Got a deal, let's make a plan Who's your daddy, who's your baby Who's your buddy, who's your man guitar solo Who's your daddy? Who's your baby? Who's your buddy? Yeah, who's your friend? And who's the one guy that you come running to? Yeah, when your love life starts tumbling. I got the money. You got the honey. Let's cut a deal. Let's make a plan. Who's your daddy? Who's your baby? Who's your buddy? Who's your man? Who's your daddy? Who's your baby? Who's your buddy? Who's your man? We'll see you next time. Thank you. This is the big one. There's nowhere to run. On the record scale of a romance, you hit 12 and you don't stand a chance. This is the big one. I'm falling in love. Now it's beep, beep, beep My heart's sending out a message Please, please, please don't save me tonight SOS in this situation means She's out of sight No need to panic I tell myself But I never felt this feeling with anybody And so this is the big one I'm falling in love Oh, yeah. Out of sight doing that just wish happy birthday to Debbie Woods one of our staff members that's sitting over on the side there so happy birthday Miss Woods yeah she said no don't do that so with that do not know any minutes I need approval today postponements and or withdrawals do we have any we have two on the agenda no one's moving forward so I'd say with there's no postponements or withdrawals abbreviated miss Wade can we take anyone first according to the agenda the second item would qualify as an abbreviated hearing and that's the request from Lexington Habitat for Humanity except if there's anyone present who wishes to speak today so i will just ask if there's anyone present in the audience that wishes to speak about pln mar 19-17 for lexington yes sir okay so then we'll take um there is someone in the audience that indicated they wish to provide comment so we'll need to take these two applications in the order they're printed on the agenda today okay so the first on the agenda starts on page two which is Julie Butcher, Zoning Map Amendment and Edgemore Subdivision, Lot 3, Zone and Development Plan, Mar 19-16. Mr. Bailey, good afternoon. Good afternoon. We are starting with Mar 19-00016, the Julie Butcher property. I do have letters both of support and opposition for this zone change application. We do have 40 letters of opposition and two letters of support that I'll hand out now. And as you're passing that out, Mr. Bailey, I believe those are also uploaded onto the Granicus in front of us. All letters have been added to Granicus for your viewing at your station as well. the applicant is seeking a zone change from a single family residential r1c zone to a plant or professional office p1 zone for approximately 0.876 net and 1.191 gross acres the applicant is proposing to construct a two-story office building and the associated parking the applicant has not indicated a specific user for the subject properties, but has stressed the P1 uses are traditionally less intrusive due to the typical hours of operation and lower intensity. It is also important to note that previously the applicant had applied for a variance to reduce the required parking at the site. By bringing the structure down from three stories to two stories, the applicant has removed the need for the variance. The applicant supplied a letter withdrawing their request for the variance on January 27th. The letter also sought to clarify some of the place builder criteria discussed on the staff report for both the zone change and the development plan. The subject properties are located at the intersection of Nicholasville Road, U.S. 27, and Edgemore Drive. So you have Nicholasville Road going up and down, Edgemore Drive in this area. Nicholasville Road is an urban arterial roadway and experience is approximately 33,000 daily vehicle trips along this section of the roadway. It also serves as a major commuter corridor for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County. The roadway narrows from seven to five lanes in the vicinity of the site and has lane use controls, formerly known as reversible lanes, to accommodate morning and evening peak traffic flows. Edgemore Drive is a local street that extends between Nicholasville Road and Glendover Road. Zooming in on the subject properties, we can see that they are located within an area that is a mix of zoning. P1 zoning is located to the south and includes land uses of a bank. B1 zoning is located directly adjacent to the property across Nicholasville Road, and that is the El Toro Mexican restaurant, T-Mobile shops and a few other retail operations. And then you have B3, Highway Service Business Zones, across the way, which includes the Denny's Restaurant and the Hotel. North and west of the subject property is the R1C zoning, or the Single Family Residential Zoning. The properties have been located within the Single Family Residential R1 prior to 1967 and R1C zone, dating to the comprehensive rezoning of Lexington in 1967. The R1C zone requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet and a frontage of 60 feet. 1918 Nicholasville Road has a frontage of 81 feet and totals approximately 14,435 square feet. 1922 Nicholasville Road has a frontage of approximately 138 feet and totals approximately 23,380 square feet. The subject properties are located along the southern edge of the infill and redevelopment area, which represents the historic footprint of the city of Lexington. Here we get a view of the aerial photography of the subject site. This provides a very good view of not only how the houses are situated within the lots in the neighborhood, but also the land use and built environment that has occurred over time. you can also see that along edge more there are currently in this section no sidewalk facilities for those this part of the neighborhood there are sidewalk facilities at the end of edge more for the last five properties three on the north around yes three on the north side and two on the south side over the course of this application there have been a few questions regarding the infill development area and the practice of infill and redevelopment the infill and redevelopment area was established in 2002 and represents the 1934 urban footprint of Lexington based on the Sanborn fire insurance maps this area was created it was the creation of an infill and redevelopment steering committee which consisted of members of the urban County Council Planning Commission division of planning staff and members of the community which included representatives from the home builders Association the Fayette County neighborhood council and other related interests the area was initially established to facilitate for the development of small non-conforming lots in various residential zones I'm going to flip back and implement the goals of and objectives of the 2001 comprehensive plan the processes developed with that committee were meant to streamline be streamlined and allow for changes to be made through a modification of Article 6, which allowed for easier modification of the landscape to fit the historic footprint. In addition, the mixed-use zoning categories, MU1, MU2, and MU3, were created out of this group. In this case, the subject properties are located within the footprint of the infill and redevelopment area. That being said, the applicant is not applying the available parking reductions for the inclusion of bike infrastructure. The infill and redevelopment area is different from the practice of infill and redevelopment. Infill is categorized as the new development of vacant, abandoned, or underutilized land within a previously developed area, generally an urban setting, of the community. Located where infrastructure is already in place and includes the construction of new buildings on vacant ground in a developed area and most frequently involves small-scale development of scattered vacant land, but can encompass the assemblage and development of larger tracks as well. Redevelopment is categorized as the revision or replacement of existing buildings in previously developed areas, which may include the demolition of structures, construction of new structures, and substantial renovation of existing structures that may change the form or function of that property. this can include the expansion reuse and or adaptive reuse of existing structures this this is practice is directly tied to the need to grow our city and provide residential and business opportunities while being both environmentally and fiscally responsible here are a few images of some of the infill projects that have occurred over time in our city and then some of the full-scale redevelopment that has occurred. Shifting back to the subject properties, here we have a view of the property along Nicholasville Road up at the top. That's looking directly off of the sidewalk into the subject properties. We are, look in this picture here, we're looking up towards downtown along Nicholasville Road, south along nicholasville road towards southland you can see that intersection right here across the street where the denny's and the hotel is located and then across the street where the b1 is located with the el toro restaurant here we get a better view from the edgemore frontage of this property looking into the side of the current construction down edgemore till towards glendova road across the street to the current p1 use which is a bank office it is reusing the former structure that was a residential structure and then looking at the house directly rear of the property this was at one point this land was part of the subject property it was subdivided in 2002 this structure was built in 2003 the subject properties and the associated structures have gone through various modifications over the course of the last 100 years. The lot patterning has been modified several times since the initial platting in 1924 seen here. In 1954 the lotting was modified leaving a large lot addressed at 1914 Nicholasville Road and a smaller 1920 Nicholasville Road address which is currently where the 1922 Nicholasville roads is situated. Then, again, properties have been modified and consolidated between 1954 and 2002, where the property was then subdivided to create 1918 and 1922 Nicholasville Road, as well as 103 Edgemore Drive. Here we can see the overall lot patterning as it is today. you can see that there have been several other modifications in the area to the lotting of this site specifically these two properties here which were subdivided to allow for the creation of another residential structure the primary structure that is the older of the two properties is located here on the southern side that actually is a non-conforming duplex in the area the The structure on the property was originally constructed in 1924 and has experienced two periods of modification. The most recent addition included the northern wing of the structure, seen right here, which included the addition of approximately 600 square feet. The structure is a Dutch colonial revival style building characterized by a gambrel roof and curved eaves along the length of the house. The accessory garage for the structure is located on 1918 Nicholasville Road on that parcel. The subject properties were the subject of a zone change request in 2008 which sought the proposed P1 zoning. At that time, the staff recommended disapproval of the zone change, finding that the proposal was not in agreement with the 2017 comprehensive planned land use map, which recommended a low-density residential LD land use. This was defined as up to five residential dwelling units per net acre. While the requested professional office zone was at the time not in agreement with the land use recommendation, the existing R1C zoning was in agreement with the 2007 comprehensive plan. Additionally, the subject property was located within the study area of the Nicholasville Road Corridor North Small Area Plan, and the initial stages of data gathering had already commenced for the plan. The Nicholasville Road Corridor North Small Area Plan was abandoned due to lack of neighborhood participation. location. The proposed P1 zoning was also found to be inappropriate as Edgemore Drive was considered to be a land use boundary between residential and office land uses in this location. This was exemplified by a six-foot brick wall that delineated the boundary along the south side of Edgemore Drive. Finally, staff found that there had been no unanticipated changes in the area that has significantly affected the basic character of the area since the adoption of that 2007 comprehensive plan. A review of land use for the Nicholasville Road corridor has also been recently studied with the coordinated corridor land use plan and transportation study. That is the newest area study for all of Nicholasville Road. The difference between this study and the small area plan can be found in both focus and scope of each of the studies. The small area plan was focused on the neighborhood's desires and needs for future development of the area, as well as the ways to guide potential change in and around established neighborhoods. This plan was spurred largely due to the possibility that Baptist Health was considering moving their operations elsewhere, which would have left a large development gap in the area. The small area plan necessitated intensive neighborhood participation and included a scope that was well beyond the section of the corridor that was located near these properties. The new study is meant to identify opportunities for intensifying residential and mixed-use land uses along the whole of Nicholasville Road. Seeking to identify potential impacts and solutions for transit, non-motorized and vehicular travel that will result from a more intensive land use of those areas by also estimating the costs and recommend phasing of needed transportation improvements and their relationship with the densification thresholds and preparing a detailed regulatory framework for implementing the plan, including site-specific land use recommendations and corridor-based design guidelines and or standards. This study's focus is on the continued intensification of the corridor, allowing for transit-oriented development and focused development in an effort to maintain the continuity and integrity of the neighborhoods while also providing new opportunities for our growing community. The scope of this study is the corridor itself rather than all of the neighborhoods that interact with that corridor. Additionally, the new corridor study has selected a contract. While it has selected a contractor, it is still in the early, very early stages of review. The previous small area plan had moved to the goals and objectives stage and was working towards action items when the initial application was