban now a lot of what the comprehensive plan was especially with the place types is there are a lot of fuzzy areas there's not a clear delineation often of one thing or another so it is incumbent on the applicant as well as the staff to review the applicant's application and and judge how it is fitting into that context okay and it looks like talking about this gray area again you describe it as being on the western edge of where downtown and the second tier urban place types converge can you show me on the map kind of where this happens well we do not map the different place types this is meant to be more policy perspective but when staff was looking at this we were looking primarily at what we were seeing with the the downtown zoning as well as a fair amount of the types of developments that were occurring in this area you have a high amount of development that's occurring over on lexing or on limestone south limestone as it goes back those areas are within an h1 overlay and have been developed in accordance with that but there has been an increase in the density and the types of uses in that area as we move over towards this area once we get over towards high street working our way back staff agreed with the applicant's assertion that this should be a downtown place type as there has been an increase in the density of housing in this area that is targeted at providing housing between those working and living in the downtown area now when staff is talking about downtown that does not preclude purely residential structures we do have purely residential structures within a downtown context in this case staff agreed with the applicant that the downtown place type was appropriate for this location when we were talking about the bleeding over into the second tier urban we were really looking at this area over along with the historic neighborhood of ailsford that is an area that has established itself as purely residential for the most part with some pockets of that commercial activity and they are all kind of protected within that and also have set themselves up to maintain that edge of moving into a more residential neighborhood type so it acts almost as that um that apron around the downtown that residential apron okay thank you for that any other questions If not, thank you, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Martin? As mentioned, you do have a revised set of revised conditions on a green sheet of paper before you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that you see before you today is on page five of your agenda. And it is Major Development Plan 19-4. Sorry, that's Haynes. That's Angliana. Let me get back here to where I'm supposed to be. And it is on page three, item B. And we have handed out to you on the nice green and the revised conditions on this plan. And before I get started, I want to address a little housekeeping, which will help people in the community that attend these meetings and aren't always completely aware of how things progress through the system. And that is, as you all are well aware, the subdivision committee reviews these plans as if the zoning had already been granted and was in place, as well as your design review staff. We look at the plan to see if it will meet and function under the requested zone. So I just wanted to clear that up because, as you'll notice, that the plan that you see before you today, and this is just a color rendering. I want to be clear. This is a rendering to try to help you understand the layout on the plan. Your subdivision committee actually recommended approval of this plan that you see before you today. Now, the applicant's plan has a building in this location with an attached building, part of the building in this location as well. This is three stories, and this is the proposed ten-story location, and then this is three stories as well. Now, they are proposing a parking garage here, two-story parking garage with 235 spaces to serve the development. Access is here on Maxwell and then access at the rear that you can see in this location to the relocated Hagerman Court. It currently comes here, comes down to Maxwell. Well, they are proposing to relocate that to this, to Stone. And you can see this will be a one-way movement in this location. It will be a two-way movement into the building at that location. Now, of course, that's public right-of-way. It will have to be closed. This will have to be approved and constructed. And they will maintain this as a private access easement in this location. The right-of-way will terminate in this area. They are proposing 208 units. Their total lot coverage is 54,873 square feet. And that is the footprint of the building. That's lot coverage, and I know you all are aware of that. The FAR, and this goes to your question, Ms. Plumlee, the requested zone has no FAR, floor area ratio requirements. and that's why it helps and benefits a developer who needs more floor area, which again often is expressed through height. And in this particular instance, with the plan that you see before you today, they are still proposing 10 stories, 122 feet in height at the highest level. Now, the square footage includes over 260,000, almost 261,000 of residential space. They have some amenities, about 11,800 square feet of amenities, primarily proposed in this area. You can see some open space here, and all along the frontage, they are proposing a setback here, and then again adjacent to stone. This is some open space that they're providing, and this is kind of a public park, and they're referring to this as a public amenity. It's private. I mean, they are going to own this, should it be approved, and it's open space. it's available not only for the residential use, but also it would be available to the public. Now, here, and I know this is green, and that's because staff dictates the colors on these plans. Open space is shown as green. This is a deck area, a 15,000-square-foot open space area. Now, I want to clarify something because I understand there may be some confusion and people look at a color. green space can be open space but open space isn't necessarily green space it can be balconies it can be a deck it can be the swimming pool you just saw on angliana it's because it's intended to be usable open space for the residents of the development that's what the ordinance requires that's what they're trying to demonstrate is compliance with those requirements so that's that's the intent of open space and again it I'll say it it's not necessarily green space it's usable open space for the residents of the development so there were several issues as you all are well aware with the orientation to the street the activation various amenities that are desirable from staff and even the applicant's perspective in this area particularly. And again, this is an infill and redevelopment plan, and they're going to have to comply with Article 15-17, just like the previous development that will be addressing street orientation, access, architectural features as well in the infill and redevelopment. And that's heavily focused on the primary wall planes of a development. and again these these areas in here your primary wall planes as well as this area anything that fronts on the right of way is defined as your primary wall plane i believe i've covered the basics in terms of square footage the amenity the parking spaces Again, the FAR is 3.39. It greatly exceeds what would be allowable in the R5, as an example. So with that, I will point out that your subdivision committee, again, recommended approval of a plan. Staff is recommending approval of this revised plan, denoting that they will have to comply with the infill and redevelopment, that we will have to determine the closure of Hagerman Court at the time of the final development plan. I will say once again, this is a preliminary plan. There will be no permits. Nothing can be constructed. There will be another plan, if this is approved, come before this body for approval that can be built off of. And so there are some issues that will have to be dealt with at that time. That also includes that streetscape will be resolved. There are a lot of concerns about traffic and parking and speed in this area, and traffic engineering took a hard look at this, and they've agreed to do a bump out and do some improvements in this area and restrict parking. There's a pullover here that people will be able to utilize to access the building and the area and get them off of Maxwell Street. So there will be bike lane and sidewalk and those types of improvements that will be provided along Maxwell Street. In addition, you can see that staff is recommending that this plan, should it be approved, comply with the conditional restrictions, zoning restrictions that have been recommended in your zoning report. And that would also include the reduction in the height that has been recommended. And with that, I will answer any questions you may have about the plan. Questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, sir. This is, I guess, a question about procedure. What you just said is that the staff recommends approval with the revised condition 7 that will say denote the height of the building in feet for both structures per Article 21 of the zoning ordinance. And that's referring us back to the staff's recommendation of approval with the conditional zoning be maximum height of any structure. Well, actually, we are saying they need to. that this plan will need to comply if it's approved with the conditional zoning. That will include the height. What you're referring to there, Article 7, or Condition 7, is that the ordinance requires that they tell the Planning Commission how tall their building is, regardless of the zone it's in. It's an Article 21 requirement. That's all we're telling them. Okay, they haven't met that requirement that there's no heights on this? Well, it's not. They've missed one of the structures. We've got the height on the 10-story. What is the height on the 10-story? 122 feet. We literally ask for it in feet. Quite often, they bring a plan in. They go, what's three stories? It's two stories. Well, that can vary. So your ordinance requires a specific height number. That's all it is. It's a cleanup condition. Okay. Can you point out the heights on this DP for me? Pardon me? Can you point the heights out to me that are shown on the development plan? Primarily it's this area at 122 feet. This is three stories, and this is too. So all we're saying is exactly how many feet are your three stories. You may have heard me say that one of the tallest three-story buildings in the country is in Paris, Kentucky. It's only three stories, but it's one of the tallest. Other questions? Mr. Martin, if you would, and it kind of goes back to, I think, what Mr. Nickel was asking about as well. Your last statement was in regards to condition 11 as far as denoting conditional zoning restrictions. Can you clarify that a little bit more as to the process looking going forward if this thing does go forward? If this thing goes forward. What do we have to do? Yes, sir. If it's approved by this body today, subject to the conditional zoning requirements, this plan will have to reflect those. So they will have to change this plan to reflect the conditions that you placed on it. That's very simple. They will have to do that. And then when it comes back to you, as a final development plan, it will be meeting those same conditions. Okay. Thank you, sir. Other questions? If not, thank you. applicant mr. Woburn good afternoon sir good afternoon again mr. chair members of the Commission Jacob Woburn today on behalf of aptitude development take a moment to introduce some folks that are here with me Jared Hutter and Brian Rosen have flown in today from aptitude development they're seated over here to my right as is John Abish who is with BSB design he is our architect and Aaron Hathaway and John Henney of Gresham Smith who have been involved in our development plan. I have a couple of items I have to take care of for the record before we begin. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation that I'm about to give. A copy of two studies that I reference in that presentation. And also, Mr. Chair, I would ask that you place in the record the letter that I hand-delivered to you this morning, or prior to the initiation of this hearing, regarding our request that one of the commissioners recuse themselves, which I understand is not going to occur, but would like that placed in the record. Staff did a good job of outlining the request, and so I will try to stick to the point that we have a particular issue on. We are in what I would call largely in agreement with staff. The only thing that we cannot abide by is the 75-foot height restriction that has been proposed along maxwell this is a 1.1 acre site and to address a question that miss plumley asked a little bit ago if it were r4 or even r5 that is a function of height to yard ratio so if you have a 10 foot yard you could have a 20 foot building if you had a 30 foot yard you could have a 60 foot building the as a practical limitation that would be impossible on the site because of parking requirements but that's the general rule of thumb where this is is kind of a long narrow site you would not be able to get a particularly tall building on the site under existing zoning. I want to tell you a little bit about my client. I've actually sold them short a little bit here. They're out of Elmwood Park, New Jersey. Sold them short because I neglected to include a project that they're involved in in Arkansas that we were discussing over lunch but have active projects in New York, South Carolina and are actually getting close to being under opening a facility in Louisville. More than a billion dollars in development and transaction since their founding. I feel like I need to clarify based on today's newspaper who they are not. They are not the current owners of the properties that are the subject of this application. They have an option to purchase those properties but are not the owner of those properties. This has been a very long road. We actually first approached staff with this application on June 28th, what I affectionately call a pre-pre-app meeting where we come in and discuss what we have in mind and kind of get staff's off-the-cuff feelings. I use that as a trial balloon. I do it in almost every case that I file. If I go in and staff laughs me out of the room that's usually a pretty good indication of where their report's going to come out. If they encourage me or give me guidance that I can take back to the client and see if it's workable then we tend to proceed with them. They're over here chuckling and it's because I do bring in some absurd ones from time to time but hey everything's worth a shot. I was encouraged to proceed with this application. Running through a number of dates the one that is relevant that I would point out is we actually received the amended staff report on this case on September 24th that email actually checked this morning came in at 6.03 about 43 hours before the hearing it wasn't until September 24th in this process that we were told that there was any height restriction being entertained at all so I'll touch on that a couple of times, but we were truly taken aback by that recommendation because it had not been discussed with us at any point prior to that, including the multiple meetings we'd had with staff. Since we got that report, we haven't stopped working. We've actually met with staff again. We've met with the neighborhood again, have tried to come up with the best plan that we possibly can to proceed. Staff's done a good job of laying out about why our proposal is in agreement with the comp plan. They've read the theme, so I'm not going to dwell on this other than to say that I do believe we are in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan, as has been detailed by staff. What I imagine you're going to hear a lot today is about place builder and place type. In fact, you've already asked a question about the downtown place type. So, yes, we did select downtown. Why did we select downtown? Well, first of all, we considered what are anecdotally the borders of downtown and what does the zoning pattern show us in the area about where the limits of downtown are or are heading two what's the recent development pattern in the area what are we seeing going on and number three looking to the place builder document itself it actually encourages a and maybe to address directly mr nichols question place type isn't static in fact I think under a place builder, it encourages evolution of place types as we grow as a community. And so it says not only you can recognize what you think it is, or you can attempt to set the context for future development. We believe that this is setting the context along Maxwell, though there certainly is support for the downtown place type, as I'll show you now. Anecdotally, we've always heard that the downtown area is roughly bordered by Third Street, Midland, Maxwell, and Newtown or the Oliver Lewis extension. That was first explained to me actually by Bill Salee and Chris King on an application I brought in as one of the first ones I worked on about where B2, B2A, and B2B zoning might be permitted and I was informed of that. There is no official document that says that. I'm not saying that's an official policy of planning but anecdotally I've always been told that's what's that's the downtown place type. It is outlined in red on your screen up here, those streets that I just read out. The pink zoning you see in the middle, those are all B2 zoning. So you can see that that, I think it looks kind of like a boat. The boat is largely pink, and that's because that's the downtown area. If we look at the zoning pattern in the immediate area, you see B2B over here. That's actually the convention center, but it's convention center zone, but it's very similar to the B2A zone. outright B2 zoning over here this is B2A that actually runs all the way up Martin Luther King to within 225 feet of our project site so there is B2A zoning in the area within 225 feet of the site where else could I look for this this is a map that was created by the urban county government when they were soliciting bids for their new government center where they defined downtown you'll notice that our site is included and be right in this area of what the urban county government deemed an appropriate downtown location for their government center. So all of those factors kind of coming together, including a conversation with staff about place type and what would be an appropriate selection for what we were proposing, informed our selection of downtown place type. If you look at some of the nearby structures, this is taken 332 feet from our project site. It's a Google Maps print off, but it is showing the very large Good Samaritan structure and actually the fairly large, I think it's a four-story structure, next door to it, again, 330 feet from our project site. And again, I like to compare what we've done in other cases to inform what we should do in other ones. We are a nine-minute walk from a development that literally calls itself City Center. We're less than a third of a mile in a direct measurement from City Center development, which I think we'd have to consider the center of downtown. or we shouldn't let them call themselves city center. You're going to hear a lot about second tier urban. Why did we pick downtown? Why did we not pick second tier urban? Well, I've tried to explain the reasons why that is so, but let's just go ahead and get to the point. This is maybe a little hard to read on your screen, but it specifically notes in the second tier urban description that high rise opportunities are not precluded, provided that context sensitive connections are attempted to be made. and would note that the high-density