submitted. The applicant has chosen a corridor place type for their application. While the other place types within the 2018 comprehensive plan are not mapped, Lexington's corridors are defined. As such, staff concurs with the applicant's assessment that the proposed place type could be appropriate. Additionally, the comprehensive plan does recommend the medium-density, non-residential, mixed-use development type for areas located along corridors. This recommendation is supported by several policies within the comprehensive plan. Staff must also look at the relationship of the subject properties with the surrounding area. due to the location of the subject property and its adjacency to various land uses including a bank restaurants and a hotel staff agrees that the proposed development type can be appropriate for this location in review of the appropriateness of the p1 zone staff moves beyond the land uses that are available within this area to look at the adjacent zoning and intensity of development staff must staff must first review the intent of the zone which is primarily for offices and retail uses. Retail sales are prohibited except where directly associated with other office functions. The subject properties were, ah, there we go. The P1 zone does allow for a mix of commercial and residential, providing that the units are not located on the first floor of the structure and provided that at least the first floor is occupied by other or another use or uses that are available in the p1 zone with no mixing of other permitted uses and dwelling units on any floor the p1 zone is the least intrusive commercial zones found commercial zone found in the zoning ordinance it is meant to act as a buffer between residential and more intensive corridor land uses and commercial zones it is not referenced in the the comprehensive plan as a recommended use as the uses of the P1 are built upon and covered within the neighborhood business B1 zone and many of the uses are found within the mixed-use zones staff agrees that the P1 zone can be appropriate for the subject property with the review of the request of the applicant staff must now look at the justification that has been provided to us by the applicant beginning with the goals and objectives of the 2008 18 comprehensive plan the applicant indicates that they will seek to respect the context and design features of the area's surrounding development projects and develop design standards and guidelines to ensure compatibility with the existing urban form theme a goal to be by implementing the development criteria and providing a moderate increase in land use intensity transitioning from the residential uses to the professional office use The applicant also indicated that they are seeking to provide a well-designed neighborhood, theme A, goal three, by providing new services accessible by the residents and businesses along the Nicholasville Road corridor without significantly disrupting the existing nearby residential neighborhood. The applicant is also proposing to support the complete streets concept, encouraging the use of bicycles and public transportation by prioritizing a pedestrian-first design that also accommodates the needs of bicycle, transit, and other vehicles. Theme D, Goal 1A and C. Staff agrees that these goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan can be met with this rezoning. The staff must then shift to review of the development criteria for the corridor place type and medium-density non-residential mixed-use development type. At the zoning committee, as reflected in the staff report, staff was concerned about the applicant not addressing five development criteria. These included BSU 11-1, which is a focus on green infrastructure, ADS 1-1, which is a focus on mass transit infrastructure, ADS 4-1, which is a focus on multimodal networks and connecting adjacent neighborhoods, A, EQ3-2, which is a focus on transit-oriented development and the increase in intensity and walkability of an area. And then EST3-1, which is the inclusion of pickup drop-off points, something that we are seeking to include in a lot more development as we are seeing an increase in Uber, ride sharing, Lyft, and then the food delivery aspects of this. since that time the applicant has provided an additional amount of information and adjusted their development plan to include a note that green infrastructure will be included and delineated at the time of final development plan the they increase their explanation about multimodal connectivity and their conversations with lextran or their outreach with lextran and then have added a pickup and drop off point at the within this site for ride sharing the applicant has also discussed a bit more about how they are adding sidewalk facilities along the edge more drive side furthermore the applicant has withdrawn their request for a reduction in the parking which necessitated a greater focus on transit infrastructure off-site the applicant has indicated that they will work with or have reached out to lextran and will continue to discuss off off-site improvements as well as on-site improvements if they are required or something that lextran would like to see at this location staff agrees that the applicant has applied the development criteria to the subject properties and is in agreement with the comprehensive plan while staff agrees that the p1 zone can be appropriate at this location the The positioning of the site still requires the inclusion of conditional zoning restrictions to reduce the potential impacts of the allowable professional office uses on the adjacent neighborhood. Staff recommends the prohibiting of auto-centric uses including drive-through facilities and stand-alone parking lots. Further, staff recommends prohibiting the use of outdoor speaker systems or amplification and limiting lighting to a maximum of 10 feet in height and shield and direct any lighting away from the neighborhood adjacent to the property. Staff does recommend approval of this zone change as the applicant is meeting the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, theme A, goal 2B, theme A, goal 3, and theme D, goal 1A and 1C. Furthermore the justification and the corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies and development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan as the proposed development meets the criteria for site design, building form, and location as the site creates a development that supports pedestrian mobility. Additionally, the proposed rezoning seeks to increase the intensity of the use along a major arterial roadway, prioritizing an increase in land use intensity and allowing for future mixed use. The proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for potential users of the site by prioritizing multimodal connections and increasing bike and pedestrian facilities. These improvements address the transportation and pedestrian connectivity development criteria of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it works with the current landscape and limits the impacts on the surrounding environment. The staff does recommend the inclusion of conditional zoning that was previously discussed which are allowable under the provisions of article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance finally uh and of course uh the staff recommends that this be subject to the approval and certification of the associated development plan which miss galt will discuss in a second here if you have any questions for me at this time i'd be happy to answer them Questions for Mr. Bailey? Mr. Bailey, I do have one. In your conditional zoning restrictions, in the narrative, you do mention prohibiting auto-oriented uses including drive-through facilities. However, in the conditions and reasons, when you get to prohibited uses, you only mentioned drive-through facilities. Is there a reason? The standalone parking lots is in the findings. No, right. We were looking at those two specifically for any conditional zoning restrictions. We need to be specific about what we're going with. I'm asking specifically about auto-oriented uses. Correct. Is drive-thru facilities the only auto-oriented uses that we need to consider? For this, associated with the P1 zone, the drive-thru facilities and the standalone parking lots and structures would be the two. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, Cheryl? Good afternoon. Sorry. You'll see that we have a copy of revised conditions here, which are on the lavender color page. The applicant was able to bring in us a revised plan to be able to reduce some of these conditions. Howell has outlined the location, this being Nicholasville Road, and this is Edgemore Drive. The house currently sits in the rear portion of the property. This is a side view showing the location of the house in the rear. They have parking along the back and over here to the garage. This is the revised development plan where it shows the structure is now being moved towards the front of the property with the parking in the rear and to the side. They'll have access only here on Edgemore Drive. They do have a driveway here on Nicholsville Road, but that will be closed, so the only access will be in and out through Edgemore Drive. They show the parking as Hal had proposed for pickup and drop-off here. We have sidewalk, and we have bike racks over in this area for parking to meet the parking requirements. As you can see, we just have a couple sign-offs with engineering traffic in the Forester. They do show along here there's a hatched area, and this is part of a future bus rapid transit system. This is a reservation only. we have a note here that we would like to have reservation for future bus transit on Nicholasville Road 30-foot building line at the time of the final development plan this consists with the imagine Lexington Road corridor study currently they are just now proposing to start one and that will be the study so they're showing a 20-foot building line setback from the property line currently but they have a 12-foot reservation here so we were looking for a 30-foot building setback so if that transit would go through then that way the building is not as close to the road as Hal said the parking variance was reduced because they were able to reduce this height of the structure from three stories to two, so therefore we were able to remove that. Then we have discussed compliance with the place builder criteria, which Hal has been going through previously as to how the applicant is now meeting those conditions, and we feel that that condition can now be removed off of the conditions that we have in front of you. with that. Are there any questions? Questions for Ms. Gall? So just adding one thing about the place builder development criteria. Those were left as discussions. They have been addressed largely with what the applicant has provided us to this point. You can see in some areas, Cheryl did point out, where they're adding their two spots for pickup drop-off. They are including a few other things including the connections to the street here and here making sure that there is and i can do it up here as well making their connections there and there for safe pedestrian access into and out of the structure and out of the property itself there are they these have been left as discussion items for today's meeting as these were modified at the on january 27th with with a letter that they provided. And if the applicant would like to discuss what they have done on the site a little bit more, I think that would be appropriate. These were also left on as discussion items so that you as a body could hear them and have a further discussion as to if they have been met with these aspects. But staff is recommending approval based off of the information that has been provided to us. Okay, any other, any questions? Not yet. Okay, thank you. Move on to the applicant. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Nathan Billings, and on behalf of the applicant, Julie Butcher, it is my pleasure today to present before the Planning Commission. With us today, I have Zach Cato, one of the attorneys in my firm, Tony Barrett, who's our designer and of course the owner and applicant of this property julie butcher mr cato and ms butcher will also have a part in this presentation you've been given a couple of handouts just want to briefly review as we go through the first is just sort of an agenda to sort of walk you through what our talking points our presentation will be just so that the planning commission can follow attached to that is a new document that the planning commission may never have seen before in any planning commission and this is a development snapshot a zone change snapshot which is a summary of the zone change process calendar a link to a public drive file where all information regarding the zone change has been uploaded to and has been provided to the public and the stakeholders so that throughout this process they could have access to all of the documents including those presented at public meetings instead of just having to go to a SELA and the official applicant documents file thereon and finally you will find our proposed motion and findings of fact with respect to the zone change and development plan. For the next couple of minutes, I'm going to ask Ms. Butcher to come up and just give a brief overview about her acquisition of the property and the prior zone change attempt that staff briefly mentioned on, in which I'm sure the neighborhood will comment on. And then I'm going to come back up and sort of go through our public engagement process, and then we'll move from there. So, Ms. Butcher, if you'd like to come up. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners, Chairman Owens. I'll try to encapsulate my history with this property. Since my admission to the bar, I worked for two different law firms. And then in 2003, I decided to open my own office. And did that for several years. and was looking around for different property to actually have a physical location for an office, which I thought would help grow my business and actually help with marketing to have a presence. Looked at several different places and had been noticing, because I live on Cherokee Park and have since 94, had been noticing a building that I thought I fell in love with and I thought would make a wonderful law office. I had been in several different legal colleagues' offices, and it reminded me a lot of those offices and attorneys that I greatly respected and who are quite successful. The house was in deplorable condition, to say the least. It was in foreclosure. And at a point in time when the price got low enough where I could invest in rehabilitating and saving the building, I bought it. And contrary to my then legal counsel advice, I invested quite heavily in saving that structure. Because the purpose was to put my law office and grow my business. Hire more lawyers, hire more paralegals, hire more secretarial and support staff. Which, quite frankly, in Lexington, that kind of scale of legal office hadn't been done by a female before. And I was willing to take that on and thought, well, Nicholasville Road, everyone had told me that would be a no-brainer. So jumped into it, thinking that the zone change would not be a big deal. Obviously, I'm not a zoning attorney, and it ended up being a very big deal indeed. Our original proposal, the P1 proposal that we had done, was to preserve that structure, and also we self-limited to only three uses out of the 20 that were available under the ordinance at the time, thinking perhaps that the neighborhood would appreciate what I was trying to do. So anyway, then learning that we had a map system of zoning in Lexington and that there was a small area plan that was getting ready to kick off that was essentially the entire corridor of that North Nicholasville Road, including my properties the staff one of the reasons that they disproved the p1 zone request at that time was because of this small area plan so i came before this body we had got to the stage of disapproval by staff i came to this body and i withdrew and i withdrew because of what the staff had said it was premature because there was a small area plan underway which i then got on the committee that was developing that the community committee and then it went nowhere for 12 years it went nowhere and of course they sunset after 10. but i i was still thinking the process is supposed to work we're supposed to have this study the small area plan where all of the people involved can get you know their say and then we move forward whatever result that might be I went to the mayor Newberry at the time and asked him why can't we continue the study it stopped dead in its tracks he said there's really nothing I can do after after mayor Newberry I went to mayor gray and mayor gray said well let me put you in in touch with you know our head of planning and he may have an answer for you i got the answer that there wasn't really anything to be done i guess that's the lack of community engagement the lack of ability to have a consensus with all of the property owners on nicholasville road and the neighbors behind that i don't know what the reason but the process failed and so when i saw that we had a new comprehensive plan i educated myself i went to the various meetings that the staff held for both the applicants and for the neighbors who may be opposing those to educate myself to see what's what's changed what's going on and so i felt that this would be the appropriate time considering what you all and the council have decided is the new comprehensive plan to pick up maybe where that small area study left off and go forward with what the idea was for a p1 zone so i hope that helps to give you a little context about where i am and and where we've been in this process thank you thank you miss butcher as the um as the commission knows with the adoption of the 2018 comprehensive plan there's a significant portion of that called place builder and while we are almost at a year since the final adoption last February, there have been very few, in fact, I think only one major zone change process that has been undertaken under Place Builder. As you probably also know, there is a significant emphasis on public engagement inside of the comprehensive plan and inside of Place Builder. So with that perspective, when we were initially contacted by Ms. Butcher in June of last year, We took that seriously, and we, in fact, had to design an engagement process. There are, unfortunately, no clear guidelines on what that public engagement process should look like. There's a working committee right now called the Public Engagement Toolkit Pet Project that's underway. I think they're going to report to you in February on that. And it has a lot of really good things, but it has not been finalized and it has not been presented yet. So we were left with a situation where we had to design what we're going to do. So here's what we did. We took the Place Builder concept, the public engagement. And with that, I'd like to submit into the record our public engagement binder today. This binder includes letters of support from adjacent owners and stakeholders. It includes written correspondence. It includes dozens and dozens of e-mails with stakeholders. It includes meeting documents from no less than four public meetings we've held with stakeholders. It includes an affidavit from my staff regarding the things they have done to post signage in the neighborhood, to send out notices of meetings and including adding people to the mailing list that our current ordinances don't even provide for in other words we went above and beyond it includes presentation materials and other things finally it's not in paper but it's electronic but we have a Google Drive file that's public it has been publicly available since our first owner meeting and we have copied the documents from that and made it available in a thumb drive today, that drive will continue to be live at least as long as necessary. Of course, any findings that this commission would make have to go to the urban county council, and so that file needs to remain live through that hearing process, whatever that might look like. So here's what we didn't do. When we started this in June, we told Ms. Butcher, we understand what happened before and we understand you may have a desired zone, but here's our suggestion. Instead of putting together a zone change application and a development plan, like has happened with literally every other development in Lexington, except for maybe one, why don't we do this? Let's go engage the neighbors, the stakeholders, adjacent owners, tenants, Lex Tran, Fayette County Public Schools, staff, all of the stakeholders. And let's discern what is the best zoning for this property in a zone change process. So we did not come to this with a foregone conclusion that the P1 should be the zone change. We engaged real estate professionals who would do single family, who do multifamily, who do office, who do retail, and people who do all of it. To get their input on there's a property on Nickelsville Road that's nearly an acre in size. what are the highest and best uses understanding our current comprehensive plan and Lexington's growth goals. The goal of this was to engage and get information to help make an informed decision. So in August of last year, we had a preliminary meeting with staff. This isn't the pre-application meeting for the zone change. This is like a pre-pre-application meeting to discuss with them the concept. Staff gave us some good feedback. They gave us, for example, in that meeting, they said, we don't see this site being one where a drive-through would probably be applicable. We agree. We then, there was a neighborhood meeting in late August. This neighborhood who's next to it is one of the stakeholders, Southern Heights. They were already in a process to explore potentially an H-1 overlay or an ND-1, and we were at the meeting in August where I think staff presented on some options for the ND-1. In September then, after that meeting, we identified all the stakeholder groups, And these are what we wrote down. We wrote down, we have the owner, we have immediately adjacent owners. So we have, as you all know, we have to notify people within a certain distance from the property, 500 feet, who are PVA owners of record under the statute CARIS 100. But we identified 103 of those. Here's what we also did, which our statute, our ordinances don't actually provide for. Our subdivision regs don't provide for. We actually went out and mailed them to the property addresses where the tenants, where the address of the property for taxes is different than the address of the property. In other words, you have an owner who lives in one area of town or out of state. It's different from the property. So we would try to capture tenants who live nearby who are otherwise not notified in the process. KRS 100 doesn't require it. Local ordinance doesn't require it. But we wanted to make sure that everybody was being engaged in this. We identified neighborhood associations like Southern Heights. Within that, they have different stakeholders. They have a board. They have members. They have people who live within their footprint but who are not members. That's different than a homeowner association where everyone would be a member. Not all the people who live in the Southern Heights footprint are members. We identified local commercial property owners. As you saw from the map, about half of the property is surrounded by existing commercial business uses. Of course, LFUCG, we engaged LexTran, and we engaged Fayette County Public Schools as part of our stakeholders. From that, we began initiating communication with the stakeholders. As you all know from this process, one of the biggest stakeholders is always the Neighborhood Association. So we contacted the Neighborhood Association Board in mid-September saying, we're going to go through a zone change process. We'd like to meet with your board, not to talk about what zone we're going to have or development plan, We want to meet with them just to talk about this. What is this process going to look like as we go through? Again, an unheard of step. We set that meeting for October 10th. October 10th, they came to that meeting. They kept saying, what's your zone change? And we tried to explain, this is not here where we're going to say, this is what we're going to do. We want to hear the concerns that you all have. Some of them you can probably guess at because they come up in almost every one of these. but the goal of that meeting was to say we want a process with you all before we file for a zone change to figure out things that you will have concerns about that we can try to address ahead of time instead of us filing and then having a battle over stuff um november 4th we had our first public stakeholder meeting um there was probably about 50 people or so there um now this meeting was interesting we sent this notice out in october and i didn't realize that President Trump was coming in town that night and so we had to go reschedule that meeting because we had it at the public library in downtown on Main Street not knowing that traffic downtown was going to be miserable doesn't even describe it and so we moved it to a church on Nicholasville Road close to the neighborhood at their request to accommodate that the church was very accommodating to let us schedule it on short notice but we kept that meeting we had another meeting plan for two weeks later at the meeting on on the 4th, what we heard from the owners was, we don't know about all this place builder stuff. We need to be educated about what this zoning process means. And that's a fair question. So what we said was, we will agree, during this meeting on the 4th, we said, we will agree to have another meeting with you all to get more input and feedback. So we scheduled that meeting for November 19th. November 19th, shortly before that, the Southern Heights Neighborhood Board emailed us and said, we don't want to meet with you until you all file your zone change application and tell us what you're going to do. And my frustration was, we are asking you to be involved in this process so that you're not forcing our hand to do that. And they said, we're not going to come. We're going to tell our members not to come. So that meeting was canceled. So as a result of that, we did exactly what they asked. We sat down and in a week, we had to evaluate the information that we had received from the November 4th meeting the other stakeholders we'd sent out and said looked at is this going to be a residential project is this going to be a single-family or multi-family at the November 4th meeting one of the things we walked through was a discussion of the place type the development types and the potential zone types just like place builder asks us to do and very clearly as staff has reported this is falls within the corridor map inside of place builder. It could also have been an enhanced neighborhood. What we heard from the stakeholders at that meeting was they think there's an eighth category which says don't change anything. Our response to them was I am only allowed to deal with place builder that I have. If you think there's another category that's very fair to ask for that but that's not one of the choices I have. From that about from the people who would felt comfortable answering the question about half said they would rather have residential and about half said they'd rather have business so it wasn't a clear answer but again we're trying to get information so having heard from the major stakeholder or a major stakeholder that they didn't want to meet we moved forward and determined that p1 would be an appropriate zoning just like what had been asked for before we finalized our development plan and i should note on this november 4th meeting by that time we had at least four different conceptual designs for for the building we didn't know whether it be office or residential but we had we had you know we paid for a designer on the front side to design whether it be a single family home multi-family a condo building an apartment building an office building and we presented these slides said here's what they sort of look like we don't know which one but which one of these would would you all have really bad concerns about and why which one of these are less intrusive and why again to get input as we were trying to make that decision so because in order to have a hearing today you may recall that with the holidays all All of the December dates sort of move up a week. We didn't have until the first Monday in December. We had to file the last Monday in November. So we actually had a week less than I had planned to prepare. We filed that. On the same day, we went ahead and scheduled a second meeting that said, you all want to know the zone change. Here's what we filed. Here's what we have given you all because you've asked for it, which is the P1 with the development plan. And from that, they said, well, this meeting here on the 25th, by the way, was not with all the stakeholders. At the meeting on November 4th, some of the people said, well, it seems to us like people who live near the property might have a more important voice than those of us who live farther for the property. Fair point. So what did we do? On the 25th, we scheduled a meeting with people who were near the property. We didn't