residential type of development is included as an acceptable development type in the second-tier urban. And in fact, I think if you look at the intent of the B2A zone and then compare it to the second-tier urban description, you'll see that they read almost identically. The idea behind second-tier urban is to frame the downtown. The idea of B2A zoning is to frame the urban core. So whether we call it downtown or second tier urban, this is a contemplated development type in either place type. In fact, if we look at the visual things that accompany the high density residential place type, I think you'll see the three examples here are all structures that are taller than what the applicant is proposing here. Again, that was deemed an appropriate type of development for the second tier urban place type. So no matter what we call it, we would submit that this is an appropriate development for this site. Now, there was a qualifier on both the second-tier urban and just the development standards of the place builder, and that is it needs to basically integrate with its existing neighborhood. We have to address the context. And so this applicant did take steps to try to address that context by providing step-down structures on either end, closest to the neighborhoods that are more in line with what you see there. We're trying to establish a new context along Maxwell, but we're not necessarily looking to make that same step forward on Lexington or Stone. The buildings that front Lexington and Stone are smaller structures. We provided a great deal of public open space. If you take a close look at our development plan, where we have actually labeled those development criteria in the place builder about the various ways that we have attempted to address the context of the neighborhood. That includes improving pedestrian facilities, provision of that public, I like the way Tom described it, we'll still own it, but it is a public park. We're calling it a pocket park adjacent to the neighborhood along Stone. We had a number of meetings, both with the neighborhood and with staff, and I want to walk through just briefly some of the things that have evolved on this plan that was done in response to staff and neighborhood concerns. This site plan was reconfigured to remove the need for any variances. The original plan actually was going to require a few minor variances. This site plan fully complies with the B2A standards without necessitating any deviation from those standards as are written in the zoning ordinance. Tom mentioned that we have redesigned or offered to do a bump out along Maxwell Street per the request of traffic engineering to deal with some traffic and parking issues that they've been experiencing in the area. We provided a space for loading, unloading, Uber lift use. Obviously, this is something that we're going to need to be looking at in all of our developments moving forward because food delivery and ride sharing services are going to continue to be a part of our urban landscape. We designated public art easements along the primary pedestrian entrances to assist with pedestrian activation and per a discussion that we had with staff. We included pedestrian safety system signage to avoid traffic and pedestrian conflicts along the garage entrances and exits. We provided architectural renderings per staff's request to show our compliance with place builder criteria and the multifamily design standards. In fact, and you'll see them here in a minute, got pretty evolved in those documents and renderings that we brought forward. have agreed to provide bicycle storage for those we think maybe the number one amenity of this site is its walkability and bike ability you can get to pretty much any area of downtown pretty much any area of the university of kentucky on a bike or by walking and so we will provision appropriate bike storage we provided a narrative actually the architect assisted me in preparing a narrative to show our compliance with the multifamily design standards. That's Appendix A of your comprehensive plan. To demonstrate our intent to comply with all of the standards of the multifamily design standards that are applicable to our development. And I've met with staff until I'm blue in the face. We've met with the neighborhood on two occasions. We have solicited and attempted to constructively use the feedback that we have received. These are those renderings I was talking about. This is the first one we did. Obviously, it's a little bit of a rougher sketch, but it gives you an idea of what the entirety of the proposed development would look like. Staff informed us that that didn't give them enough information that they needed to see it from the back, so we did it from the back. After that, staff said that they would really like a little closer look at the more refined look at the pedestrian facilities and street activation, so we did that as well provided them with both a view from maxwell and then this is the rear of the structure kind of more developed renderings of our intent regarding construction and design of this facility again those were done at staff's request so you may be asking okay that's all great but do we really need this much density well yes for a number of reasons yes for policy and community reasons that you all have ratified in your comprehensive plan. Imagine Lexington, you can describe it a number of ways, but you cannot argue that it does not call for dramatic increases in density to accommodate the housing need that we have in this community, particularly along our significant corridors. Lexington is not meeting its housing obligations right now. We are not producing enough inventory to accommodate for our expected growth. And campus housing has actually been in the news. UK had to go out and sublease several private facilities to account for the students that were unable to stay in the dormitories because they did not have enough space. But most importantly, and what I'm going to focus on, if you legitimately expect redevelopment, infill redevelopment, that dramatically increases density, particularly in the higher value areas of our community, you have to let these developers have appropriate density or they're not going to be able to afford it. and i'm going to walk through exactly why that's so why did we pick this place a lot of people said well we don't mind redevelopment but why don't you use one of uk's parking lots uk's parking lots are not for sale these properties are available it's extremely difficult to assemble particularly in this older area of the community where there's been numerous subdivisions over years to compile enough property to have a viable development is extremely difficult these properties are contiguous and they are available that is one primary reason why this site was was selected. The existing inventory there is substandard. You were handed some photographs, but this is the code enforcement file for the properties that are subject of this application. 614 pages of code enforcement violations. Not forever, since 1-1-2016. In just shy of four years, they've compiled 614 pages worth of code enforcement liens. These properties are not in good repair they may once have been a very great contributing element to our community they are literally falling apart the other areas for growth are extremely limited h1 overlays obviously greatly constrict the kind of development that you can do this is in between two h1s south hill on one side ailsford on the other as how mentioned in his remarks we're practically limited by the what I'll call the northern edge of UK. I don't know that I necessarily agree that UK won't ever redevelop. I think as our education system evolves, you may see some changes in how UK decides to use its land and facilities, but I would concede that that's not likely to happen anytime soon. And from a marketing perspective, this can serve multiple populations. Yes, the intended market for this is students because of its proximity to the University of Kentucky, but it's not limited to that and this is extremely walkable to our urban core a number of our major employers certainly could be served by public transit the transit center is a block away and we have been engaged in conversations with lextran regarding provision of service at this location this is a significant investment in our community this is an extremely expensive project now planning staff does not typically entertain any evidence in fact we offered to provide it and and they declined to receive it, financial evidence of why this kind of density was needed. But you're allowed to hear it, so let me tell you what I've discovered. One of the studies I submitted was a report from Fannie Mae. They do a multifamily market commentary every month. This one has a little bit of age on it. It's from March 2017. They looked at the increasing costs in multifamily development. What they discovered to me was truly remarkable. We're averaging about, right there it is, $233 a square foot for higher-rise structures in construction. That's hard and soft costs for buildings of 8 to 24 stories. Now, that's a national average. That's not necessarily indicative of what's going on in Lexington. But they did note, and again, this was two and a half years ago, that costs had dramatically increased over the preceding three-year period. if we look at the land cost here the pva value of these parcels alone is 3.28 million dollars it's just shy of 3.3 million dollars actually now it probably will not surprise you to learn that you cannot buy these parcels for their pva value but the land cost in this area is extreme 3.3 million dollars for less than two net acres that's an incredibly high cost There's construction costs as I went over. The National Building Cost Manual noted that while Kentucky is 4% below the national average for construction costs, Lexington is actually 1% above the national average in construction costs. And the national average likely has increased beyond that 233 per square foot number because of the age on that. that and infill is expensive as you know you have to relocate sewers easements utilities there's demo costs that you don't have when you're in greenfield or first time development so all of these things are considerations to making infill work financially density is needed to support the dramatic land cost here the construction cost and certainly the infill expense now maybe most relevant is i think there is a heavy emphasis in the comprehensive plan about provisioning parking in a structure form integrating parking into your development particularly in our higher density uses this is a report from wgi they're an engineering company that inventories the average cost per space for parking structures the national average as of 23rd 23 may 2019 was 21 500 per space for structured parking. Interestingly, this did not fan out the way I thought it would. You would assume California is the most expensive. It's not. New York is. That may not be completely stunning. I did find it interesting that Miami was actually the cheapest city, but 21,500 is the national average. I know that Richmond, Virginia is considered to be one of our peer cities, so if you want to use their numbers it was 19,100 a space. So 214 spaces is roughly what we're providing I'll go over why but that it's how that number could vary a little bit but if you multiply that by the national average it's four and a half million dollars actually 4.6 million dollars to build the garage that would be required to provide 214 spaces and you say okay well if you reduce the building you don't have to provide as much parking. Unfortunately expenses don't reduce on a one-to-one basis. The first space is by far the most expensive. The more you build the cheaper it gets. 60 to 70 percent of the expense of a parking structures actually in its structural system. The structural system would have to support a building on top of it so it's certainly going to be very expensive. Parking costs are actually exceeding at a rate exceeding in full or increasing at a rate exceeding inflation 5.1% increase in the last year and those cost estimates are based off your extremely bare-bone garage this is not a bare-bones garage you saw the rendering it's not open it would have to be ventilated there are other requirements that would have to be done our cost is actually going to be much higher than that national average so let's turn to the issue we have with staff 75 feet i was a little surprised to see this number one i'm not aware of the standard having been applied on any other development before i inquired to the same the same of staff they confirmed that they're not aware of that standard having been applied on other developments in lexington so it's not something that we could have anticipated it's not a standard that's mentioned in the comprehensive plan so again it's not a standard that we could have anticipated and it's a practical limitation of six stories which unfortunately means that this project would not be financially viable. If you adopt what staff has recommended, this project cannot proceed. It simply does not have enough density to support the financial investment that would be required. The neighborhood, when we initially met with them, suggested that we reduce our building to four stories. Now this is some lawyer math, so it's not engineer math, but this is just my rough estimation of what we'd lose here. 72% reduction in density if we went to a four-story building, 48% reduction if we went to a six-story building, basically cutting the development in half. And unfortunately, costs don't decrease at that same rate. The land cost doesn't change regardless of how tall a building we build. The infill expenses don't change regardless of how tall a building you build. And the construction costs don't decrease on a one-to-one basis. The lower stories are, there does come a point when you can move from wood to steel construction this would obviously be a steel building where there's a significant price jump but generally it is cheaper to go higher because you've already made the required investments below that's not to say we didn't take seriously that concern we sharpened our pencils and this is a plan that staff does not have but it is a plan that we could build it is eight stories tall it is quite a bit different than the plan that you that mr martin walked you through i've put on the side over here these are massing studies we did not go to the expense of doing full renderings but primarily the difference to make up for that loss of density from losing two floors as you all are aware the fire code requires a window to be in each dwelling unit you get a donut shape in the middle what are the differences between those plans we lose about 7 700 square feet of space we lose 21 parking spaces we're going to lose about 2200 feet of our public and private open space and we're going to lose about 46 units but that is still at a level that is sufficient financially that this project could proceed so if you just cannot wrap your head around ten stories which I think you should be able to I think it is in complete agreement with what our comprehensive plan calls for don't limit us to six because that will stop the development we can do eight eight stories is viable for us we cannot go any lower than that to compare the massing studies I think you'll see there's not a whole lot of difference in the eight and the ten-story building but bottom line for us the ten-story plan is a better plan it's better all the way around it's more attractive building it's functionally better building we think the ten-story plan meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan the design criteria the place builder we think it is absolutely approvable as it is submitted but if you were inclined to limit the height we'd ask you to limit it to eight stories which would allow this project to actually proceed. Six stories is simply not a viable, 75 feet to us is six stories. It would not be viable at six stories. So with that, I did want to let Mr. Abish, our architect, address you briefly about some of the design decisions that were made in this. He has a very brief statement to give to you, and other than that, we'd be happy to entertain your questions. I know you're going to have a significant amount of neighborhood input, so obviously want to hold on to some time to address the numerous concerns that we're sure to hear there. But if you would indulge me for just a moment and let Mr. Abish join me at the podium. Thank you, Mr. Robert. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. My name is John Abish from BSB Design, representing Appetite Development. The design of this project aligns with the traditional architectural style seen in Lexington, Kentucky. It respects and encourages the pedestrian-friendly street frontage. The scale also reflects and respects the neighboring buildings by stepping down to their height at the street level. The scale also addresses the major corridor along Maxwell as we move forward with development in this area. It is a scale suitable for this corridor. The massing also provides significant relief in the taller masses with exterior elevated courtyard for a more sensitive design direction. The design reflects the setbacks needed to really break up the massing along Maxwell. From the naked eye as a pedestrian along Maxwell, most of that facade is two stories because of the parking. So most of that facade along Maxwell, you'll see two stories with an elevated courtyard above. This university is a tier one school that students will continue to target for the best educational experience. And we want this development to provide housing at that same caliber. It also helps to reframe and strengthen the pedestrian level experience, creating a safer environment for this corner with less open and dark parking areas around there. Currently, there's a lot of open parking areas that are very dark at night that do not really seem safe. This development will provide access-controlled parking at the ground level and an enriched residential experience both at ground level and levels above. This design will meet the requirements of the high-density residential downtown development criteria as well as the multifamily design standards. Thank you. Thank you sir. If you have any questions about architecture I could sit here and stumble through it but I think John would be a better advocate or better a voice on that. Aaron and John from Gresham Smith here to answer any questions you might have about the 10 or the 8 story site plan and then representatives of the developer here as well for other questions you might have. but my humble request is if we're serious about infill you have to be able to make it work financially you can't restrict and you can't restrict density in this area based on the finances if you limit it to six stories it's just financially never going to work that's not just us that's for anybody you're preserving 614 pages of code enforcement if you turn us down today that's what you're hanging on to and that's what I'd ask you to consider but with that be happy to answer any questions that you might have Thank you, Mr. Walburn. I think we do have a couple of questions. Mr. Nickel? Yes, I've got a more technical question. I'm just going to address it to you and see if you can help me out. In my mind, after studying this, it comes down to height and it comes down to, or excuse me, in my mind, it comes down to height and the staff's recommendation to limit the height with conditional zoning. They cited a design principle that says a ratio between the height and the right-of-way width. So they're recommending a 1.1, so a one-to-one ratio of right-of-way and building height. Can you point out to me on the development plan or any information you have showing me the right-of-way on Maxwell, Lexington, and Stone? I don't necessarily have that in front of me. It would be reflected on our development plan, the different reviews. And it's not my job to speak for staff, but I think they actually applied two different standards, one that was a one-to-one and one that was a one-and-a-half-to-one at a different location. So I might defend that. That's correct. Within the collector arterial roadway, we were suggesting a ratio of one-to-1.5, which is the width of Maxwell currently is 50 feet. That's why we were getting to the 75-foot height. And then for Stone and for Lexington, it was one-to-one. So it was a height for Lexington of 50 feet and then a height for Stone of 47 feet. Okay, that did answer my question. Thank you. A couple other questions, Mr. Bell? Yes. Mr. Wahlberg, if John could come back up, please. And if you can go back to some of your drawings. I want to see the back portion. I think there was a drawing which showed the back portion, potentially. And, John, if you could just describe some of that. You showed the facade or whatever on Maxwell, but just more around the building, if you would. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. There was one that just showed a little boxy. So this is the rear elevation. We show recesses along the back to break up the elevation as best as we can. There's two levels of parking along that rear side as well, and eight stories of residential above but we do break that up especially the center of that rear elevation to pull back and and and just pull back from that residential residential area behind it along lexington i believe that's lexington right there and stones on the other side along lexington we bring it back down to three stories to really match what's going on next to that level and it ties in very well with that roof terrace so it's very engaging in that corner we really want to create corners on both ends at the corner of Maxwell and Lexington to really engage the corner and bring some liveliness to it. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Yes I need a little bit of clarification I'm going back to some points that Mr. Nichols was saying the staff is suggesting that their conditional uses of 75 feet you said eight stories would be the economical viable part how many feet is that eight stories we estimated it at 96 between 96 and 100. 96 to 96 to 100. so this is actually and just so you can all have complete information this is kind of a quirky thing in the zoning ordinance a number of zones have a foot height limit b2a does not it has a story height limit so we are permitted 10 stories in this zone and that's the plan we prefer to build we have equated that number so we can give you something else if you're inclined to put a number on it but it's one we can still live with but this zone doesn't typically call out by footage it's called out by story so just to be clear on that okay the the 10 story was 122 feet that's correct that's to the middle of the parapet but 122 yes so so let me just cut to the chase here if the staff is saying that yeah we can approve this but it would only be at 75 feet and you're saying you can't do any more of those eight stories is this a deal breaker altogether yes so the bottom line is we may not have a lot to discuss here the project isn't viable at six stories one of the quick one of the quick questions please yeah one of the quick questions is the code violations that you pointed out here are those code violations in effect now or have they been addressed Many of them remain in effect. Some of them have been addressed. In fairness, a number of them are what I call rubbish citations. They've left their beer cans and stuff outside that. Some of them are structural violations. I believe two of the properties have actively been condemned. So it really runs the gamut from what I would consider somewhat trivial code issues to extremely serious condemnation-worthy code issues. Thank you. One quick question, Mr. Chair, if I could. Were you the staff available? Have you all been apprised of this new development proposal of going from 10 feet to 8? The applicant had discussed it at one point, but we hadn't seen a development plan that they have shown here today. So this is the first you've heard of this as well? The first that we have seen a development plan associated with this. Oh, okay. Thank you. It's certainly the first time they've seen the plan. An 8-story option was explicitly discussed with staff previously. Other questions? If not, let me ask real quick, anyone in the audience wish to speak in favor of this plan? I'm going to take that and then we'll take a brief recess. Please come forward, sir. Your name and address? And I should say, citizen comments are limited to three minutes. Blake Hall, 36 Richmond Avenue. I'm here to voice my support for the project. As you've heard from me before, I prefer urban. I would like to see Lexington develop in a more urban way, less car-centric. And I think it's completely understandable that the builder would want a different zone because the supposed high density apartment zone with its setback requirements, its FAR requirements, and its required parking doesn't actually allow high density in an urban context. In the previous plan that was shown, you saw the five buildings with their sea of parking. Nobody wants that on Maxwell. And that goes to show how these requirements can, Death by a thousand cuts, good, relatively good development. Like the applicant said, the B2A makes sense with, there's even one further out from Main Street on Broadway, that's B2A. Keeping it at R4 would just force a smaller building with much more parking, which isn't financially viable. And which makes no sense for a location that's less than a block from hospital campus and a short walk to not one but two grocery stores it's the exact kind of place we want to see density it may it lowers our car dependence as for the size and surrounding context I think it's perfectly acceptable for a larger building to go here again it's not even a block away from seven-story Hospital and Memorial Coliseum and around the corner on Lexington Avenue there's already two larger but like wider but squatter apartment buildings neighborhoods grow and change and we have to allow them to i will temper my support and say that i don't really care for the ground floor parking as it doesn't make for the most attractive streetscape and would like to see it addressed if possible something more than just public art and street trees as that's just lipstick on a pig even so i realize that we have a housing shortage and this is the perfect place to put more housing especially student housing with its proximity to campus downtown groceries and other amenities this project pushes lexington towards less car dependency and i urge you to allow this zone change thank you mr hall um so at this point we're going to take just a brief recess and then we'll resume thank you Thank you. I'll resume now. Mr. Walburn, one question for you that I failed to ask. I understand your concern as to the height that the staff is asking for. are your feelings on the conditional use restrictions the various use restrictions are are you okay with those or not yes sir the i was just discussing that issue with mr duncan and just so everyone is clear the only part of the staff recommendation that the applicant objects to is the height restriction along maxwell everything else can stay as is and i think that those findings are written in such a way that you could omit that commissional zoning restriction but still adopt everything else that staff has said and they would be legally sufficient but no no objection to the use restrictions simply limited to that high long maxwell okay thank you sir you're welcome now we'll move to those uh that are in opposition we do have several i think we do have legal representation and we will let the legal go first and others would have three minutes after that we do want to hear from everyone we just simply ask well I would let you know we've got to be out of here 530 I believe so we do have time restrictions here so we do need to keep this thing moving so yes ma'am please come forward yes as a preliminary matter I just wanted to make sure I'm dealing with 30 minutes i've been informed okay just making sure there good afternoon chair and members of the planning commission my name is jessica winters and i'm here today on behalf of my client the ailsford place neighborhood association i'll refer to them as apna to voice their opposition to pln mar 19-00013 aptitude development apna opposes the zone change proposed by aptitude from R4, which is high density apartment, to B2A, which is downtown frame business, for the property located along Maxwell Street and Stone Street. APNA further holds the position that the design proposed by aptitude is not consistent with the Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Development Plan criteria. Additional detail regarding APNA's objection is set forth in the position statement, which is included in your packets. So before you, you have a packet that contains copies of the PowerPoint slides, followed by the opposition statement of the neighborhood, and more than 60 letters in opposition from area residents. I know you've also been provided with another stack of 87. I don't know if those are in addition to the ones that are in this packet. These should likewise be made a part of the record. The packets discuss in detail the neighborhood's interactions with the applicant and the applicant's minimal efforts to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the neighborhood. I'm not going to go into that here today. I would like to instead focus on the comprehensive plan and the neighborhood's position about how the suggested rezone and the development plan do not fit with the comprehensive plan. I'll leave it to you to review the facts set forth in the position statement regarding our interactions with the applicant. I also wanted to note that among the opposition letters that are in the packet, we have opposition from Fayette County Neighborhood Council, the Transylvania Park Neighborhood Association, the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association, the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association, and Historic Preservation Offices, to name a few. the APNA has worked to maintain the character of the historic Aylsford Place neighborhood while supporting responsible infill development to maintain the livability and character of the neighborhood while Aylsford's first homes date to the early 1800s most residential and commercial development occurred between 1880 and 1930 today Aylsford is one of Lexington's most complete walkable neighborhoods. APNA has long been committed to preserving the tree canopy in the neighborhood and promoting pedestrian activation and alternative modes of transportation. APNA has planted nearly 100 street trees in their neighborhood, including many along the Maxwell Street corridor. They have worked with LFUCG in procuring a federal transportation grant to replace curbs, widen sidewalks, and install bike lanes on East Maxwell Street, and APNA has put several thousand dollars to that project. Other neighborhood improvements that APNA has been actively involved with include the garden bus stop on Euclid Avenue and the redesign and plantings at the Woodland Triangle. APNA does not haphazardly oppose zone changes. They recognize that a viable neighborhood evolves over time. In 2013, APNA did not oppose Kroger's Euclid Avenue zone request. Instead, residents met with Kroger's development team and engaged in a collaborative dialogue that resulted in true compromises. Around 2014, a zone change application was filed seeking to change a professional office zone to a neighborhood business zone for property located at the northwest corner of Euclid and Marquee Avenues. Again, APNA did not oppose the zone change. Located between downtown and UK campus, APNA is comprised of mixed-use properties and diverse housing and partially contains two of the densest census tracts in the Lexington-Fayette urban area. Two of the densest urban tracts. As you can see from this slide, the yellow line boundary is the boundary of the APNA, the pink line is the H1 zone overlay boundary, and the red line shows the location of the proposed development, which is well within the neighborhood and only one block from the H1 border. These next few slides will show the historic homes that will be demolished in connection with the current proposal. 8 of the 12 buildings are more than 100 years old. Two are more than 90 years old. The slides will also show the mature trees that will be lost and demonstrate that the streetscape in the area is uniformly residential along the proposed development site. These slides demonstrate that the same residential character of the corridor is present opposite the proposed development area. The buildings along this entire corridor are historic and residential. It should be noted that UK, although not bound by the same planning and zoning requirements, has chosen to respect the historic quality of this corridor. The right hand side of the street, directly across from the proposed development, is fronted by four historic homes that the university has chosen to renovate and utilize. These historic structures will remain, and they provide a permanent context for the corridor. In addition, the new UK construction in this corridor at the corner of Maxwell and Rose Streets has been situated a substantial distance from the roadway and is only two stories. The context provided by the right-hand side of the road along the area of the proposed development should not be ignored. These slides demonstrate the residential character of the area in question and demonstrate why the APNA strongly disagrees with planning staff and the applicant's designation of the proposed development area as a downtown place type. Imagine Lexington describes the downtown place type as, quote, the urban epicenter of commerce and entertainment. The core should be anchored by high-rise structures with activated ground levels. They are surrounded by mid-rise buildings that increasingly offer dense residential uses. A mix of uses and variety of transportation options should be prioritized, and parking should be addressed as a shared urban asset. While Mr. Walburn said that anecdotally, Maxwell Street has been considered the edge of the downtown core, I have always thought the opposite. Anecdotally, I have always been told and learned throughout reading various things that the border is on High Street, which is one block closer to downtown. This is, for instance, the border of the downtown development area. The description in Imagine Lexington for a downtown place type has to be contrasted with the description for second-tier urban. The second-tier urban is where significant and infill and redevelopment opportunities exist in order to complement the urban core. While not expected to be as intensely developed as the downtown core, high-rise opportunities are not precluded, provided that measures are taken to address the adjacent context. Furthermore, Imagine Lexington outlines a specific priority regarding second-tier urban for development. It must be, quote, in relation to the surrounding historic context. In looking at the current zoning map, it is clear that the proposed development area and the surrounding neighborhood are overwhelmingly zoned residential. There are only one or two B2A zoned properties anywhere nearby. The context and the visual narrative of the neighborhood are also residential and historic. The elements set out in the comprehensive plan and place builder that describe a second tier urban neighborhood fit the Ailesford Place neighborhood and the proposed development area like a glove. In fact, the image used in the place builder to depict a second tier urban neighborhood is taken from two blocks west of the proposed development. Here, the downtown place type for this area, adopted by the planning and the applicant to support the zone change, was selected without any input from the neighborhood, neighborhood which has always seen itself as a second-tier urban place type. A common-sense view of the neighborhood simply does not support a designation of the proposed development site as a downtown place type. Neither the applicant nor the planning staff has articulated any reason or need justifying the drastic change in place type. Walking down Maxwell Street one quickly realizes that the minor arterial roadway cannot and should not support developments of a scale similar to those placed along larger roadways such as Broadway with multiple lanes of traffic and significant infrastructure for cars and pedestrians. In fact the designation of the proposed development area as a downtown place type appears to have been arbitrary and not based on any evidence regarding the nature of the neighborhood as it currently exists. The place type designation is the most significant step of the process with regard to a requested zone change because the comprehensive plan makes it clear that the designation informs the conversation and decision-making regarding which zones are appropriate in the area. Place Builder makes it clear that a B2A zone, while appropriate in a downtown place type, is not appropriate in a second-tier urban place type. The comprehensive plan indicates that in a second-tier urban place type such as currently exists in the proposed development area B1, MU1, MU2, MU3, R4, and R5 zones are appropriate. The proposed development area is currently zoned R4 and that's appropriate in a second tier urban place type. Importantly, high density residential is contemplated and permitted in the current zone. Utilizing a downtown place type when such a conclusion is not supported by the context, the architecture, or the uses of the surrounding neighborhood and then approving a zone change from R4 to B2A will create an isolated block of downtown frame zoning in a residential neighborhood. The increased height and density of the proposed development which is allowed by B2A zoning make this development out of context with the adjacent neighborhood and violates the guidelines outlined in the comprehensive plan for well-designed transitions from the downtown core to a second urban neighborhood. Again, the existing R4 zone allows for high density residential development. In fact, the R4 zone is referred to as high density apartment zone in the zoning ordinance. APNA does not oppose increase in density but rather argues that increases should be contextual and well thought out in accordance with the comprehensive plans directives. Multi-level residential housing is not precluded by the current zone. The current zone would in fact potentially allow for several story structures with the appropriate yard to height ratios and parking. So then we have to ask ourselves why does the applicant need a zone change to proceed with its current proposal? The first reason is that they need to reduce their parking requirement. The requested zone change cuts the parking requirement in half the proposal contemplates 208 units but what you didn't hear earlier is that that's actually 550 beds they are proposing to add more than 375 residents to this half block and in connection with this proposal they will only be adding around 200 parking spaces the burden this will place on the surrounding neighborhood streets with regard to parking cannot be overstated while the applicant asserts in its proposal that students will be able to obtain parking on uk's campus residents residing in this proposed development will not be eligible for a commuter parking permit at uk they may be eligible for a k permit in the lot near kroger field but the k lot is a 27 minute walk from the proposed development and students will be required to move their vehicles during home football games i keep returning to the number of beds because similar developments constructed by the applicant in other cities are in fact marketed exclusively to students and are rented by the bed. The second reason they need to request its own change is to fit more units. The applicant has justified its 10-story height proposal with its assertion that it needs to fit 550 beds into the development to make it economically feasible. This cannot be accomplished with the current R4 zone, which requires a two to one height to yard ratio. The change to B2A is therefore necessary to avoid this requirement and fit more units into the project. The current zoning will allow for increased development and increased density. By contrast, the requested zone will allow for developments of a nature that are destructive to the neighborhood and incompatible with the surroundings. The planning commission should therefore require the applicant to detail the analysis employed to determine how many units could fit into a development that works within the stricture of the current zoning versus the number of units that are being proposed. The third reason they need the zone change is so that they can destroy the tree canopy. Under the current zoning R4, the applicant would need to ensure that 30% of the tree canopy is either included in or retained in the proposal. However, under a B2A zone, there is no tree canopy requirement at all. In other words, the requested zone change will allow the applicant to sidestep the tree canopy requirement altogether. The next few slides contain some images of similar student housing projects that are either being constructed or have been constructed in the area. The first thing you should note is that the developers of these projects determined that it was in fact feasible to build with fewer stories and beds. Second, as you can see, the context for these projects is entirely different. Third, it should be noted that while the Hub 1 initially represented it could meet the needs of its residents within project parking, it has subsequently found it necessary to obtain additional surface lot parking to supplement the on-site parking garage. The fact is that students in Lexington rely heavily on vehicles, and a 2 to 1 resident per parking spot projection is simply unrealistic. AP&A also holds the position that the current design proposed by Aptitude is not consistent with the Imagine-Lexington Comprehensive Plan development criteria for the following reasons. First, the proposed 10-story development is not at an appropriate scale to respect the context of the neighborhood structures. The sight line along the 200 block of East Maxwell reveals structures no taller than three stories. stories. This is directly in conflict with criteria A-DN2-2 and A-DN3-2 and does not create a context sensitive transition with the existing neighborhood. The supplemental staff report suggests that reducing the maximum height of development to 76 feet along Maxwell Street eliminates concern regarding context. While APNA agrees that this height restriction is a is a step in the right direction it maintains that a maximum height of 56 feet is more context sensitive and meets the comprehensive plan criteria secondly two stories of a parking garage at the street level along the corridor is not pedestrian oriented and does not activate the ground level and the visibility of the parking garage from the streetscape has not been adequately addressed. Importantly, the parking structure spans nearly the entire portion of the development fronting Maxwell Street. A ground floor parking garage is automobile oriented and is not appropriate directly along Maxwell Street. APNA maintains that ground floor parking should be limited to the Hagerman Court side of the building. Any redevelopment with frontage on a pedestrian corridor such as Maxwell should require residential or business uses along the sidewalk as would be required in connection with a B1 zone. The only advantage of a ground floor parking garage is that is the cheapest floor in a parking garage to build. Likewise ground floor garages with larger footprints are also cheaper to build. These monetary reasons incentivize the large building footprint and necessitate the legal contortion of privatizing Hagerman Court to meet the open space requirements unfortunately the savings costs for the developer do not factor in the externalities of the reduced open space for our urban tree canopy and the loss of ground level interaction along maxwell that exists today in addition the demolition of structures that are included in the national register of historic places does not constitute adaptive reuse of the properties apna challenges the planning staff report regarding the historical significance of of these structures. Inclusion of these structures on the National Register is evidence of historically significant structures which should be preserved per development criteria D-PLN 9-1. The only reason that these structures are not viable is because of demolition by neglect. The comprehensive plan does not encourage demolition by neglect and the Planning Commission should not endorse a plan built on an economic feasibility argument that is justified by the deteriorated state of the buildings. The proposed development does not provide a neighborhood serving use that does not already exist in the vicinity as rental housing exclusively designed for and marketed to students is already available in excess. D-PL2-1. There has been no evidence presented by the applicant supporting its assertion that a development of this size for luxury student housing to serve a homogenous population is in fact needed. Again, the proposed development is also destructive of the existing 37% tree canopy, including several mature trees without significant replacement, further reducing the tree canopy of the neighborhood, which is already well below the citywide goal. Trees are not simply an aesthetic pleasure. They are instrumental in lowering heat islands, which is especially vital in near-downtown neighborhoods. The comprehensive plan sustainability pillar two and restoration pillar three clearly define the importance of replanting and maintaining our tree canopy. Likewise, theme A, growing successful neighborhoods, illustrates how street trees are an important walkability feature and serve as a traffic calming function, which certainly applies to a two lane, one way street like Maxwell. The small trees proposed along this walkway by the applicant are ornamental in nature and not contribute significantly to the tree canopy trees affect the vitality of a community with tangible economic environmental and health improvements the city of lexington has established a goal to increase the urban tree canopy from the existing 25 to 30 percent the third council district in which the proposed development is located was identified as one of the most heat stressed in a recent city report it is currently below the city average and was graded a d plus in the Lexington Tree Canopy Report Card. In closing, I would like to circle back to the scale of this proposal in relation to other construction in the neighborhood. As you can see from this aerial view, the proposed development is monolithic and will dwarf the other closely neighborhood buildings in the area in terms of footprint. As you see, the red outline there demonstrates the footprint of the proposed development, and you can see from the houses that are located immediately adjacent that it is several times larger than anything in the neighboring context. This image demonstrates the vast difference in height between the proposed structure at 122 feet and what will be the only remaining building on this block facing Maxwell Street over here at 33 feet. I don't know if I can make this work. Oh, there we go. 33 feet, 122 feet. As previously noted, APNA believes that any construction should be limited to 56 feet. APNA believes that the planning staff recommendation of 75 feet is a step in the right direction, but the proposed 10-story structure at 122 feet is grossly disproportionate. This slide shows that the nearest taller buildings in the area include Maxwell Presbyterian Church at 46 feet, the Kappa Kappa Gamma House at 33 feet, and UK dorms which taper from 82 feet along the Avenue of Champions all the way down to 56 feet as they approach East Maxwell Street. There are also nearby condos that are 46 feet tall. The height elevation for this proposal would be 338 meters. This is higher than all of the buildings in the surrounding area and would be the same elevation height as the building we're in currently. Based on the foregoing, APNA asked the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed zone change and development as it is not representative of the intent of Imagine Lexington. Further, AP&A challenges the Planning Commission to encourage smart infill of urban neighborhoods, including adaptive reuse of historic structures with pedestrian and bicycle usage at the forefront of the design so as to maintain the character of these communities. Thank you. Please. Hey. Whoa. Please. Thank you. Any questions before she sits down? No. Thank you, ma'am. So at this point, I know we have several that would like to speak, and we want everyone to speak that wants to. I'll put it that way. You will be limited to three minutes, and I would dearly ask, let's not be repetitive, and let's line up. I would say we've got people signed up, so we'll try and go with the sign-up sheet. I'll call two or three. The second and third person can line up behind the speaker and be ready. So the first one would be Kevin Benzie, followed by Maureen Peters and Kathleen Winter. Yes, sir. Hello. My name is Kevin Benzie, and I am the owner of six houses immediately behind the properties. They are 119, 121, 124, 125, 126, and 129 Hagerman Court. Both as a close neighbor and a Lexington local, I call upon you all to reject this zoning change for the following reasons. This would seriously affect local people like myself who have invested in the community and the university. This is the equivalent of Walmart coming into town and putting all the local shops out of business. Hagerman Court is its own small community and it has been for many years. This is a neighborhood. Ask yourself if you would like to have an eight or a ten story apartment building built right next to your house. Some of my tenants would literally be living in the shadow of this building. It would block out the sun. Think of what that would actually be like, living next door within a few feet of this place. The noise, the garbage, the cars, and the students don't want it. In the years that I have been renting to college students, they have repeatedly expressed to me how glad they were to be able to rent these entire houses and not have to rent cold cookie cutter apartments which are offered in other campus areas. In fact, I first heard of this development because some of my tenants on Hagerman asked me in serious concern if the rumors were true that all these houses were going to be torn down and replaced. Parking. I can personally attest to what has already been discussed on the parking issue. It's a serious problem as it is. After speaking with other property owners I know that this is the number one concern for everyone who knows this area. There are around 70 people currently living between 201 and 231 East Maxwell, and there's not nearly enough parking for them or my own tenants. Hagerman Court has only 36 off-street parking spaces in three small parking lots for 80-plus residents. To add hundreds more residents to that, students will bring their cars. It's a nice idea to think that they will walk or bike or that you can incentivize that. But in recent years, even with every incentive not to do so, the number of students in the area with cars has gone up, not down. Hagerman and Stone are packed bumper to bumper every day, and this proposal would only make things worse for all involved. One property owner I spoke with said it would make Hagerman Court, an otherwise quiet street, become like I-75. 15 seconds, Mr. Binzi. As to the code enforcement issue, that is sheerly a management problem. This proposal will be bad for Lexington, bad for the neighborhood, and bad for the students it purports to be helping. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Binzi. Maureen Peters and then Kathleen Winter please come forward and my name is Maureen Peters and my husband and I live at 535 Russell Avenue but we also own 276 Lexington Avenue which is directly adjoining this development. It will be sad for Lexington to lose such a large number of historic houses which surround the downtown core. These 12 historic structures, while not located in a local historic district, are all listed as contributing structures to the National Register of Historic Places. The nomination form, item 7, clearly indicates that there are 393 structures, and every one of these are listed on that. That means with this listing, they are all eligible for historic preservation tax credits if they were restored and maintained. We're also opposed to the zone change because it's inappropriate and out of context with the surrounding neighborhood, which is mainly two and three-story houses and apartments. This should be a second-tier urban place type per the comprehensive plan. We also followed the results of the hub project recently opened on South Upper as an example of the negative impact these massive student-filled developments have on surrounding neighborhoods. We listen to developers say students don't need parking, they don't bring their cars. But that hasn't turned out to be the case. They're already paving additional lots two blocks away from the development. And if anybody's ever been around the development, all of those ride shares and grub hubs, they just park in the neighborhood streets when they're accessing that building. And again, like I said, we personally have a concern because we own the adjoining house and have for almost 30 years. We lived there for several years and we now have it rented to a young professional working downtown. This historic house is only a story and a half tall and it means that when this building is built 20 feet away the sun will never shine on it again. Thank you. Ms. Winter? Thank you. Ms. Nathan-Hellman next. Hi, my name is Kathleen Winter and I'm a resident of the Aylesford neighborhood. I live at 151 Kentucky Avenue. I regularly walk and bike along East Maxwell Street. My daughter actually goes to Maxwell Elementary, so I know the area very well. I'm also very familiar with the Imagine Lexington comprehensive plan. I'm one of the few Lexitonians that's read it. So I believe the stated goals and objectives in that plan are not met with this development proposal. I fully agree with the points that were made previously, that Ailsford is a second tier urban place type, and that a zone change from an R4 to a B2A zone is not necessary for density to be increased in this location. And I agree with all the points that were made previously about how the size and scope of the project is too large and out of context with the surrounding and adjacent streets. But I will expand upon points made that this proposal is destructive to the tree canopy in one of the most heat-stressed districts in Lexington. Recognizing the benefits of trees to the urban environment, the city of Lexington established a goal to increase the urban tree canopy from 25 to 30 percent. However, the third district is lagging behind this and was recently given a grade of a D plus in the Lexington Tree Canopy Report Card, which is a report that the City of Lexington commissioned. The site of this proposed development currently has 37% tree canopy, so more than average for the city and for the district. This includes at least three trees that have diameters greater than 30 inches, and one of them is a street tree on Stone Avenue that has a 51 inch diameter. This tree alone is estimated to intercept more than 15,000 gallons of stormwater a year. The benefits of these large mature trees cannot be easily replaced by planting new trees. For example, the same species that has a 2 inch diameter would intercept less than 200 gallons of stormwater a year. Under this current zoning, the R4, the applicant has to ensure 30% of tree canopy. However, under the proposed zone, there is no tree canopy requirement at all. The developer plans to remove all of the existing trees and replace them for smaller trees for a net loss of 24% tree canopy, which is clearly a depletion of the tree canopy in an already stressed area. With good design, infill and increased density are possible without sacrificing existing assets. I challenge the Planning Commission to reject this application and to establish proactive policies that protect the very trees and historical nature of these communities that contribute most to the environmental benefits and the human health and well-being of our community. Thank you. Thank you. Nathan Hellman. If you all can, please come on forward and be ready. Excuse me? Okay. You've got three minutes, sir. Mr. Self, I believe you said. Self, my name is Tom Self. My wife and I live at 163 Kentucky Avenue. Usually when I'm at a podium, I usually address, may it please the court or may it please ladies and gentlemen of the jury and at this time I say may it please members of the Planning Commission and the staff. I appear on one part of what's already been mentioned and that has to do with the parking situation that's been briefly mentioned and I just want to talk about numbers. A number of 353 or now 315. That's the number of vehicles that the 575 people or 550 people that will be living in this, or students that are living in this building, will not have a parking space there to park in in that building. And where do you think they're going to park? Are they going to park at Kroger Field? No. Or take a scooter over there? No. They're going to be looking to park in the neighborhoods that I live in and that other members of this party live in on a daily basis. If you think parking on the streets here now is bad, approve this and you will see a mass parking everywhere in this neighborhood that doesn't exist. So because of the lack of parking that's provided with this massive structure, I ask you to reject this zoning and reject this proposal. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. I'm not sure if I'm next, but I'm on the list. Oh, you can be next. Go right ahead. I'm on the list. Alice Crist. And I live on Maxwell Street and also own, with my husband, 428, which we rent. There's really no reason on earth that renting old houses on Maxwell Street and keeping them in proper repair and keeping their value up would be economically unviable i think that's all i need to say yes ma'am i'll let you all just come on forward just line up right behind her now everyone's getting tired um my name is vita vitaliano i live right across from the stone avenue houses I feel that this development is asking a lot of from the from the community we're gonna be in the shade we're gonna have more parking problems I already have people trying to park in well they do park in my driveway we're gonna lose the green space of the yards the mature trees we're gonna lose the diversity in our neighborhood with all these luxury students who can only, you know, can afford that sort of thing. Right now we have working people, we have people with kids, we have students who don't have a lot of money. This is just, we have apartments for rent already all over the neighborhood. I don't know where people get the idea that there's a lack of housing because we have empty apartments all around and there's new, as you know, student luxury housing going on up all over the place. So I'm not against infill. I think these houses need to be fixed up. The current owners, I've been watching them deteriorate over the past three years or so. They were in good shape when I moved in. The outside is falling to pieces now, but it's just superficial. These are solid houses. I've spoken with code enforcement officers. They're fine to get fixed up. They're just trying to let it fall apart in order to get leverage for development. This is not a new tactic. We've seen it a million times in Lexington. Anyway, that's it. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. I'm Judith Sparks. I think I'm next on the list. You're fine. Go ahead. Okay. And I live at 513 Park Avenue, several blocks from Maxwell, but I only concur with the statements that have already been made. I can't think of anything that I can add except listen to these people that live right in the midst of it, and they're telling you the truth. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Gaffield. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. The Neighborhood Council asked the Planning Commission to reject the zone change and the staff recommendation on the zone change as well as the development plan. The place type is not consistent with a picture of place types on page 280 of the comprehensive plan. Note the picture you're looking at above. The urban zone is on the left. The zone that should be on Maxwell Street is on the right and is more consistent with what's in the neighborhood. I'm going to keep that up for you to look at. The proposed development is not at all context sensitive, whether 10 stories high or seven stories, the massive bulk mass and projected occupancy associated with the proposal is really inappropriate for the urban place type. One thing I did notice that hasn't been brought up, the staff report indicates in a couple of places that Maxwell is to be a corridor, be a corridor and you're familiar with the comprehensive plan and you know that allows the highest density permissible in the comp plan virtually and we would reject the idea that maxwell is a is a corridor that's just not right and it would scare neighborhoods all over lexington note note the picture of of corridors in the comprehensive plan on density one number one page 41 and placemaking number 12 page 181 that's a great concern of ours the way the staff reports written second point the proposed zone of b2a is not appropriate for the maxwell location and the existing zoning of r4 is appropriate i won't repeat what the attorney for ailsford said because i'm saying almost exactly the same thing one thing i will say i don't think it was arbitrary that the urban place type is in place i think it looks to me like the development proposal may have determined the place type rather than the place type determining the development and i think that's turned on its head from what it ought to be three there have been no anticipated changes in the economic physical or social nature of the area to justify a zone change so there you have it it's inconsistent with a comp plan it's the zone proposed is inappropriate the existing zoning is appropriate because you can build higher density apartment buildings in that location without going to an urban place type thank you very much thank you mr gaffield yes ma'am hi there Wendy McAllister. I own a fourplex at 221 Stone Avenue, and I also live at 225 Stone Avenue. I'm only going to go through the things I think people haven't discussed. One of them is that Maxwell Street is a one-way street going east. So to go west, you're actually going to have to cut down Stone Avenue to get onto High Street. And so when they looked at traffic, they didn't look at Stone Avenue and the impacts there. and I don't know if you know that, but Stone Avenue, you can really barely pass. Two cars can barely pass each other because of the on-street parking. I think it's only 25 feet wide right now, and so I think that that's a grave error to not have looked at that impact on there. When I look at my notes, and I'm trying to be brief here, sorry. I saw a ton of drawings. They're all different. I think if you do a B2A zone change you could have anything at the end of the at the end of the project and so I think there's no there seems to be no restrictions on what the the look is going to be like and I do think that a lot of the other buildings have tried to stay in character the sorority across the street the communications building and so I think at the end of this you could end up with something that really doesn't reflect what we thought we were all going to get. And finally, you know, the high-rise is not precluded provided context, but the lawyer from the development said we would like to establish a new context on Maxwell Street. So I feel like he has said I understand that this is not a context. Thank you. Yes ma'am. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Brittany Sams and I'm here today with the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation. The Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation supports the Islesford Place Neighborhood Association in opposition to the zone change and proposed development of the 10-story Marshall Lexington apartments along East Maxwell Street and on Stone Avenue. We are against the zone change and proposed development of the property. The damage that the demolition of 12 historic homes and rezoning to B2A is tremendous to the historic integrity and livability of the neighborhood. The homes threatened by demolition, though not protected, within the H1 overlay are all within the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the precedent set by rezoning the proposed property to B2A from a neighborhood consisting of two to three stories of older homes currently zoned R4 will encourage other unwelcomed and inappropriate projects at unprotected boundaries and within neighborhoods. you very much thank you yes my name is claudia mickler i am a long time resident along maxwell street um a detail disturbs me the staff the first sentence of the staff the gentleman from the staff was that maxwell is a minor arterial roadway and then he i believe twice showed aerial photographs of the neighborhood and the lawyer once showing how the large buildings in the area set the tone and are appropriate one of them was good Sam which is along the limestone Street corridor and I feel like it's not appropriate to justify a large building on a minor arterial roadway by showing in another building on a major roadway it doesn't seem a fair comparison to me does that make sense you're looking like i didn't make anything that was that was it that was a detail it was a detail that disturbed me in the visual in the visuals that's all so thank you thank you ma'am you're working okay thank you good afternoon my name is james dickinson i live at 368 transylvania park I'm a lifetime resident of this area and it's been a long time since I've been on this side of the podium. I've been a member of the BOAR for a number of years now although I'm not speaking on their behalf. I've already filed a letter with you but I'd like to supplement the comments I've made in that letter with the following observations. As noted by many others the B2 designation is is inappropriate for the second tier urban neighborhood economically this dormitory and that's what it is it's a dormitory is inappropriate for the neighborhood and does not really add anything of economic value to the neighborhood it's simply replacing housing with more housing contrary to what b2 should be doing it should be a mix of commercial businesses restaurants shops whatever it may be in conjunction with residents living in the building that's not being done here second of all although this is not an h1 overlay area this neighborhood is a critical part of the neighborhoods surrounding uk and reflects the historic character of that entire neighborhood housing this kind dating back to the early 1900s is becoming more and more unique and more and more in need of preservation in fact i think you just recently considered a area at pensacola preserving that neighborhood from this kind of development thirdly i think the planning commission has sort of gotten or the planning staff has sort of gotten into a group think about what they think students actually will do relative to their cars and what they actually do. They've convinced themselves that by reducing the number of parking spaces, that the students will simply say, well, I can't have a car, so I'll still live there. That's not going to happen. They're going to bring their car to the neighborhood, as has been mentioned. Finally, I want to address the issue about being stuck with a whole bunch of code violations if you do not approve this plan. These kind of buildings are ideal for adaptive reuse. As example, you can see along the Kimball House has been adapted. These buildings are still in good shape. They can be renovated, they can be adapted for reuse and be economically feasible without destroying the character of the neighborhood. I thank you for your time. One last comment, I know the work that you do. I've personally done it myself. No one recognizes the volunteers that you truly are. And we thank you for your time and your dedication to the community. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Peggy McAllister. I live at 225 Stone Avenue and I've been there for over 20 years. I appreciate you listening to all of us today. Just a few points I noticed when we were talking, I agree with everything everybody else has said in opposition to this plan. thing is to mention that we talk about the profile of the building also this building is at the top of a hill so this is 20 or 30 feet grade change from vine Street so it is going to look much taller than even things on vine Street if you take for instance anything that's on vine Street in that same block is going to be much smaller so even in the downtown area it's still much taller than those buildings also we also talk about the rear of the building where all the tall part of the building's going to be well that overshadows haggerman court my buddies from the back of our house they all are going to be in the shadow of the back of that building so i don't think we should discount the back of the building as not being important um also um we mentioned that these old buildings are in need of demolition or some people think that i have been involved in three building projects we've taken buildings of much worse condition, turn of the century buildings, got historic tax credits, and we're able to bring them back to life and have them in the process of being rented right now. So I know this can be done. Everything can be fixed, it can be made into something beautiful again. We just need to get owners in that want to do the work to make these historic buildings useful again for what they should be. Thank you so much. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Kathy Reynolds and I live in the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association, which I believe has gone on record as opposing this change. More than that, though, I've been involved for the last 35 years as a house board member of the sorority at 238 East Maxwell, which is directly across the street. A couple years ago, we underwent a major renovation. We made every effort. we retained the original house we any additions were kept in in line with the neighborhood uh scale uh we've gone to a lot of a lot of trouble to to have a lovely property there and i just think that uh and also i can attest the fact there are vacancies lots of vacancies in neighborhoods i don't think there's a need for this i also think b2a zoning is not appropriate for this portion of Balesford Place neighborhood. R4 is appropriate and is consistent with the second tier place type as described in the Image Lexington comprehensive plan. The second tier urban exists in order to complement the urban core, not insert a downtown frame into a residential area. I think this would be a mistake. It would be creating an isolated block of downtown zoning. In Imagine Lexington and I quote the Planning Commission supports the strategy to preserve protect and enhance the existing neighborhoods and I've lived here all my life I've never heard of Maxwell Street being a boundary line it's always been high street or lower thank you thank you ma'am Yes ma'am. My name is Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road. I can say that the whole older central city is watching this zone change very carefully, especially neighborhoods like mine that are National Register historic districts, to see how the account plan will be sensitive to our districts that we cherish so much. I was going to waive this big fat file for dramatic effect. It's a file of code violations. It extends from September 1st of last year to the present, but Mr. Woburn has overtopped me. He had one that was over twice as thick. What I would like to say simply is I'm hearing a lot of talk that these properties aren't historic because they're just decrepit. They're just all worn out and done for and fallen to pieces. And therefore, their historic significance no longer exists and need not be respected in your decision making. The comp plan has very explicit guidance about heeding significant historic properties, and it uses the National Register criteria expressly to determine what is historically significant. So comes the applicant and says, these buildings are just decrepit. And I have to say, I've passed around three samples of lists of code violations. First of all, let's forget about the nuisance violations. There was garbage and it was cleaned up or wasn't cleaned up. Then there are building code violations, which have to do with the viability of the structure. Among those, there were very few in all that I reviewed, very few that needed a building permit. That's to say where there was a structural issue important enough or electrical plumbing, something like that, where they needed a permit. Frankly, if you look at those lists, they look like a honey-do list. The toilet's leaking. The windows don't go up and down properly. The doorknob isn't working right, fastening right. There was one serious one with extensive water damage. That's the one that was put under condemnation. That doesn't mean the building should come down. It means it's unfit for human habitation until matters are corrected. These are masonry buildings. They aren't going anywhere unless by the wish of the owner. We look to zoning to keep buildings from being torn down, and only H1 zoning can do that. But it's the surrounding owners of historic properties who will be gravely impacted if you suffer these properties to be exchanged for a far more intensive use that will have a tremendous impact on them. I have many more comments. I would just say that the arterial plan, the plan for arterial development, has yet to be written, and it comes before the council tonight. for approval, contract approval. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Clark. Yes sir. My name is Neil Mize and my wife and I live on Transylvania Park 339 and we've planted 17 trees in the last eight years, three last year, some tulip poplars and I'm the water boy and I found that over the last two years I've had to carry water to keep these young trees alive because we are having many droughts. You noticed we had one this year. Guess what? These are going to increase in the future, and one of the reasons they're going to increase is I talked to Seth Phillips, the Channel 18, the weather guy, and I'd noticed because I carry water in these five-pound pails, and I'm getting tired of it, and I'm an old man and a Donovan scholar at UK, so I'm trying to graduate college, and so I'm having a hard time here, and he told me that, and I knew this, I'm taking geology courses at UK, that we live on something called the Lexington Dome. Anybody ever heard of the Lexington Dome? Google it or the Cincinnati Arch. That's a better one. We're the highest point in central Kentucky. Maxwell Street is 1,000 feet above sea level. Main Street's 950 feet above sea level. Winchester Road is 1,030 feet above sea level. You see the little ocean waves go like this through here. previous mountain buildings to the east okay here's the problem we have a heat island effect here because we're a thousand feet up in the air and guess what happens to the rain which i noticed that's why i called seth phillips out it said am i in my heaven this in my imagination the rain patterns drop their water in woodford they go down the kentucky river which is 400 000 400 feet above sea level and it goes through scott county and woodford county and rains over in clark county and I'm sitting here with these buckets going, why isn't it raining on me? And the reason is we have this. And guess what? It's going to get worse. And here's the deal. A mature oak tree reduces temperature. You wouldn't believe it. A mature oak tree reduces temperature, and it's the equivalence of 32 units window air conditioners, 32 window. Now, you ever part your car under a big oak tree and come out in the summertime and your windshield's messed up? Guess what that is? It's called the aerosol effect. You think, well, how's shade going to cool this? It's not just the shade. It's the aerosol effect of this water filter. These things are turning over 200 and 300 gallons of water a day. Now, think, they're going to remove all these trees. they're going to probably take out 120 or 30 window air conditioners up on the street. The other piece I want to talk about is the height. 15 seconds, sir. This thing's going to be humongous. It's almost half the height of the financial center down here, and it's on the top is the highest hill in the city. It's going to be a white elephant. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Hi. my name is jenny daily and i live at one thirty six burleigh avenue i live in another campus neighborhood on the west side of the u.k near broadway in virginia i'm here to tell a cautionary tale my neighborhood which you can see some existing housing stock has seen no less than six large-scale residential developments in the past eight years with undoubtedly more to come These are developments where blocks of 1920s houses have been replaced with multi-story apartment buildings geared towards student rentals. If you want to go to the next slide. None of these new developments have been in character with the existing neighborhood and instead have served to dramatically change the character of the community. I just want to point out, you all might be able to see it better, But the picture on the right-hand side, to the far left, you can see a tiny little cottage down there. I also want to point out that there is an advertising billboard on the rooftop of this new development. Here's where the cautionary tale comes in. Once the first block goes, every developer after that will point to the one before and argue, since you let them do it, legally you must let me do it. Additionally, the planning staff report will need to reflect that the character of the neighborhood has changed, thus anchoring the rationale to let more such developments happen. The most recent development in my neighborhood, if you want to change the slide, was so poorly conceived that neither the planning staff nor the planning commission liked it, but were compelled to approve it. And I want to, if you can see here, this is a two-story, 16-unit apartment complex with a bunch more behind it and a parking lot with 46 cars behind it, next to a tiny vernacular cottage. And what may not be clear because of the size of this, the bad neighbor fence, they have turned the bad side towards the neighboring house. And also note that there is nothing else but single-family dwellings on this street, out of context. The rampant development in my neighborhood has taken a toll on the resale value of the remaining housing stock. Currently, our only real option for selling our homes is to an investor or developer for its teardown value. I urge you to disapprove of this Maxwell Street proposal, as the downtown place type and the B2A zone is completely inappropriate for this neighborhood. Fifteen seconds, Ms. Deggert. A development of this size in nature and a zone change to B2A will inevitably have a ripple effect on the future of the neighborhood and will change its character forever. And as Mr. Walburn has said, it will set the context for future developments and suggested that these developments will stretch as far as 3rd Street and over to Newtown. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration about this very important zone change request. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Mark Streety. I live at 1020 Pencastle Road. I'm here today as President of the Ashland Park Neighborhood Association. We're a neighborhood of 300 households. We joined the affected Elfler Place Neighborhood Association. We share many neighborhood features with them, such as the age of our housing stock, mixed and varied use of properties in our neighborhoods, H1 overlay designation, and a mature urban forest. I think ours is a little more forested than theirs, as I've learned today. We strongly oppose the proposed loan change in this development. I will attempt to be uncharacteristically brief with the rest of my comments, given those already made to you several times, and should thank you also for the 37 letters you've already read in September and the 87 I heard passed around earlier today. We appreciate your faithful attendance to that. I would make a second or third note with regard to the University of Kentucky. They own and operate property directly across the street on Maxwell, which I'm amazed by that they've chosen to build and renovate those adjacent properties in place to support its mission when they can and do build all kinds of things everywhere else on the planet Earth, but yet appropriate to the neighborhood. How interesting. None of those structures exceed three to four stories, and most are two. They fit with the existing and historic character of the neighborhood. And if even UK can understand Elford's location and historic nature, then why shouldn't we? Why shouldn't the staff? Why shouldn't this commission? I ask. I've learned today that developers use condemnation as part of their justification. I want to, as a non-educated man, I want to cry foul to that. That may be a genius tactic for developers. It may be disingenuous to the immediate neighbors that live there, but back in my tiny hometown, we just call it cheating. And I don't mean that to the applicant or their council. I mean it to the owner of the properties that I learned today is not the developer at this point. They just choose to work with that person. So we therefore ask the commission members to require its staff to uphold its mission statement to preserve and protect existing neighborhoods. We strenuously encourage you to decline this change and this project, and to close and probably for the first time in my life, I get to say to the chair, I yield the balance of my time and thank you again for yours. Hi there, I'm Carlotta Abbott. I reside at 14 Preston Court. I've been there for 40 plus years. I'm growing fourth generation family on Preston Court. We value our neighborhood. We value our community. and I'm here to ask you to please not allow this zoning change. When I hear that one of the reasons for approving the demolition of these is because of not maintaining the property, I'm reminded of the young woman who murdered her mother and father and then asked the court for leniency because she was an orphan. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. I'm Sue Mize. I live at 339 Transylvania Park. I'm married to the water boy. And I just want to say thank you for letting us speak. I'm very grateful to the planning staff who have set such marvelous goals. And hopefully we can stick with them. I have to say, I'm not, developers have not gained my trust in their good faith effort to communicate with the neighborhood. And hey, I'm not mad, that's what corporations do. But what we have in Lexington is a way to protect us from corporations who might just be in it for their own benefit and not for the benefit of Lexington. And that's what I feel like is happening here. So again, I am so thankful for the planning staff and the planning commission, who I know will not let this kind of thing happen. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, my name is John Mickler. I live at 415 East Maxwell Street. I have a family business, Mickler Florist and greenhouses, and we have the Kentucky Native Cafe right down the road from this project. We're good, photo A, that's good. Leave it on the first one, please. First one, okay. Yeah, with all due respect to all those involved here, as we have heard, this project's wrong on so many levels. A two story parking garage with a seven to eight story housing complex on top. And I must mention here, this project will greatly increase this neighborhood's carbon footprint. A place where those of us who live, work, walk, and raise children in this neighborhood. This photo shows the existing streetscape, all to be demolished. And photo B, which we have seen before, shows an artistic sketch of the difference between downtown place type and second tier urban place type. We go back to photo A. Folks, this is a second tier urban streetscape. There's no exaggerating it or placing it in any other way. That's the way this neighborhood functions. There has been some discussion as of the condition of these structures. As this photo shows, in spite of some neglect, these are excellent buildings, solid stone, limestone foundations, solid masonry, first cut yellow pine, frames up the interior. These buildings were built to last. I would like to echo the Aylesford Neighborhood Police Association lawyer in saying that no one has, until this New Jersey company showed up, entertained a meaningful discussion about this particular block as far as changing it to a downtown urban place type. This is not in the spirit of the comprehensive plan and with the open discussion about the fate of our neighborhoods and our cities. And I want to say that behind me here you have a lot of concerned citizens who have spent their life advocating, living in these neighborhoods around the downtown. Now the good people on staff have attempted to mitigate the effect of this big building with their setback. But in my mind, the setback does not make the building any smaller or any more in keeping with the neighborhood. 15 seconds, sir. And as far as art in front of a parking garage, I mean, is that the best you can do? I just say no one wants to live in the shadow of this physical activity and of this development. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Lynn Dunn. I wasn't planning to be here today, but I think it's beneficial I'm here. I used to manage all these buildings for Touchstone Properties, which is the Lear family, for over 10 years. and I was the previous manager before the New Jersey group. So I would love to spend time with you guys, a little bit more than three minutes, to tell you all that I know about these houses and this project. The houses, when we had them, were very well maintained. We always took care of them. If there was a code violation, we worked with code enforcement within that 30-day period. I have to close my eyes when I go by because I cannot believe the neglect that has been done to these properties. They haven't gotten them rented this season, which every time I had them for 11, almost 12 years, they were rented 100%. They took six-bedroom houses, took them to a 10-bedroom house. Parking was already a nightmare, became a bigger nightmare. Trash, debris, everywhere. The biggest concern, and there's several on this list I think everybody's talked about today, parking is a disaster on campus. I manage for a lot of property owners. The students can only park in the K lot. When they're not parking the K lot, they park on the streets. This building only has two floors of parking. Has anybody done the math on that? It's not going to work. It's not going to work. If you have over 550 beds, that's 550 cars. Where are those 550 cars going? They cannot go in those only two levels of parking. They have to go on the streets. That's going to take up. And Hagerman Court, I used to manage all those. It's a one-way street. How are the ambulances and all the fire department going to get through to get past this building? And those kids will be parking on Hagerman Court, which is not a 24-7 private residential parking street. And all the neighborhoods need to be changed, especially if we're going to start overdeveloping. I think it's great for the development to come into Lexington, but not this area. This is, I highly disagree with this. This is so wrong in so many levels. And it's going to hurt everybody in the neighborhood. And like I said, if you want to call me and talk to me some more, I would love to have the time to do it. There's a lot more I could say. But thank you for what you do for Lexington. I do appreciate all of you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. My name is Jean Scott. I'm a resident of 371 South Mill Street. And in a former life, when I was younger, I was a resident of this neighborhood. You have my letter that I sent. I had four reasons for turning down this request. I want to hit on two of those that had not been talked about today, and both of them require you to step back, take a deep breath, and say, is this really what we want for the future of Lexington? My first reason for asking you to step back is that to improve this. The proposal basically is leapfrogging, which is what this proposal would do, downtown densities and zoning to Maxwell Street, which will, over time and not that much time, lead to the dissolution of residential neighborhoods in that and the surrounding areas. The proposed rezoning would put into play, through precedence, an economic juggernaut, and I've been in community and development planning for 40 years, that will achieve through bite-by-bite zoning the same ultimate impact on existing neighborhoods that the one-bite steam shovel under urban renewal did in the 1970s. Such an impact should be fully weighed and considered by the Planning Commission before any action is taken. I doubt many citizens understand that through this what seems to be single rezoning, what many love about likes and tenants closer in, older, viable, walkable neighborhoods, complete neighborhoods called for by the comp plan, will be gone or so greatly diminished that they will be no longer desirable places to live, visit. Is this really what we want? My other stepping back and asking bare question issues has to do with public policies that are designed to be fairly balanced. It is those policies that over time and the pendulum swing of public policy that endure if all the parties feel fairly treated. When one party feels they're bearing the negative brunt of a public policy, they fight that policy to alleviate the pain, and sometimes the policy goes way back in the other direction. That is exactly what is happening today with the proposed rezoning, the potential tipping point. The general view of neighborhoods already is that Lexington's older, close-in neighborhoods are being asked to receive the brunt of the city's goal for density, seeming regardless of impacts rather than expand the urban service boundary. I feel that dumping density, as seems to be happening, into older neighborhoods not only works against what is a real city asset, viable, close-in neighborhoods, you've heard from a lot of them today, will also lead or already is to the feeling that expanding the urban service boundary would be preferable. A reaction that works against the original goal of not expanding the urban service boundary. My example of balanced public policies where all feel fairly true. It goes back to almost 20 years ago when the city made the decision to go from 10 to 40 acres in the rural service area. We legally coupled it with a purchase development right program so the people that own that land didn't feel they were being singled out to protect the land we, the public, wanted to look at. That led to a balanced policy that the landowners felt fairly treated, the public got the land, and that endures still today, 20 years ago. Again, the importance of balanced policies, in this case, where density goes in Lexington, and the viability of neighborhoods, and that you view, but a balanced view, the needs of neighborhoods in downtown Lexington. as well as the goal of density thank you thank you ma'am yes ma'am my name is linea jean armstrong i live at 121 kentucky avenue i am a native of lexington who recently returned after many years away i agree with everything all my neighbors say i just want to say that i recognize that we are fortunate to live in a beautiful spot changing the zoning and approval of this project would be the first step in the loss of our special downtown area and the surrounding historical neighborhoods thank you thank you yes ma'am hi my name is janet cavanis i live at 704 cumberland road that is the suburbs known as stonewall or at least it used to be a suburb long long ago i'm going to be very brief if maxwell street is all of a sudden definable as a corridor it really makes me wonder what street's coming up next thank you thank you yes ma'am yes sir i'm sorry okay i'm bill johnston I live at 171 Old Georgetown Street. I've lived downtown for 48 years. I've been involved with a lot of task forces, studies, programs, and I have built and rebuilt and restored houses that have been condemned and it really makes me angry to see houses that have been purposely let go by neglect and use that as an excuse to demolish it. On that chart you see up there, the circle area is pretty much the R4 area that this project is going to be plopped down in the middle of. And it makes no sense to all of a sudden take an R4 area and make it B2B because all the other R4 properties that are not protected by an H1 will eventually fall to the B2B zoning. And that not only is those properties, but there are other residential areas that are not protected surrounding the downtown, which will also become B2B. So if we're going to do that, it should be on purpose with a plan rather than just letting it happen because it makes no sense to me. And my other thing is that Maxwell Street is not a corridor street. It is a small residential street with a 25 mile an hour speed limit and it is a connector at best. So I spoke last because that way everybody else could say everything I wanted to say without me having to say it. I agree with everything that's been said. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. My name is Esther Murphy. My husband and I live at 211 Clay Avenue. And what I would like to say is that all of us here are here because we want to help solve Lexington's problems. They've got problems like parking, tree canopy, traffic, historic preservation. and we, you good folks, and us here are all here to try to solve those problems. But while we are trying to solve these problems, Aptitude Development has come in and said, we've got a bigger problem and we want you all to turn your attention to our problem and forget your problems for a while. And you know what the problem is? They want to make money. So therefore, forget about parking, forget about historic preservation, forget about heights. If you do what we want you to do, we will then make money. Come on, Lexington. You good folks, don't let them get away with this. Thank you, ma'am. Please. Please, please, please. Thank you. we've heard from several with varied comments we appreciate it very much what I'm gonna do at this point is move to read the rebuttal phase of this we'll save our questions from the Commission after the rebuttal and mr. Walbur you're up obviously with the sheer volume of comments we've had it's going to be impossible for me to rebut everything that was said in five minutes i'll try to focus on the big ticket issues as a reminder we don't own these properties what's transpired with them before i can't speak to i don't represent those people they are not my clients these houses have fallen into a state of disrepair a significant state of disrepair that's not my clients doing i don't think that they should be there's been sentiment don't reward demolition by neglect my clients are not being rewarded for that they were uninvolved in that we've talked a lot about second tier urban and downtown I told you you'd hear a lot about it here are the three things I'd remind or I guess four things I would remind you it's place type is not a static concept the comprehensive plan contemplates that place types will evolve over time the zones listed on the various tape place types there's even an asterisk and notation on those that those zones are not exclusive that you can absolutely pursue other zones second tier urban the web that appears to be the place type that the neighborhood is arguing for does permit high-density residential I'll tell you what it doesn't contemplate single-family residential zoning our four and our five are the zones recommended for there so if we're gonna stick to recommended zones preservation of single-family doesn't make sense putting an awful lot of faith in UK who's not subject to zoning regulations that they're gonna maintain that corridor the same way forever i strongly predict they will not i'm going to submit for the record we've heard about leaving buildings in shadow we actually did a shadow study that i can pull up and show you but i'll submit these for the records that show that these buildings are not obscured in shadow all the time i have looked from the north and the south submit those items for the record as far as street classifications go what's a corridor what's an arterial those are not designations that i invent those are coming with consultation with staff trees we heard a lot about trees best news i have to convey is under our plan the large oak tree on stone that everyone seems to be concerned about is going to be preserved it is proposed to be retained 49 new trees planted as part of this development all in accord with the planting manual and if you're curious about the status of street trees on maxwell right now on this block there are two and one is dead uh we've heard a lot about preservation of historic neighborhoods this is not an h1 overlay it's ailsford came into the h1 process in 1998 in 21 years this no one has made an effort to make this area h1 it yes a few of these structures are listed or these structures are listed in the national historic register designation that designation carries no legal weight there's no restriction about not tearing them down if you want to protect property in lexington the correct means is through designation as a historic neighborhood that has not occurred for this area have heard some differing things about what should go on here some people want to keep the houses some people think that if we redevelopment it should be b zoning b zoning generates a whole lot more traffic than than residential zoning does and i think a portion of the hubs issues that were brought up that i don't think are particularly germane to this conversation but you'll recall the hub has retail as part of its component therefore driving up their parking requirements but my client jared hutter is going to address their experience very briefly with parking the the last thing that i would say is simply a policy-based argument and it's the one that i've already made this body made the determination and it was ratified by the urban county council that we were to grow up and not out up and not out doesn't come pain-free up and not out doesn't mean we get to preserve everything forever things have to change it's incumbent upon you to evaluate this proposal in accord with the comprehensive