invite all of the stakeholders. We sent out a notice to people who are immediately adjacent to the property to discuss with them. Unfortunately, not because we invited them, but other people arrived at that meeting who were not in the invitee group and, in my words, sort of derailed that meeting with complaints about the zone change. Again, it's their process. They're allowed to do that. So then we went on to December 10th. The Neighborhood Association's annual meeting was there. It got canceled. We had a meeting on December 17th. We went through our committee hearings. In or around December 6th, we received the first contact from the neighborhood association's attorney, and she promised us that we would get a position letter soon, and we received it on Tuesday of this week, seven weeks later. So here's the things that we've done. We've done notices. Excuse me a second. Just to let you know, you've got about ten minutes left. All right, thank you. So we've done engagement with meetings, with communications. We've got online surveys that are in the binder we've done. We went to 100 houses in the neighborhood to get them to answer surveys because the neighborhood association wouldn't send it out to their members. We did follow-up. Again, there's a binder here with dozens and dozens of emails. We've offered since the filings, since the committee hearings, to again meet with the neighborhood association and owners, and they have not done that. We've done education, and I've walked through our zoning justification for the place type review, how we've walked through the development type, and how we've selected the zone. So with that, Mr. Cato will present our analysis on the zone change and development plan. Good afternoon. I'm Zach Cato. As Nathan said earlier, I'll be done on time, I promise. I've got the time written down. One thing I want to point out is down at the bottom of this you'll see zones for this place type are not limited to the listed zones. Other zones can be considered with proper justification. Hal covered that earlier, Mr. Bailey, excuse me, covered that earlier. I just wanted to point that out before we move on. So it's not limited to those recommended zones. P1 is not listed there, but it would still be appropriate with the proper justification. The legal standard, the measuring stick you have today before you, as you very well know, is KRS 100-213, subpart 1. The commission must find that the MAP amendment is in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan, or that the existing zoning classification is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate, or that there's been significant changes in the area since the last comprehensive plan, which make the current zoning inappropriate. it we had some brand new comprehensive plans so that's not on the table so this is what we're asking you today is that our proposal is in agreement with the current comprehensive plan as mr bailey indicated earlier they've indicated approval because we meet with our application the a multitude of gold goals and objectives from the new comprehensive plan we've worked to try to develop a plan and a use for this property that will not be significantly disruptive that will not add a drastic change in the neighborhood we're asking for an extension of the existing p1 zoning right across the street where u.s bank is its two buildings a an extension of that to this property as opposed to a wholesale change which we think is an appropriate compromise given the location of this property. And as stated, we've taken significant steps to try to make this property, the development plan rather, sensitive to the neighborhood. There are no sidewalks down Edgemore until you get to the other end of it. We're going to put sidewalks down the end of our property. We can't put them down all of Edgemore because other people own those houses. but maybe this will kick start that so pedestrian we're told that currently people have have to walk in the street because there's no sidewalks that's what we've been told or you don't have to walk in the street but that's that's what we've been told up until now so we've produced improved some connectivity to try to make this a well situated development in this neighborhood as far as the conditional zoning that staff is recommending we're in agreement with their conclusions recommendation and conditions as far as the we've agreed with the drive the limitation on drive-throughs since our pre pre-application meeting back in August we agreed that was not an appropriate use standalone parking structures we're not going to build a big parking lot here so that's okay we're not planning on putting an outdoor bar and patio here so the outdoor speakers is okay and interestingly the the lighting limitation this came up in one of our early stakeholder meetings they were concerned about flood lighting that they've experienced from the hampton inn across the street they said it's so bright that you can go out in your backyard at night and read a book so we were sensitive to that in our pre-application meeting we brought that up so this is something that we're looking at and being sensitive to because the neighborhood has brought it to our attention it's been a problem we looked at different locating the structure on different parts of this property for example at different times we had it towards the rear of the property we've had it towards more to the side of the property to try to address that issue so this is the limitation on the lighting is appropriate we We have no issues with that. There is currently a driveway here that is going to go away. I think there is a mandate, I don't know if it's a mandate or best practice or what it is, from the Department of Transportation that says we need to streamline busy roads like Nicholsville Road and not have traffic backing up any more than we have to. So that access point has been gone. There won't be anybody trying to turn left in or out of there like they do across the street or down at US Bank which kind of causes traffic problems there won't be any of that and we've also included pedestrian access on three sides of this building with preserving as much of the trees and canopy as we can there's also a nice healthy landscape buffer down the back to give protection to this property owner here and this one here on the north side as well to try to soften blow from this development from their perspective and not make it as intrusive on them this is just pointing out sort of what i've covered already we're in agreement with what the staff has recommended we've drawn our parking variants we've received several letters of support surprisingly that's rare it seems like as representing an applicant to get letters of support but we have some we've introduced these into the record but here are several of those we've also heard from several people who have called us and said we don't feel comfortable getting in the middle of this fight but we either have no problem with what you're doing or we support what you're doing but but keep me out of it so with respect to them I'm not going to rat them out and use their names here but we have heard from other people that think this would be inappropriate development and so with that I'm going to cut it short come in a few minutes early and I'm happy to answer any questions Thank You mr. Cato any questions at this point for that and or his team okay so mr. chairman when it comes time for the Commission to discuss that we've submitted to you proposed motion that largely follows almost exactly the staffs proposed findings recommendations as well including those for the conditional zoning restrictions. I would note one difference between the staff findings or reports on the development plan versus our proposed ones which is finding number five concerning the bus rapid transit and ours just we would ask that to reflect that to denote reservation for future bus rapid transit BRT on Nicholasville road including we would add the word proposed 30-foot building line at the time of final development plan consistent with quote imagining imagine Nicholasville Road corridor study just because it is not done yet and we just want to make sure that it reads that it is just proposed at this time but that's other than that that's the only change we have otherwise we're in full agreement with the staff recommendations and reports I'd be glad to answer any questions thank you mr. Billings we'll we'll take that up later any questions for Mr. Billings at this point? Nope. Thank you, sir. Applicants, no, I'm sorry, opposition. Let me back up for a second. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in favor of this application? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to the opposition. As she's coming to the podium, I will offer this. She will be allowed equal time. And anyone else speaking, which we enjoy hearing from if needed, would be allowed three minutes. Yes ma'am. Sorry, I'm just trying to make sure. Okay, there. Good afternoon, Planning Commission members and Mr. Chair. My name is Jessica Winters and I'm here on behalf of my client, the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association, to speak in opposition to the zone change requested by the applicant for 1918 and 1922 Nicholasville Road from R1C to P1. In your packet that you've just been handed, you have a copy of the Neighborhood Association's position statement, the 2008 staff report related to the same zone change request in 2008, copies of the PowerPoint slides that I'll be presenting to you today so you can follow along. All of this should be made a part of the record of this proceeding. You've also received 40 letters of opposition, and also included in the packet is the Neighborhood Association's proposed findings. so those are there for your consideration when we conclude. The Southern Heights Neighborhood Association represents an historic established and successful neighborhood. It was formed in 1973 and its boundaries are the University of Kentucky Arboretum and Central Baptist Hospital to the north, Nicholasville Road to the west and Edgemore Drive to the south. This is Edgemore Drive right there. The Southern Heights neighborhood has almost 300 homes representing many historic architectural styles. There are quite a few homes built in the 1920s. Importantly, the subject property, which was built in 1924, is one of the oldest and most architecturally significant homes in the Southern Heights neighborhood. Despite extensive changes in Lexington over the past 40 years, the Southern Heights neighborhood has maintained its clean boundaries even along Nicholasville Road. As you can see from this slide, Southern Heights neighborhood and including the subject property is 100% zoned residential. I note here that while the larger area includes a mix of zones, every single property that touches these lots is zoned residential. The properties at 1918 and 1922 Nicholasville Road which have always been located within a single-family residential zone have been a cornerstone of the Southern Heights neighborhood for almost 100 years. The applicant purchased 1918 Nicholasville Road in 2008 for $55,000. The parcel is currently listed on PVA as having a fair cash value of $70,000. The Dutch colonial revival style building at 1922 Nicholasville Road is a well-preserved and architecturally significant example of the Dutch colonial style. The home at 39,000 square feet has seven bedrooms and four and a half baths. It was purchased by the applicant in 2008 for $290,000. It is now estimated at a value of $515,000. When it was placed for sale in 2016 it was priced at $535,000 and the property has subsequently been listed for residential rental at a rate of $2,700 a a month. This beautiful, viable residential property contributes to the history and architecture of the established Southern Heights neighborhood. There is no doubt that the property owner can realize a profit from this property as it is currently zoned. The value of the property has increased by two-thirds since the applicant purchased it. Zillow predicts that home values in the Southern Heights neighborhood will rise 7.4% in the next year, compared to a 4.6 rise for Lexington as a whole. As you can see from this pricing map found on Zillow, Southern Heights is a desirable neighborhood with high property values. The residential properties to the left of the subject property along Nicholasville Road are residences valued between $268,000 and $461,000. The residential property directly behind the subject property is valued at $732,000, and most Most of the other properties along Edgemore are valued at or above $400,000. I should note here that the subject properties were once part of a larger lot that included two parcels to the rear. Importantly, the 1918 parcel, which is zoned R1C, has potential for residential infill development in accordance with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan's recommendation for increased housing opportunities and densification. However, the property owner has never pursued any such development of this parcel. The applicant previously sought a zone change to P1 for this property in 2008. At that time, the applicant intended to preserve the existing historic structure, but requested a zone change to P1 so that the residents could house a legal office. Despite the fact that the proposal would have preserved this cornerstone property, planning staff recommended disapproval of the zone change. The 2008 planning staff report is attached to your materials for your review and reference. The four bases underlying the planning staff's 2008 decision are still applicable and still support denial of the request currently under consideration. This is particularly so because now the proposal includes a plan to destroy a historically significant and viable residential structure that is not underutilized within its current zone. The first basis for the 2008 recommendation to deny the requested zone change to P1 was that the 2007 comprehensive plan recommended low-density residential land use for the subject property. While the comprehensive plan has since been amended, it remains true that the P1 zone is not recommended for this area or for any area. The R1C zone is still in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan's vision for this historic residential neighborhood. The second basis for recommending denial was that the property was within the study area for the Nicholasville Road Corridor North Small Area Plan, or SAP. It appears from the staff report that the planning staff's disapproval of the prior zone change request was heavily based on the then-ongoing SAP. The staff specifically noted that the SAP was intended to quote address current land use along this corridor and suggest future land use recommendations. Rezoning the subject property ahead of this detailed study is therefore premature. As will be discussed in additional detail in a few minutes, the subject properties are within the boundaries of the Nicholasville Road Corridor Study currently underway. This study, which is scheduled to conclude at the end of 2020, is specifically intended to inform future land use decisions for properties facing the corridor. The existence of an ongoing study regarding the appropriate future uses for properties along Nicholasville Road is therefore a presently valid basis for denying the requested zone change. The staff report for the request currently under consideration alleges that the 2008 SAP was abandoned due to a lack of neighborhood participation. This is simply not true. As you can see, you might not be able to see it well from where you're sitting, but hopefully in your materials, I requested and obtained the draft final report from the SAP prior to this meeting today. This draft indicates that the SAP was canceled because parties seeking redevelopment and those seeking preservation of neighborhoods were at loggerheads such that no progress could be made in the SAP. This is the same circumstance we see today, which is why the recommendations of the land use study that is currently underway will be so important. The third basis of the planning staff's recommendation to deny the request to P1 zoning in 2008 was that Edgemore Drive was then considered to be a land use boundary between residential and office land uses at this location. Planning staff in 2008 noted that this boundary was exemplified by the six-foot brick wall that delineated the boundary along the south side of Edgemore Drive. The land use boundaries for the Southern Heights neighborhood have not shifted since 2008. Edgemoor Drive is still a visible land use boundary and the six foot brick wall referenced in the 2008 staff report still stands. The fourth basis for the recommended denial of the P1 zone change in 2008 was planning staff's conclusion that there had been no unanticipated change in this area. The staff report mentions that the area in question was quote characterized by a mixture of land uses including several established residential neighborhoods on both sides of Nicholasville Road. Non-residential uses in the area include central Baptist Hospital office uses, commercial development of various types and restaurants. The planning staff noted in 2008 that between the subject property and the hospital residential land uses dominate the frontages of Nicholasville Road. This is the same mix of uses that exists in the area today. The applicant purchased a residentially zoned property in 2008. The property has increased substantially in value since that time and is currently a viable historic residential property that contributes greatly to the fabric of the neighborhood. The neighborhood has remained relatively unchanged since 2008 and there is no clear justification for this rezoning request. Nicholasville Road is the busiest arterial roadway in Lexington. The corridor was most recently studied in detail in 2014 and the 2014 Nicholasville Road corridor study did not recommend increasing density or intensifying the use of the subject property. The findings of the 2014 corridor study which can be found at the link referenced on this slide specifically state that the purpose of the study was to present the then existing conditions along the corridor including current and forecast demographics, current and future land use, and transportation conditions within the study area. The characteristics of the corridor indeed greatly differ from end to end with varying intensities of uses. Figure 8 at page 13 of the analysis of the 2014 corridor study demonstrates that the study identified the entire area on both sides of Nicholasville Road in and around the subject property and up to Southland Drive as a single-family residential land use which is reflected in the yellow areas oops yellow areas right in here this entire area the yellow represents residential single-family use this figure demonstrates that intensified uses don't begin until the southland drive intersection table two at page 25 of the study demonstrates that single-family residential land uses are almost as prevalent along the corridor at 23% as commercial land uses at 26%. The study also addressed potential for economic development along the corridor and in particular the area in which the subject properties are located. Areas recommended for future development are outlined in yellow. Appendix B sheet 10 shows the area including the subject property. Commercial development and increased use is not recommended for the area in which the subject property is located, which would be right in here. We argue today that the proposed zone does not meet the objectives of the 2018 Imagine Lexington comprehensive plan. Section 8-15 of the zoning ordinance addresses the P1 zone. It specifically states the zone is primarily for offices and related uses. Retail sales are prohibited except we are directly related to office functions. This zone should be located as recommended in the comprehensive plan. The 2018 Imagine Lexington comprehensive plan actually does not discuss the proposed P1 zone at all except to note that there is an excessive amount of vacant office space within the urban service area. DMC diversity policy number one under jobs and prosperity states, quote, there is an abundance of vacant office space options of many sizes throughout Lexington. DMC prosperity policy number nine notes that, quote, the vacancy rate for office space is around 12% with over a million square feet of available space throughout the urban service area. Due to an abundance of office space that's vacant within the urban service area, The comprehensive plan discusses the need to evaluate the future of P1 zoning and does not recommend this zone for any place type. TMC Prosperity Policy Number 9 provides as follows. Action item, study the efficacy of the professional office zone, looking at ordinance revisions aimed at reducing vacancy rates. A recent search demonstrated that there are more than 10 vacant professional office spaces of varying sizes available for rent within one mile of the subject property. NAI Isaac in its mid-year 2019 office report for the Lexington Fayette office market said that the combined vacancy rate of Class A and Class B suburban office space stood at 14.73% at the end of the year's first half. The Class A vacancy rate in the suburbs was 15.11% while the Class B rate was slightly lower at 14.59%. The first goal under theme A in the comprehensive plan, growing successful neighborhoods, is to expand housing choices. The proposed rezoning and demolition of this historic structure will actually remove housing choices from the marketplace. The interactive comprehensive plan map shown on this slide shows that the subject property is intended to be a part of a neighborhood. It shows that the subject property is a cornerstone property for the neighborhood in question. The property that we're talking about is right here. The same interactive comprehensive plan map online shows the subject property is not part of a prosperity area. Mixed use is not designated as a potential use for the subject property. Again, the posterity area is here. The property we're talking about today is right here. Goal 2B under theme A, Growing Successful Neighborhoods, is, quote, respect the design and context features of areas surrounding development projects and develop design guideline standards to ensure compatibility with existing urban form. The proposed P1 zoning requirements for this project do not embody this goal or objective. A zone change to P1 for the subject property is also premature and inappropriate at this time because an ongoing Nicholasville Road study will directly inform future land uses for the area in which the subject property is located. The 2018 Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan plainly calls for an intensification of major corridors but it also calls for these decisions to be made after public input and through the use and incorporation of studies. As you can see, in looking at redevelopment potential, the comprehensive plan specifically contemplates that underutilized property should first be analyzed through corridor land use and transportation studies. Specifically, theme D, placemaking policy number 12, calls for an analysis of underutilized commercial property through corridor land use and transportation studies. These plans are intended to complement the goals, objectives, and policies within Imagine Lexington and should be used to further inform development proposals. recently approved $225,000 plus Nicholasville Road US 20 coordinated corridor land use plan and transportation study which has already commenced and which is slated to be completed by the end of 2020 includes the subject properties. This study should be finalized and considered before any zone changes along the Nicholasville Road corridor are approved. In the June 26, 2019 transportation policy meeting a key purpose of the 2019 study was described as identifying areas for potential increased density for residential and commercial development and preparing a detailed regulatory framework for implementing the plan including site-specific land use recommendations and corridor based design guidelines and standards to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan the request for proposal echoes these stated purposes the project is specifically intended to identify opportunities for intensifying residential and mixed land uses along the corridor. Contrary to the representation of planning staff, key stakeholders for this study are specifically identified in the RFP to include property owners and business operators along the corridor and neighborhoods adjacent to the corridor such as Southern Heights neighborhood. It is indisputable that a comprehensive study of land uses and transportation along the Nicholasville Road corridor will impact the subject property which fronts Nicholasville Road at a delicate point in the corridor in which it transitions from heavier commercial uses to residential uses. As such, approving a zone change and redevelopment plan for the subject property that will dramatically alter the nature of this portion of the corridor before recommendations for land use in this area are obtained would be arbitrary and capricious and would simply disregard the fact that substantial amounts of taxpayer monies are currently being expended in an effort to address these very same questions. The first step in the collaborative process envisioned by the comprehensive plan and set forth in place builder is engagement. It's the position of the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association that the applicant did not engage in meaningful dialogue with the neighborhood. Southern Heights Neighborhood has endeavored to facilitate communication between the applicant in Southern Heights neighborhood residents by helping to advertise meetings arranged by the applicant through distribution of flyers and printing and posting large signs in the neighborhood. If you can look at this slide, you see the large signs there were the ones that were created and posted by the neighborhood association. And the small sign right next to it is the one that was posted by the applicant. The association puts links to the applicant's development plan materials on its website and shared the link with members in an effort to increase awareness of the proposal and encourage a meaningful dialogue the staff report describes some limited community engagement and acknowledges that the neighbors who participated expressed concerns regarding development the proposed zone change and development plan do not address these concerns and a vast majority of the residents in the area oppose the proposal the second step in the process and vision by imagine Lexington's place builder is designation of place type this step is important because designation of place type necessarily informs the discussion of what zones are appropriate within the proposed development area. Place builder indicates that an applicant should consider the site, community feedback, and surrounding context in determining place type. Here community feedback and context are wholly missing from the analysis and a common sense view of the neighborhood simply does not support a designation of the proposed development site as exclusively a corridor place type. The planning staff report recommends approval of the request of P1 zone based on its conclusion that the subject property is exclusively in a corridor place type. Again, P1 is not a recommended zone in any place type including corridor. Southern Heights challenges the planning staff's reports conclusion that the property affected by this zone change is exclusively a corridor place type. The zoning map on one of my earlier slides shows all residential zoning in the block of properties in which the subject property is located. The The notification map that you've already seen demonstrates the overwhelming residential nature of the surrounding properties that would be directly impacted by the proposed zone change. As you can see, the streetscape context from Tahoma to Edgemoor is exclusively residential. Across Nicholasville Road is the Pensacola Park neighborhood, which achieved an H1 overlay in December of 2019. place type is a context-based determination and a property is part of two distinct place types then there must be some recognition of this overlap in planning and zoning determinations in other words the undeniable residential component of the location of the subject property cannot be ignored this one or she have about nine minutes left thank you the Southern Heights neighborhood is most accurately described as an enhanced neighborhood place type. This place type is described in place builder as an existing residential area that could be enhanced with additional amenities. Importantly, non-residential mixed use is not listed as a suitable development type for an enhanced neighborhood and P1 is not listed as a recommended zone. The planning staff report further notes that the P1 zone is appropriate as a transition to higher intensity uses to the south. This conclusion ignores the fact that the Southern Heights neighborhood already has a P1 transition zone. So all the R1C that you see in here is the Southern Heights neighborhood and directly on the other side of Edgemoor begins P1 uses which actually continue all the way down the Nicholasville Road corridor to Zandale. That's the buffer zone that currently exists for the neighborhood. The