plan now your staff has recommended approval staff is recommended approval at a limited height that makes this development not viable the staff is not quibbled with my place type staff is not quibbled with my development type the only issue we're having is can we make this development financially viable or not if you want infill you have to allow enough density that making you know i understand that people don't like it that people make money no one's going to build a real estate development that loses money that's just not going to happen and so with that i want to let jared address his experience with parking very briefly thank you for your time i know it's been a long day thank you thank you sir very very brief with jared absolutely um i can sum it up very quickly to say you know shame on us as developers if we're going to build a part a project that's not viable with the parking that we have we're working on a number of developments around the country we recently completed one in syracuse that has zero parking similar type location we look extensively at parking and want to understand i'm not saying this is syracuse every market is certainly very different but we look at the parking requirements in each market and we believe we have more than enough parking here shame on us if we're going to make the investment and not have enough parking and we certainly do based upon our own studies thank you thank you sir miss winters rebuttal just briefly thank you i want to touch on the fact that there is no demonstrated need for the requested zone change the applicant and planning staff have asserted that requested zone change and accompanying development plan promote the comprehensive plan's objective of increasing diverse housing options it's important to remember however that this goal can be accomplished within the existing zone and with development that respects the character of the neighborhood there is no demonstrated need for the change the university relations office at uk has denied that any conversations between the applicant and the university have occurred the proposal is therefore clearly not being driven by uk or any expressed housing need the needs Needs referenced by Mr. Walburn in his presentation relate to the need for on-campus housing, not a need for off-campus luxury student housing. Adaptive reuse of existing structures combined with modern additions or additional infill will create housing stock that is more diversified in accordance with the comprehensive plans directives. That this is possible is seen by ongoing projects in the Aylesford Place neighborhood. Notably, the historic apartment building at the corner of Rose and Maxwell is currently undergoing extensive renovations. Another property owner who has purchased and renovated six properties in Aylesford has stated that in the past few years, student rentals in Aylesford Place have been down. His tenants and his renovated properties include students, young professionals, and faculty at UK. Reuse projects such as this maintain the balance of students, young professionals, those with a UK connection that is essential for preserving the integrity and character of the Aylesford Place neighborhood while still meeting the goals of the comprehensive plan. Should the zone change be approved the APNA is in agreement with the multiple conditional use restrictions and would support the same restrictions as are included in the planning staff supplemental report and the APNA has submitted proposed findings of fact for your consideration in addition to the packet of materials you received thank you thank you staff staff would just like to clarify a few things that were mentioned throughout some of the comment here today the first thing was just based off of the 10 stories for the structure and the b2a the 10 stories is not a by right it would need to come to this body to seek that the by right if there was an established b2a would be three stories uh the 10 stories or anything above there is at the discretion of the planning commission uh next i would like to just mention about the maxwell as a corridor the maxwell's east maxwell street between versailles road and high street is an identified minor arterial roadway as well as a corridor it has been mapped and shown within the comprehensive plan in several sections in which it states that it is a corridor you can see here the downtown area which experiences quite a bit of traffic is identified as a corridor area this is for the movement of people not only through our center of our spoken wheel kind of city but it is to deal with the increased activities around the downtown area university of kentucky and some of the other uses in this area especially with the b2b zone over in this portion over here next i do want to address a little bit of the demand staff has recommended for the increase in density of our area and that has been supported by the housing study that was produced and represented within our comprehensive plan we are anticipating a dramatic increase in individuals into our area and as such with the restriction of the urban service boundary we are seeking to increase up and not so much out we have made the decision not to expand the urban service area at this time as such staff is seeking to increase the opportunities for high density apartment complexes or a variety of different houses whether that is apartments townhomes smaller apartments there are options and we do need and there is a recognized need for increased density and increased housing opportunities with that that's staff's presentation for today if you have any questions for us we'd be happy to answer thank you sir um so as far as public comment unless someone has a question at this point uh we'll close the public comment section and open it up up to the commission members to ask questions of whoever you would like. I would ask that you save any comments until after we're finished with the question. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson, you're jumping. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question for the staff as it relates to the 75 feet recommendation. Where did you get that from as to how did you arrive at 75 feet as opposed to some other number? So that's a common technique utilized in urban design practices. We've talked about it a little bit during our work session, urban design classes. It is utilized primarily along corridor or arterial roadways so that we can seek to increase the height in areas in which they abut other residential neighborhoods. In downtown areas, you do expect to go up. But when they are on the edge of the downtown in a second tier or on the second tier in a downtown, you expect to have incremental increase from the lower-lying structures, single-family households, to the higher structures in the downtown core. So it's a commonly used metric within urban design. Along those lines, Mr. Chair, if I could have a follow-up question. First of all, I didn't do well in 101 urban design. is this a standard that you think we could apply across the community to all the corridors that you've indicated? So we are utilizing this specifically in a corridor that abuts an edge of a second-tier urban, so allowing us to step up. We would assume that as we near the core away from a frame downtown area, that we would be increasing in height towards the downtown core. Thank you. Yes, sir, to staff. So there's been considerable discussion today about the traffic situation, and there was considerable discussion with the HUD development as well, and more recently I've just read the press on that, so I don't know any specifics. Do you all know any specifics with regard to HUD project? With the HUD specifically, there were issues about how the parking was laid out that led to the creation of more parking elsewhere. There is also an understanding that the hub is both retail and residential. So it's necessitating a larger amount of parking, and it is getting a more frequent drivership into the area. Now, when it comes to developments that are targeted to a residential student population, there is a bit of a difference in when we look at traffic counts where things are going. I think the bigger conversation here today has been parking on the street. The applicant has indicated that they are going with a metric that they believe in, and this metric has been replicated in other areas of town. Staff is supportive of reducing some of our surface parking. That is largely because it does create an underutilized space. In this case, they are actually going above what is required within the zone as well. So staff was, and they are doing structured or proposing structured parking at this location, which staff supports. Just to follow up, just as I recall, the hub was such that we felt that they didn't need as much parking because there were going to be ulterior means of getting around and such. And so I'm just wondering if that is bearing fruit or not, in y'all's opinion. I can't give you specific facts on that. I know that the target is successful as of now, and the residents in the South Hill seem to be fairly happy with it as well. So it's not just those individuals living in the structure that are utilizing that space. It is people from around our community. We would have to get further information from the hub to see what they are experiencing. Mr. Nickel. All right, this is a follow-up to help clarify the right-of-way, me trying to understand the ratios you set. You said a one-to-one ratio in the conditions C and D for Stone and Lexington Avenue, and it looks like those have been met by the development. So my question is about B, where you've got a right-of-way of 50 feet, and if you apply one-to-one-and-a-half ratio, that's where you've got the 75-foot height. As you can see on Maxwell, this building steps back, and it does have a front yard setback. If you added the front yard setback to the right-of-way, what would that width be? So the front yard setback from the sidewalk in that location is approximately 17 feet. 17 feet plus the 50-foot right-of-way would bring it to 67 feet. At a 1 to 1.5 ratio, that would be approximately 100 feet in height. Thank you. Mr. Powell. I have some questions about your procedures and your decision-making and how you go forward with interpreting the comprehensive plan. So I have noted a number of elements in the comprehensive plan that are, in my view, clearly violated by this particular development. and which were entirely ignored in your justification. So I could read those to you or just leave this as a general question. How do you decide when you're going to ignore aspects of the comprehensive plan, which ones you're going to pay attention to and which ones you're just not going to talk about? I don't believe that we ignored any aspects of the comprehensive plan. I would imagine that you would have discussions about them and decide which ones you're going to prioritize and which ones are going to end up in your proposal. Oh, and I think you're referring to some of the historic aspects of this within your comments. In the staff report, it does acknowledge or review some of the historic aspects of this location. And with much of what staff is reviewing, we do need to compare that against some of the other goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, especially in the areas in which we have a large portion of historic properties that are preserved and maintained with the establishment of an H1 overlay. Thank you. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. I think this is probably for staff. First of all, thank you for clearing up the corridor minor arterial, because I was lost in the weeds on that, I think. So thank you for that. But also on the parking, is there not a consideration that there is less parking needed because we are moving toward a multimodal system throughout Lexington, hence the scooters that were brought in, the bike lanes that we have, and that. Is that not the ulterior or the final, I guess, of what we're looking toward here? And that does give us the privilege to reduce the parking on this situation. So looking towards the future, the comprehensive plan does promote a more walkable, bikeable, and multimodal community. that includes various different aspects and policies that are directly directed inward on the government itself which means that we are trying to produce more transit oriented development the other aspect of that is providing higher density residential in areas in which individuals do not need to drive to a grocery store do not need to drive to work or to school in this case the applicant is providing a higher density development that would allow for some of those multimodal options additionally with the proposed development they are increasing sidewalk widths and proposing to help with some sheltered bus or transit elements now it would not be on this side of the road any type of development that would include transit would have to be across the street as everybody gets off the bus on the right-hand side and it was pointed out that this is a one-way street so when we are reviewing these these applications we are seeking to understand them in a more walkable situation other questions anyone no if not then I'll close this portion of it and open it up for comments from the Commission followed by motions that or a motion that anyone would like to make comments for anyone yes ma'am okay thank you first I want to thank the neighbors and friends who have come down and spent their afternoon with us we appreciate that and we know it takes a little effort to do that I I remind you that the staff has suggested approval for this plan. You disagree with that. The staff pros. They work with this daily. So this puts a burden on the Planning Commission to consider many facets, and that's how we spent our afternoon. As you know, your area is zoned R4, which means tomorrow someone could come in and build something that you might object to. You have to recognize that. So my suggestion to you is you may not want to leave your neighborhood to chance at this point. And whenever you're ready, I do have a motion. Thank you. I'll hold that request and offer any other comments at this time. Yes. The comment that I would like to make is that I think we've identified that there is a student housing problem. And we hear it a lot sitting here. There's a lot of fear of neighborhoods becoming neighborhoods having more and more student housing. i think that this spot is a an appropriate spot to put 575 students i think that they've worked diligently with the staff to get to this point of approval with the conditions i personally i don't like putting conditional zoning on on property owners but it looks like the one to me that is the problem is them is 3b the maximum height of any structure a portion of a structure with frontage along east maxwell street shall be 75 feet that's why i continue to ask the clarifying questions to understand that one to one and a half ratio of the right away and then i felt including the setback would be appropriate so those are my those are my thoughts either do it without conditions or conditions that means without conditions which means you can do a 10-story building or do a condition that gets them to the eight or a hundred hundred foot so that's my thought thank you others mr pen i'm sorry mr hold on just a second mr pen i'm sorry go ahead he reached first that's bad thank you mr chair uh i've sat here all afternoon thinking about this and I know I want density and I know I want change where change can be accommodated. But this is my old standard problem. I think it's seven pounds of flyer in a five pound sack. And I say that to say that I think student housing can go there, but I think it's going would change the character in neighborhoods such because of the size of the project. Not that I don't like the project. I just don't like the size of the project. And as Mr. Plumlee said, it puts us in a real quandary here because we have staff recommendation of approval here. So what I'm trying to do is to think through this and to think how we can do this and not have quite as much impact on the surrounding area. Now, whether that's possible or not, we shall see here pretty quick. But my concern is not the project. My concern is the size of the project. And so I'll just leave it at that. Mr. Wilson. I agree with everything Mr. Penn said. Let me, if I could add one other thing. I think that when we got involved with this infield development, we knew that we were going to have some challenges along the way. But I don't believe that was the intent of the body and the intent when we were thinking this, that we would throw a neighborhood out of character by building a 10-foot, 10-story building next to a neighborhood. In other words, I think that we knew that there may have been some unintended consequences, but that's the one unintended consequence that I'm not for. I'll just be candid with you. Mr. Bell, did you? Yeah. So I thought Ms. Plumlee spoke very well and Mr. Penn and Mr. Wilson also. I'm struggling with finding that balance as we often do in this community. In addition, I'm struggling with finding the relevancy because when I drive around the neighborhood, I see student housing that for me is not reflective of the kind of neighborhood that I've heard today. That's just my feeling about it. So I struggle personally with finding that balance with what is the truth of all of this, and what is our direction, and what are we asked to do. I think we regard highly the staff and their professionalism as you said Ms. Plumlee and so I think we're all struggling here today so that's my comment. Mr. Powell. I'm opposed to the development. I'm opposed to the to the zoning change and for two main reasons. One of them has to do with historic preservation. The other has to do with placemaking. And I think that my stance is supported by the comprehensive plan, in fact. And that's why I asked the staff the question about which parts of the plan, how do you decide where you put your emphasis as you're interpreting the plan? And so I think that this application highlights a dilemma that we have as a commission, particularly with regard to preservation issues, because here we have a situation where we have 12 structures, I believe all of which are 100 years old. One of them is 132 years old. And it's extremely cynical to just ignore that fact and pretend that we are not dealing with a historic situation. These are legitimate historic properties that had there not been a political circumstance when Aylesford was putting together their H-1 overlay, they probably would have been included in the overlay. They're absolutely eligible for inclusion in an H-1 overlay. And so I'm going to mention a few items in the comprehensive plan that give me concern. Growth policy number five, page 231, says proactive and comprehensive inventory of historic assets should be undertaken by the Department of Planning, Preservation, and Development to identify architecturally and historically significant properties. This should result in the initiation of additional H1 districts as appropriate to supplement the 15 existing districts that fundamentally contribute to Lexington's urban fabric. Ideally, this assessment should be completed prior to development proposals to eliminate confusion as potential developments are evaluated, which is exactly what we're dealing with right now. That confusion, right? But my feeling is that because this proactive and comprehensive inventory being called for in the comprehensive plan is not being undertaken, it's up to all of us, including the Planning Commission, to recognize where and when we're in danger of sacrificing cultural assets in the name of increasing density and to move to prevent such losses. We just supported an H-1 overlay at Penn Moken Park that is an example of that, where we chose not to pull out