The applicant seeks to extend the P1 zoning directly into the neighborhood in this corner of the residential block. The planning staff report improperly characterizes the property immediately right of the subject property as a bank. In fact, this property is not a bank and therefore does not have the increased intensity of the use that one might associate with a bank. It is a property that is zoned P1, but it is actually administrative offices used by a bank. It is furthermore located within the existing residential building on the property and maintains a significant amount of green space and tree canopy. This P1 property provides the transition from the Southern Heights neighborhood, which again is zoned 100% residential, to more intense uses along the Nicholasville Road corridor. The proposed development would therefore create an isolated island of P1 zoning with an office building in the middle of an otherwise entirely residential block. The Southern Heights neighborhood was established for single-family residences from its beginning in the 1930s. It does not contain underutilized structures and it presents an attractive and green southern entrance to Lexington and the University of Kentucky. The proposed development of an office building at this cornerstone property would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood. Should the zone change be approved, however, Southern Heights is an agreement that multiple condition conditional use restrictions be utilized and would support the same restrictions as are included in the planning staff report in addition to the fact that the requested zone change is not supported by the 2018 imagine Lexington comprehensive plan the proposed development plan is not consistent with development criteria it should be noted that although a particular design has been suggested it is acknowledged that there is no identified end user and no tenants have been identified. In general, the proposed development will result in a significant loss of tree canopy and green space. Green space will be replaced by impervious parking. There is no significant replacement of canopy provided for in the development plan and very little in the way of buffer vegetation. The proposed plan does not include a 30-foot setback as suggested by planning to accommodate a possible future widening of Nicholasville Road. In In addition, an historic cornerstone and architecturally significant structure will be lost. The following goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan have not been met by the proposed development. The citations are included in your position statement. There is currently no plan for mass transit infrastructure. There is no plan for pedestrian linkages to the front of the proposed public or the public right way. The demolition of the historic residential structure at 1922 Nicholasville Road does not constitute adaptive reuse of this property. The development plan does not preserve historically significant structures. The proposed development does not provide a neighborhood serving use that does not already exist in the vicinity as professional office space is already available in excess. The proposed rezoning and development does not provide a well-designed neighborhood. The proposed development is destructive of several mature trees that contribute to the urban forest without significant replacement. This development does not minimize significant contrast in scale, massing, and design, particularly along the edges of historic areas and neighborhoods. Pedestrian and bicyclists' mobility and safety would not be enhanced by this rezoning proposal. This development does not create context-sensitive transitions between intense corridor development and existing neighborhoods. The proposed development does not quote grow a successful community through well-designed neighborhoods by encouraging existing neighborhoods to flourish through the use of neighborhood character preservation this development does not aim to increase density through residential infill that enhances existing neighborhoods the proposed development does not honor lexington's history by requiring new development and redevelopment to enhance the cultural physical and natural resources that have shaped the community. Based on the foregoing, Southern Heights Neighborhood Association respectfully requests that the Planning Commission oppose the proposed zone change and development as it is not representative of the intent of Imagine Lexington. Furthermore, Southern Heights challenges the Planning Commission to encourage smart infill, including adaptive reuse of historic structures with a pedestrian and bicycle usage at the forefront of the design so as to maintain the character of these communities. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you Ms. Winters. Any specific questions for Ms. Winters at this time? If not we'll go on to citizens as far as the ones that they want to speak. Thank you Ms. Winters. And we welcome anyone to speak. You will have a three minute time limit. I would ask that as you can imagine let's not be repetitive anyone as I said once speak can we just don't need 15 people coming up here talking about the only thing they talk about is traffic so anyone wants to speak two or three of y'all can line up over there and keep things going like like her name and address as an introduction yes afternoon my name is Andy need I live at 121 Edgemore Drive I'm the fifth house up from the property in question. I oppose the rezoning because of its impact on my street, which is already dangerous. The street is relatively short. It runs from Nicholasville Road to a really awkwardly aligned T with Glendale Road. These papers weren't stuck together when I was sitting over there in my chair, and now they are. Excuse me, just a moment. Yesterday afternoon, I walked to the middle of the street in front of my house and took this photo. I'm looking toward Glendover. Let me tell you a little bit about what you're looking at. First, the street is two-toned because Columbia Gas put in new gas lines for us recently, had to tear up the street and come back and repave half of it. Now, notice how wide and straight the street is. many, many drivers see that as an invitation to accelerate. You might also note there are no sidewalks. That's because Edgemoor, unlike the streets of the immediate north and south, was once part of the county. Finally, see how the pavement seems to just end there in the distance? That's not Glendover. That's just the top of a hill. It's a blind hill. Ironically, many cars, I'm sorry, excuse me when we first moved into that street 25 years ago I had twins who were six months old you had to walk in the street I didn't put air quotes around that if you're pushing a double stroller you have to walk into in the street now imagine walking around one of those parked cars and facing an SUV speeding over the hill it happened very often that was cold yesterday afternoon so the street is empty but there are frequently times when there are people many people on the street there are kids on bikes there are students walking home from school or from the school bus stop there are people walking dogs there are people just walking and running and although my children are now adults there's their younger families out there pushing baby strollers the property at my end of my street is being targeted for development because we're told it's on a corridor. But, ironically, many of the cars coming and going from this proposed development will not use that corridor. They would speed past my house. This will be especially true in the late afternoon when there's a reverse lane rush hour. It's impossible to make a left turn off of off of Edgemore onto Nicholasville Road at that time of day and if you want to turn right you're in one lane of very slow moving traffic going toward UK the last time this property was up for rezoning I supported the change Mrs. Butcher had done a great job remodeling that magnificent house and I thought it would make a nice law office but an office building with more than 50 parking spaces is just too much. Finally, I ask that if you grant this rezoning, the developer will be required to install speed tables or some other traffic calming measures on Edgemoor for the safety of those of us who have to walk in the street. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Brittany Sams. I'm here today with the Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation located on 210 North Broadway. The Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation opposes the zone change requests from R1C to P1 for 1918 and 1922 Nicholasville Road and the demolition of the historic property which would follow. The house and landscape in question act as a barrier between the Southern Heights neighborhood and the businesses that lie to the south. As Central Kentucky's leading preservation advocate, the Bluegrass Trust does not endorse demolishing functioning historic buildings that are an integral part of a neighborhood sense of place. We also believe that the demolition of this building goes against Lexington's comprehensive plan, specifically Theme A's first pillar design. On page 27 the plan states development which may accomplish goals of infill density and utilization of vacant or underutilized property but is not executed in a way that meets the other goals of the comprehensive plan is not desirable. First, this property intended for development is not vacant or underutilized Moreover, we believe that the demolition and the zone change requested both fail to comply with Theme A's design policy 4, to provide development that is sensitive to the surrounding context. Though 1922 Nicholasville Road does face a commercialized area, the Southern Heights neighborhood that the property architecturally adheres to is still intact and residential. A commercial building in this location will disrupt the design and the historic nature of the neighborhood, neighborhood, breaking the barrier on Nicholasville Road and potentially allowing commercial development to continue to pervade this section of Lexington's built historic fabric. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. Good afternoon and thank you for allowing us to speak before you. My name is Joseph Ann Sickles. I'm here with my wife Mary. We live at 105 Edgemore and have done so since 2000. We actually moved here to Lexington in 1999 and rented a home on Tahoma, the next street over. We actually had planned to live outside the city limits of Lexington. However, after meeting neighbors and getting the sense of community, we decided to buy the current home we live in when it became available on the market. We both work at the University of Kentucky. I am in the College of Dentistry and my wife is in the English Department. I want to thank you for giving us this opportunity to really strenuously object to this proposed zone change. As I stated in my letter of January 17th, there are several issues. As mentioned, traffic. Traffic has become worse over the last couple of years. The Edgemoor has really become a cut through street. The plan, as I've seen it, calls for a building with 50 parking spaces and with entrance and exit on Edgemoor. That's really going to exacerbate the problems we have with traffic. We're a very family-oriented community, as you've already heard, that people walk on the street. They walk their children to Glendover Elementary. We've already had animals run over and we are concerned about our pets, our children, and in my case, my grandchildren. And to the effect, several neighbors have put up signs, drive like your children live here. Second water. Water is an issue. Water drainage is an issue. I'm concerned that paving that would occur with 50 parking spaces would change the natural drainage systems and lead to flooding of our homes. On a personal note, my house was flooded during a prolonged outer power outage. Almost all of us have sump pumps and in many cases have emergency generators, in my case to prevent that from happening again. As you've already heard, we are members of a thriving, established neighborhood with increasing property values and frequent home renovations. Church, there's a local where we vote. And we think that this change will have an adverse effect on the quality of life that our neighborhood enjoys. We ask you to deny this change. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. My name is Wayne Collier. I'm here on behalf of my mother. She's about 90, and she lives at 163 Edgemore Drive. The Neighborhood Association has ably set forth a lot of categories of issues and detail. What I'd like to do is perhaps summarize some of them that are important to my mother, which are, this body as well as the city has already acted to make several positive statements in favor of denial what are they years ago they decided that the property across the intersection at edgemore and nicholasville road was the soft transition well it won't be the soft transition anymore if this is approved there will be there will be a beachhead on the other block secondly Currently, comprehensive plan doesn't provide for P1 zoning, and more to the point, even across the street, recently, as you know, it's been zoned H1. So while there's a study ongoing about the corridor, several important decisions have already been made, and this one is, frankly, contradictory to the direction that all these other decisions have. But in a general sense, it's also contradictory to one of the policies that Lexington has, which is a recognition that there's too much P1 space, and secondarily that there's a great need for more residential units, construction, housing, whatever it may be. This, in fact, flips those on their end and prefers P1 to residential, in fact, decreasing it. Now, it seems to me one of the important concerns for this tract actually has, or process application, has to do with the safety of citizens at large and not just the people in this neighborhood. If you're familiar with this intersection, as was pointed out, it goes from seven lanes to five right at the intersection at this point. And in fact, that's more important in this context because the lanes are being narrowed as they approach town in front of this property. I've been there many times. My mother's lived there 50 years. So I'm very familiar with the intersection. In fact, first time I ever went on Nicholasville Road on my learner's permit was in my mother's company. And I have to say, even with traffic, substantially less than it was somewhat terrifying. I've lived through that. but here you have a situation where they're taught we're told that there won't be that much impact but that can't be so because you have cars converging from two lanes to one right there you're going to have many more parking spaces you're going to have a lot of daytime traffic because that's the nature of business and all this is a recipe for increased hazard not only in the neighborhood or in edgemore but on nicholasville road as well and it's it's hard for me to understand how it would be a transit point I can't imagine anybody slowing down or stopping on Nicholasville Road except at great risk of themselves finally as far as buses and public transportation there are bus stops two blocks in either direction on Nicholasville Road so there's really no need so I would ask that the Commission deny the proposed change it is a P1 zone and there's been a little discussion about all the other types of business that may come in under that heading. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Ann DeCastro. I have been living on Tahoma Road with my husband and five children for 24 years. All of my children were born at Baptist Health. We love our neighborhood. It's a diverse and eclectic community inside of New Circle. I am here to speak against the zone change for the property on 1918-1922 Nicholasville Road. I do not like public speaking, but I am here representing many people in our neighborhood who can't be here today. Being able to come to a meeting in the middle of the day on a Thursday is not easy. The whole process of fighting against the zone change is very time-consuming. It has put a tremendous strain on our board. Each member has put many, many hours into this, and I would like to thank them here today for all their hours of hard work. Because I have lived on Tahoma for so long, I was also a resident when the owner of the property tried to have the house rezoned in 2008 right after it was purchased. Back then, the council made the right decision in denying that request. I would argue that not much has changed since 2008. The house, which is a very nice structure, is the corner anchor of our neighborhood, a boundary between commercial and residential areas on Nicholasville Road. I have read your 2018 Lexington Comprehensive Plan, and it seems that this plan has given the property owner a reason to try again to have this property rezoned. However, the plan states many exceptions for infill because of our status of being an established, successful neighborhood. Lexington should protect older neighborhoods and the ability for older residents to thrive in the city. We have many elderly residents in our neighborhood. Many walk daily outside and enjoy being able to live in the middle of the city. One of the biggest impacts, I know it has been said before, of the rezoning and one that cannot be overlooked is the impact on traffic. I've got to go faster. I'm going to ditch this and talk. From Southland Drive, I drive daily to and from my children's school. The left-hand turn at 5 o'clock, it's impossible to take a left on Southland Drive. Then the cars coming from Nicholasville Road pile up on the merging lane, which then creates this bottleneck, and nobody is moving. So in this property, the exit would be on Edgemont Lane. no one is going to turn right to be in the gridlock of Nicholasville Road, and everybody is going to go towards Edgemoor that doesn't have any sidewalks. And this scenario truly debunks any notion that this change is pedestrian friendly, which is such an important issue in the comprehensive plan. I'm going to say that the only person that this change would benefit is the owner of the property who bought the residence over ten years ago. You are asking us to accept a change that would have a negative effect on our daily lives because one person made a poor investment decision years ago and is trying to make a profit from the sale of that property. I really believe that 12 years ago the council put the well-being and interest of hundreds of residents ahead of that of the property's owners and I hope you will do the same again today thank you thank you miss Castro yes sir Commissioner Owens members of the Planning Commission the planning staff I appreciate the chance to speak here today my name is Jerry Nichols I've lived in the Southern Heights neighborhood for over 30 years I'm going to read excerpts from a letter from dr. Brian Lee who also lives in the Southern Heights neighborhood and I want to make sure this is entered into the record of this commission dr. Lee writes given the statements in the imagine Lexington 2018 comprehensive plan it seems to me that a decision to change the P1 zone is without a doubt arbitrary and capricious let's look at the comprehensive plan map the red arrow indicates the property the property in question is intended to be part of a neighborhood as seen in the image looking at the next map the property in question is a part of the prosperity zone as P1 zone is intended mixed use is not even designated for this property from theme a of the comprehensive plan growing successful neighborhoods goal number one is to expand housing choices the proposed the rezoning and demolition will remove a housing choice from the marketplace goal three is to provide well-designed neighborhoods with expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation when considering this section of Nicholas Hill Road from Edgemore to Hilltonia Park the plan designates it as a residential area a change to P1 as counterproductive to this goal fundamentally the 2018 comprehensive plan which was legally approved less than a year ago includes a map of this area the map does not indicate that the property in question should be zoned for anything other than residential approving a zone change to P1 is not supported by the legally adopted 2018 plan for this planning area therefore I ask that you vote against changing the existing stoning from R1C thank you thank you sir hi my name is Wade McGuire I live on Wildwood Avenue which is a little street that runs between Tahoma and Shady Lane. I drive from the south side of Lexington on Nicholasville Road home. Anytime I go past Southland Drive I have to go past Edgemore and turn right onto Tahoma to get to my house. I get to watch as many of you probably have seen the drag race that occurs from Southland drive stoplight to Edgemore Drive because that's where you have to get into the next lane. I don't want to see that happen, and that's all that's going to do with 50 more parking places allowed in this proposed development is that either there will be more drag races or there will be more people pulling into Edgemore who do not need to be there. So that's my traffic concern, kind of amplifying what Mr. Castro had to say about it. And that's my reason that you should decline this proposal. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, my name is Scott Dreyer, and I live at 117 Edgemore Drive. The photo in front of you is me driving home at 5.30 yesterday evening on Nicholsville Road. Edgemore Drive is by the tall telephone pole there. This occurs every day when I come home. I cannot even get into the turn lane because of cars going into El Toro, and I routinely have to stop in the straight lane of Nicholsville Road and allow those cars to turn to even allow myself to get into the turn lane and access my road. Likewise, you can see cars block up and routinely don't let you on our street. So putting more traffic at the end of our street will just make this more dangerous. Per open records, in the 17 months from July 18th to January 2020, that's 80 weeks, there have been 76 wrecks from Southland Drive to Goodrich Avenue. That's about one per week in a 100-yard stretch of Nicholasville Road. That's astronomically high. This shows how dangerous the intersection already is, and adding development could bring hundreds of cars and delivery trucks only to compound this issue. Jacob has said that there's a mandate to put this entrance onto Edgemore Drive. I've spoken to the State Department about this. Daniel Coachella, who is a branch manager, and his section would oversee the development, contradicted this. He said, yes, it's encouraged, but it's not required. When he and I went over the logistics of dumping potentially hundreds of cars and delivery trucks closer to Jesland and Southland Drive intersection, he said this would impact the state's decision and could deny the entrance onto our street. He stated they have not been contacted or consulted in any way by them on this development. Deliveries. There's no adequate space for delivery trucks coming in and out of this property. where the UPS trucks going to go, the Amazon trucks, the medical delivery trucks. They're going to park on Edgemore Drive. What's going to happen then? People are going to be cutting around these delivery trucks. We know where they park, how they do this. They're just stopping them on the street with their flashers on. So people are going to be going around these trucks coming in and off our street, which is just going to potentially create even more wrecks with people coming in and off of our street. There's no accommodation in this development plan for a dumpster. Where is the dumpster going to go? Is it going to go next to one of these residential homes so that at 4 o'clock in the morning the dump truck comes up and slams that big thing down and starts making all this noise? There's no consideration for how deliveries or dumpster use is on this property. Likewise, there's 9 feet of grade change diagonally from the back corner to the front corner of Edgemore. There's no consideration of what happens with the grade change in this property or how that will affect the properties behind it and drainage. What this means is, I'm sorry, stacking is going to be another issue with people turning in and off of our street. Whenever you're backing up and people are trying to come in to work into this development, they're going to be stacking up on Edgemore, turning off of Nicholasville, won't be able to get into this open, into this entrance because it's blocked and cars will stack out into the Nicholasville Road because of this. It almost happens every morning now. Mr. Pryor, your time is up, so please wrap up. Oh, wow. Okay. So, I think you guys have in front of you the first example of the destruction of a viable residential structure on any of the corridors since this comprehensive plan was passed to put a commercial box development in a residential neighborhood. Your decision will set the precedent for the future of the corridors through the residential sections of our city. Your decision will set the precedent if we want to preserve the beauty of all these corridors in our residential stretches as they approach downtown. This is what makes our city beautiful and unique. All of our corridors coming into downtown have viable residential communities. If this is passed, where will it end? On Nicholsville Road from Cooper to Southland? On Richmond Road, from downtown to the old Shriners on Broadway from- Mr. Prower, I need to ask you to wrap up. Where will this stop? This will be a terrible precedent you will have set. Your decision will determine what our city looks like in 50 years. If it's a beautiful town or just another stretch of residential sprawl. Thank you, Mr. Prower. Good afternoon. My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. I'm following with great interest the Nicholasville Road Corridor Study. That can be my rote to work if they can work out viable bus transit, viable bike lanes, I am now working for the first time in Lexington where I do not bike to work. This particular zone change, I believe, could have a significant impact, could constrain the study as it's just beginning before it's completed. I urge that you vote denial of the zone change to P1. At a time when many comprehensive plan policies aware that housing is Lexington's most critical need, P1 requires no residential density. A mixed use 2 requires at least a trifle. You may recall perhaps... two years ago there were two small apartment buildings a pair of buildings on Versailles Road and they were up zoned some years ago to be one from being residential housing and they fell vacant years and years went by they sat there is B1 and ultimately eventually they were converted to a gas station I believe the sixth gas station on Versailles Road. This is the kind of white elephant I ask you not to make this parcel become. There was missing middle housing on Versailles. The upzoning makes the land too valuable to acquire for reasonable, affordable purposes, and housing is a priority with us here in Lexington today. Office space, by contrast, is overabundant. The comp plan in C, Prosperity Policy 9, cites the 2017 ISAC report on available office space. They had about a million square feet of extra surplus of office space. It's about two million now. The rate of vacancy ranges now between 13 to almost 15 percent. More office land meets no evident community need. And you have, and I have given into the record, the complete Isaac report. That's just the page on office use. My other concern is about the corridor study. Yeah, about 10 seconds, I mean. Okay. The corridor study is contemplating getting extra road width for a bus lane. That extra road width, some 12 feet of it, if that's what they determine is needed, would have to come out of the frontage on Nicholasville for this property. So the plan that accompanies the zone change and must be certified for that zone change as compliant with the zoning ordinance, it potentially reserves 12 feet, but it doesn't dedicate those 12 feet. If the study goes through and says the right-of-way must claim these 12 feet, The problem is this. It's not just right-of-way. There are utility poles right at road edge along Nicholasville there. There's a 20-foot utility easement. If the road edge pushes any closer on this property by claiming an extra 12 feet, maybe not all of it is road edge, but you can't build under an electrical easement. So what happens is everything is at the max. You can't have two lanes of parking and the requisite passage between. I think it's appropriate that the Nicholasville Road study that really articulates in context-sensitive fashion the appropriate land use for each section of this corridor be completed before you make a zone change decision that kind of rushes the gate with the existing ordinances and conditions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Yes, sir. My name is Mike Brower. I've lived at 114 Shady Lane in the Southern Heights neighborhood for over 30 years. I have written a letter to the commission, in fact two, that I would like to be included in the record of this hearing, including one to Commissioner Wilson that gives a different point of view about the engagement process that we have gone through. I would like you to please notice that. First I would like to say I