those structures along Nicholasville Road. We chose to recognize them as part of that, and I think that was the right move, and I think the right move here is similar. So I want to put aside the issue of historic preservation for the purposes of my argument because I believe that the discussion is more appropriately centered on the issue of placemaking and the issue of recognizing and protecting the character of a place. The scale, diversity, and quality of the subject buildings is fundamental to the character of Maxwell Street and critical to defining the character of the intersection between the university and downtown. Maxwell Street is the hinge between those worlds and it currently exhibits a clarity about that role that would be impossible to replicate. The closely spaced, substantial two-story residences make for a walking experience on Maxwell Street that's pleasant, safe, and distinctly about Lexington. It is a unique place, personal to the city, and not anonymous. This place is too important to sacrifice to a blanket zoning policy that has the potential to negate key tenets of the comprehensive plan. So following are some excerpts from the comprehensive plan that support the conclusion that it's our responsibility to protect assets as clearly distinctive and rare as those properties on Maxwell Street and the cumulative character of that place, even if those assets are locked, there is a character there that we are charged with protecting. So on page 11, theme A, growing successful neighborhoods, goal 3, objective A says, enable existing and new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation and expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation. Well, we've heard tonight that we are failing in the world of improved regulation, and this is part of the reason that there's some justification for being, Some people are arguing that the quality, the condition of these buildings is somehow a justification for moving forward with a zoning change. But we can still move toward, I think the regulation is out of our hands, but we can certainly move toward expanding opportunities for neighborhood character preservation. We can make decisions that expand those opportunities. Page 14, Theme D, Improving a Desirable Community, Goal 3, Objectives A, B, and C, quote, protect historic resources and archaeological sites, incentivize the renovation, restoration, development, and maintenance of historic residential and commercial structures, develop incentives to retain, restore, preserve, and continue the use of historic site and structures. Again, we can do that. On page 42, density policy number two states that, quote, infill residential can and should aim to increase the density while enhancing existing neighborhoods through context-sensitive design. This policy goes on to say that infill residential should apply the recurring building patterns of the area. Furthermore, it says that significant contrast in scale, massing, and design should be minimized while attempting to not impact the density of a proposed development. The proposed rezoning that we've been asked to consider would make these policies and objectives impossible to achieve in this location. The requested zoning allows for construction that's drastically different from what is currently allowed, and that would effectively prevent context-sensitive design. It's to be expected that the staff would argue for this zone change because it appears to forward the general intent of increasing density. However, in this case, it's the wrong move in the wrong place. And since segments of the comprehensive plan seem to support such a zone change, while other segments of the plan clearly attempt to prevent such a change, it's our responsibility of the Planning Commission to draw the line in this case and to protect some of the city's irreplaceable properties in the character of a unique and extraordinary place. Thank you, Mr. Powell. Anyone else? If not, I've got another comment. Yes, sir. I think what we've seen is a, I think it's a viable project. We have people that are here to try to make this happen. My understanding is that eight stories will make this work. So if eight stories would make it work, I would be interested in making that motion when the time comes. we've got one request for a motion ahead of you but thank you anyone else I do in closing priority that getting to our motions it's been a long day we do have I will remind everyone we do have one more item to hear so after the motion I would appreciate no responses and at least until you get outside in the hallway and you can talk about it all you want to so we do need to clear up one more item before we can get out of here in closing on this I do appreciate all everyone who has spoken I've heard a lot of comments from mr. Walburn and his group and that was relevant and having been here in these behind this bench here for several years everyone knows that we are constantly looking for ways to provide housing and increase density that is a serious matter I believe the staff would concur as far as my thoughts any zone change particularly since this last comp plan any zone change we've had I have reiterated the fact that we need to preserve and protect the existing neighborhoods we've got things to do but We do need to keep that in mind whenever we do it. I appreciate the renderings that was provided. This is the first time I saw them, particularly from the front side. I thought it looked like a very good building. My problem is the fact that I think 10 stories is just a little bit too much. Our comm plan talks about where developments occur, existing, or, and I'm pretty much reading in verbatim, developments abut existing or historic neighborhoods, appropriate step downs, or context sensitive elements should be used to minimize intrusion. You know we're close but as I said I think for me 10 stories is just a little bit too much. I could go with less. I don't know where we're gonna go. I could I've been sitting here and I could envision four different motions all the way across the board. So I appreciate everyone coming and keep in mind we do have one more item and I'll ask for a motion and we'll go from there. Thank you and it is now 514. I move to recommend disapproval of the requested zone change PLNM MAR 1913 for aptitude development for the following reasons. One, the requested downtown frame business B2A zone is not in agreement with the 2018 Comprehensive Plans, Gold, and Objectives policies and development criteria for the following reasons. A, the proposed rezoning and redevelopment of a 10-story structure along East Maxwell Street is not compatible with the existing character of the corridor which includes residential structures that front onto the public street with front porches of direct access to the street. Theme A, goal number 2B, states that development should respect the context and design features of areas surrounding development projects and develop design standards and guidelines to ensure compatibility with existing urban form. The proposed project disregards the existing urban form. B, theme A, goal number 3A, encourages existing and new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation, expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation, and public commitment to expand options for mixed-use and mixed-type housing throughout Lexington-Fayette County. Although the proposed development would provide new residential dwelling units, it does not provide for mixed-use or mixed-type development. Now, does the proposed development preserve the character of the neighborhood in which it would be located? C. Although a business zone is proposed, the proposed rezoning would not contribute to the creation or growth of jobs in the downtown area or creation of jobs where people live, as is recommended by theme C, goal number two. The proposed demolition and redevelopment does not promote and protect historic preservation of the community's resources, which are part of the culture landscape that gives Lexington its unique identity and image. Theme D, goal number three, encourages that protection of historic resources, including the renovation and restoration of structures. The existing residential structures on the subject site were constructed between 1885 and 1915 and are part of a district which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1884. Two, the existing high-density apartment R4 zone is appropriate in that it allows high-density residential land use and has for over a century in this location. The current zoning permits renovation and restoration of the existing structures, which can continue to provide necessary housing for the community. Three, the requested downtown frame business B2A zone is not appropriate for the subject site and that the site is not adjacent to the existing core downtown business zone or land use. Although the zoning ordinance indicates that the B2A zone is meant to allow expansion of the downtown, the subject site has not historically been considered part of downtown. Four, there has been no significant unanticipated changes of a physical, social, or economic nature since a comprehensive plan was adopted in February 2019, which would warrant the requested rezoning. Thank you. Okay, we have a motion for disapproval. Do we have a second about Mr. Graham Pohl? Questions in regards to the motion? Comments? If not, please, this is a motion to disapprove the requested zone change altogether, so please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. So, I would presume we need a motion to postpone the development plan. Yes, ma'am? Motion's been made to indefinitely postpone the associated development plan. For the record, it is Plan MJDP 19-50, the Marshall, indefinite postponement. Do we have a second on that? Second. Yes, we do have a second. please vote as soon as it comes up on the screen mr. Wilson seconded miss Carolyn Plumlee made the motion mr. Wilson seconded That motion passes. Thank you, folks. And as I said, we do have another one, so you're more than welcome to stand and listen, but we need to move on. Mr. Bailey, are you doing this? Yes, sir. Please, if you would, go on and move outside so we can continue. Mr. Bailey? Okay. Mr. Chair, I'm afraid we may run out of time. Could we move along, please? Let's squeeze us in, please, Mr. Bailey, and if everyone else will. We're moving on to BOAR 2019-3. This is the property located at 359 South Mill Street. The appeal is being filed by Mr. William Hilliard. We have had a conversation with Mr. Hilliard, and he is agreeable to staff's recommendation at this time. I will get to that shortly, but because of that, I can move a little more quickly through the information here. So the previous action by the BOAR was to disapprove a certificate of appropriateness, which occurred on August 28, 2019, for the subject property to modify the utility strip. The applicant wishes to not remove or had wished. He is in agreement with the staff's recommendation here now within the modified utility strip. So just looking at where we are, we're in South Hill Historic Neighborhood. Here we have an older photo of some of the property surrounding there. This is actually one of the oldest houses in Lexington. The basis of the historic overlay is the average reciprocity of advantage, whereby individuals gain the advantage of knowing what is going to be built around them, even though they're restricted with what they can do on their property. Looking at the aerial, property is located right there. Getting closer, and then that is the frontage of the property. What we're here to talk about today is actually, this is from 1974 before the historic overlay was established. Here's the property today. What we're talking about is this infilling area of the utility strip, or what is called the road verge. Utility strips were not established when this structure was built. So in the previous recommendation from the BOAR in which they disapproved, or not the previous action of the BOAR in which they disapproved it, it was based off of two factors that they expanded the walkway, and they did that without a COA, as well as doing it with a visually dominant or intrusive type of false sense of history. Staff recommends that instead of taking out all of the brick papers, that the applicant go ahead and add street trees within those brick papers. This takes away the option of it being used as a walkway or a sidewalk. It also increases the availability of stormwater retainage in this area. We did have a long conversation about street trees in the last presentation from many people of the public. But street trees in this location are actually very important. There are no underground stormwater facilities at this location. By filling in the area with permeable pavers, that actually has reduced the ability for that area to absorb and retain water. We are also recommending that the appellant reduce the area of the pavers to 12 square foot sections to allow for the planting of two small trees in concordance with the LFUCG planting manual. We will provide that information to the appellant when he would like to talk about what types of trees are available. For this, staff is recommending approval of the certificate of appropriateness. The appellant provided further information regarding the variability of the types of improvements utilized in the utility strip, which includes the brick pavers. The brick and limestone pavers are representative of past modifications to the utility strips within South Hill Historic Neighborhood. By including the two 12 square foot planting areas within the utility strip at 359 South Mill Road or Street, The staff finds that the use of the pavers is compatible with material and design with the structures on the property and surrounding the historic properties 3-4B, and not visually dominant, intrusive, or suggestive of a false sense of history, 3-4-C. The inclusion of the pavers in the street trees will also protect and enhance the natural and cultural landscape that give Lexington-Fade Urban County its unique identity and image. This includes the protection of historic and archaeological resources, theme D, goal 3A, and the renovation, restoration, development, and maintenance of historic, residential, and commercial structures, settlements, and neighborhoods, theme D, goal 3B. The inclusion of street trees will help improve Lexington's urban forests by strategically planting new trees and creating walkable streetscapes. Theme B, restoration policy number one. This is beholden to the condition that staff is recommending, which is the two street trees shall be added to the frontage of the property within exposed portions of the utility strip, each measuring six feet by two feet for a total of 24 feet of landscaping planting area. The street trees shall be two small trees identified in the LFUCG planting manual and approved by the LFUCG Urban Forester and the Office of Historic Preservation. and if you have any questions on that we also have the members of or the staff from the office of historic preservation if you have any questions for them and would you like to make a quick statement have literally two sentences um and that is basically to just let you know as a board that the decision of the board of architectural review to deny the application as built without a permit that totally paved the whole utility strip was consistent with the actions taken on utility strip applications throughout the years with the board and with the process and in keeping with the design guidelines. However, now that the possibility is that the approval under your consideration, the request from the planning staff to approve would incorporate in that to create two long areas six by two feet each to allow for the planting of trees. And it's my understanding the property owner is indicating he's amenable to that, that that is something that the historic preservation staff could strongly support and we would encourage as a solution to this situation. We thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Would the applicant like to say anything? Yes, thank you all very much. Bill Hilliard here. I bought the property at 359 South Mill, and although I have a very eloquent and very persuasive argument that I could make in support of what I have suggested, I'm not going to present it today because I do agree, I'm not a maverick. I do think that we ought to have trees and things like that. But just for the record, it's because a little piece of me is aggravated. know, I understand what they're saying, but there are 12 of the properties on this road that have either concrete from the house all the way to the road or concrete and brick all the way to the road. And so my suggestion of putting brick in between the site and the utility strip is not a maverick idea. It's already something that more than half the properties have. so i respectfully object to what she's saying on the on behalf of the board however i'm agreeing to the what the staff's recommendation is because i do agree with trees i do agree with the historic nature of it so what i'd like to do is get authority or approval for two types of trees that i've talked to my landscaper about that are not necessarily listed in the planting manual One of them is called a liquid amber which is a fruitless sweet gum tree that grows straight up and down so it doesn't spread out into the sidewalk. And the other would be an almost frontier which is an elm tree that also grows in a columnar way. I don't know if you guys are if you're authorized to approve that type of tree but subject to what approval of a type of tree and knowing that I've got enough planting depth to do it I'm in favor of the staffs recommendation Thank You mr. Hillard and yes or no we I don't think have the authority to get into these species of trees it does say that you can get approval by the urban forester I'd strongly work with him And if I may, he'll also be getting a permit from Historic tied to that, and we'll be working with the urban forester too, so that'll all work out. Thank you very much. I'm about to put in an application to change my chimney and just promise me you're not going to ask for a roof garden. I'm so glad to hear we're going to get your application up front. We'll be tickled to hear from you. I've learned my lessons. We'll let you all deal with the chimney later. And the only other thing I would note, so you all don't have confusion about it, the reason that the gentleman is saying, well, all these other people's properties have the paving, they all predate the historic district being put in place. And that's the distinction. That's all we needed to say. We appreciate everyone's cooperation in this. Anyone else want to speak on this matter? I hope not. If not, we'll close this part of it and entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Finn. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the staff recommendations for the reason provided by staff. Second. Thank you, motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Bell for approval of BOAR 19-3, 359 South Park Street. With the reasons and conditions provided by staff, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes, I think we're under the wire. Mr. Duncan, do you have anything to add? Thank you, Mr. Chair, good show to all of you for the work you did today. listening to the neighborhood for listening to the to the applicant for listening to the staff we thank you all for that happy thanksgiving to you the next meeting of the Planning Commission is December 5th at committees back in our offices thank you I should have mentioned mr. Horn being here today we're always welcome to see him he is here because Tracy Jones did have back surgery yesterday and my understanding is that it has gone well so wish her the best and thank you for being here today without anything else meetings adjourned