appreciate the massive amount of work that planning staff and the commission have done on the comprehensive plan. It's obviously a tremendous commitment for time and effort. And I believe that the goals of maintaining the horse parks and growing Lexington is in everybody's best interest. I also believe that it's reasonable to interpret the existing goals of the comprehensive plan to allow zone changes along corridors or sections of corridors without destroying the irreplaceable structures like this house at 122. If I can move ahead. Didn't seem to get it. I don't know. Oh, it's rubbed off. Okay. Well, thank you. Anyway, you've seen this building, but this is a beautiful home, and I believe that there is room in an interpretation of the comprehensive plan that will allow a case-by-case study that for zoning changes that does not have to conflict with preservation. I believe we can work the preservation and infill can work side by side to better accomplish the goals of the comprehensive plan. We don't want to ruin the city in order to save the horse park. If it's no longer an interesting and beautiful place to live, it's counterproductive to the comprehensive plan. And I think just because a house is on the corridor or that a zone change application meets some of the specific requirements in the comp plan, doesn't mean that the proposed zone change and development is better for Lexington than keeping this 100-year-old architecturally significant structure. I think that strict reading of the comp plan essentially ties the hands of the planning Commission into an interpretation that assumes all corridors are identical and that all sections of corridors should be treated identically. That interpretation would have a harmful unintended consequence on the historic fabric of all of Lexington's older, well-established neighborhoods and as counter to the actual goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, please understand that this is not a matter of me not liking change or not liking something happening in my backyard. I'm just asking for a reasonable application of the goals and guidelines of the comprehensive plan in a way that does not damage the character and content of Lexington as I believe this Joe zone change and development would do thank you very much Thank you, sir Yes, ma'am Okay, hello My name is Kim Combs-Gersony. I live at 205 Tahoma Road. I've lived there since 1999. A lot of the things in my little presentation have already been brought up, but I think maybe I can add some visuals. Do I just click? There we go. And then I'll click again to start the video. oh okay there you go okay great thank you this is the the reverse late afternoon reverse lane rush hour mentioned earlier starting from back about Zandale and heading down the lights at Southland Drive are represented by the graphics at the top and people are sitting there with green lights at southland it's backed up all the way past the property at edgemore on north to shady lane and the the cars in the far right lane are zipping right along they're either going to turn right onto jeslin or they're going to do the mad dash once the roads the the lanes narrow on the right into one heavens in front of them the property most of these cards sit through a complete green light cycle and this is backed up through that intersection at southland and then north So that was about a minute. Oops. Everybody knows by now where the property is. This is where Nicholsville is seven lanes south of Southland Drive, and then it turns into five lanes. And so that critical road area between Southland and where the property is, where that X is, that's where the lane on the right is no longer anymore. So there's this big funneling that goes right through there. There's also all these multiple access points to all these streets around, which complicates the matter. There's people turning out of restaurants trying to get across the street, going over to the bank. Yesterday I saw somebody try to turn left from the far right lane across four lanes of traffic heading south at around 4 p.m. to turn into where the hotel is which I don't know where the pointer is but the hotel that's been mentioned is in the far left corner so it's pretty far away from the actual road front of Nicholsville Road so as been stated all these just impact that area so greatly cause a lot of traffic issues and and cut throughs through Edgemore there are two schools in our neighborhood one is Glendover Elementary and the other is a Redwood Co-op school Glendover there are no bus routes for the elementary school students that live close enough to Glendover to walk we are a title one school as well so most of our students 40 I think 1% are on free and reduced lunch we have a lot of kids walking to and from school on these roads miss garshney your time is up we need to get you to wrap up i'm just mentioning the amount of traffic the crash rate exceeds the statewide critical rate and what was mentioned before uh this is the small area plan that the the highest number of collisions was this exact stretch from goodrich to um to southland like was mentioned and 55 cars that would be introduced are represented by these 55 asterisks we don't know who the developer is we don't know what the actual use will be and if 55 cars every day adds that much if it's in and out it could be this much and i don't believe that this area is served by adding more traffic to the area with that zone change i believe r1c actually right now acts as a traffic mitigator it helps with our traffic problem miss Carson your time's up so thank you thank you so anyone else wish to speak at this point one more come on please please give us name and address and you have three minutes Catherine Adams 202 Tahoma Road. I likewise am a long-term resident of the neighborhood, having lived on either Shawnee Place or Tahoma Road for well in excess of 30 years. I think if this were a request for the tree-lined area of Richmond Road, everyone's knee-jerk reaction would be the same. We can't do that. This is an integral part of our city. Yet, if we're going to view one part of a lovely road as protected and another part as not, then that turns the zoning ordinance into something that leads to arbitrary and capricious decisions. All of Tahoma and Southern Heights neighborhood has been a residential block and we ask that you honor the language that is in the ordinance about respecting established neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name's Mary Duncan. I live at 148 Edgemore Drive, and I've lived there since 1998. And previously, I lived on Wabash Drive and Pensacola Drive. So I've experienced what it is to live in that Wabash, Lackawanna, Goodrich neighborhood and only have one way out. I want you to imagine if this becomes P1 or P2 and each of those other residential properties right along that corridor also become businesses, think what would happen not only to our neighborhoods with all the increased traffic in Southern Heights, but those people that are trying to get out onto Nicholasville Road from that new historic district across the street. And I know how difficult it is now. It would be unimaginably difficult. The only thing I can imagine doing would be to put stoplights at every single intersection, but you couldn't even do that because the way it's structured, the streets aren't parallel with one another, are not directly connecting with one another. I just think this is, if you consider a sort of domino effect, that this is a very bad precedent for both neighborhoods, the one that I used to live in and the one I've lived in for the past 21 years. Thank you. Thank you. So at this point, I was planning to take like a five-minute break before we get into the rebuttal stage, if that's okay with everyone. Okay. Thank you. We'll resume in about five minutes. Thank you, folks. At this point, what we will do, we will move to the rebuttal stage for everyone. Applicant, opposition, staff will each have five minutes, if needed, for any rebuttals. That may answer some questions. I'm not sure. If not, after that, we'll go to the question from the commission members. So first up would be, I think, Mr. Billings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. With five minutes, I will be constrained to respond to all of the comments made. But you have heard me speak before at these hearings that one of the first things I learned in law school is a very simple question, a very simple formula. It's called IRAC. I-R-A-C, what's the issue, what's the rule of law, what's the analysis, and what's the conclusion? It's a simple formula that every attorney should follow in everything they do in practice because if you do that, you will come to the right answer every single time. Judges do it, legislators should do it, administrative bodies like the Planning Commission should do it. So what is the issue here? Under KRS 100, the question is, is the rezoning of the property appropriate under the current, not 2007, the current comprehensive plan. The current comprehensive plan says that you look at the place type. There is no dispute that the place type for this is a corridor. There may be other appropriate place types, but this one is certainly appropriate as a corridor. The second question then becomes, as a corridor, what are appropriate development types? one type of development is residential uses, which include medium and high density. In our meetings with the neighborhood, we felt, while there wasn't a consensus on that neighborhood's part, that the majority of them opposed medium density, much less high density, residential use in the property. So it was sort of deselected. The second type of development types in a corridor are mixed use. You have non-residential, medium, and non-residential high mixed use. We think because of the buffering with the neighborhood, anything that would include a high intense use of this property would be inappropriate. Therefore, the only selection left is non-residential mixed use with a medium intensity use. The third question then becomes, what is the appropriate zoning of the property? You have heard several people tell you today that the P1 zone is not recommended anywhere in the comprehensive plan for a corridor or anywhere in the comprehensive plan. That is a blatant misstatement of the law of Lexington, of the comprehensive plan, and of our zoning ordinance. What Place Builder says is that there are several recommended non-residential commercial uses, which include B1, B5, B6. It does not mention P1. However, P1 is a lower intense use than the ones actually recommended in the comprehensive plan. So when you walk through that legal analysis, you come to the conclusion that a P1 is a recommended zone along a corridor of which this property is there. There are about 15 either irrelevant topics or potentially, I'll say, inarticulated topics that have been raised by the Neighborhood Association and nearby residents. It is impossible for me to go through all of those in the short time I've been given. But let me try to start while I have time remaining. The first one is a number of comments about the House being historic. Absolutely it is. there's been no dispute of that the comprehensive plan doesn't provide anywhere that just because a house is a certain number of years old that the property can't be rezoned or can't be demolished or reused you have seen tons of these applications for you one within the last several years is just on east high street similarly they want a moratorium on development along nicholasville road until the corridor study is completed miss butchard tried this 12 years ago her project was delayed because a study was in project then and processed then it was a different scope it was a different study it was a different context but it was delayed if you were to listen to the opposition story today we wouldn't see anything done from nicholasville road from the jessamine county line north until that study is completed for two years clearly that's not what the comprehensive plan provides for, and it's certainly not what the corridor study provides for. Three, traffic. If you assume that an office building like this would generate somewhere around 100 or 150 new trips a day, there's 33,000 cars on Nicholasville Road. The videos of the traffic you saw or other pictures is not going to be materially impacted by anything that happens on this property. That is .003%. If you look at the fact that there were 80 accidents, out of nearly 2,050,000 trips, this property, if it rezoned, would not have a material impact on accidents. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Ms. Winters? the applicant here purchased an R1C zoned property that has always during its 100 year history been zoned residential the applicant is not entitled to a zone change unless this Commission and finds that it's appropriate under the comprehensive plan. The subject property is in an established, successful and historic 100% residential neighborhood. Our comp plan recognizes the importance of such neighborhoods. The evidence presented to you is that the proposed rezoning will be detrimental to the fabric of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is protected first by a P1 buffer zone and second by this beautiful historic property, Allowing the rezoning and the destruction of this property will diminish the fabric of the neighborhood and open it up to further destruction over the upcoming years. The comp plan does not recommend a P1 zone for this corridor or for an enhanced neighborhood. The comp plan recognizes that there is an excess of vacant office space in Lexington that should be addressed. There is no need for additional P1 zoning in this area. You have been presented with evidence vacancy rates for office space in suburban areas is almost 15 percent. There has been no discussion of how the proposed development will bring anything of value to the neighborhood or that it will be of use or used by area residents. The comp plan speaks extensively of the need for increased density for residential uses. The proposal removes housing stock and undermines this important goal. Many of the residents have referenced issues with traffic. Of course the proposed development has not addressed these concerns because no traffic study was required in connection with this proposal. Traffic issues and impacts of infill in this area are currently being studied in detail through the 2019 Nicholasville Road Land Use Study and the findings of this study will include recommendations for how these issues can be addressed. The findings will also recommend specific sites for infill and development. The current zoning of the property as R1C acts as a traffic minimizer. Less traffic is obviously needed in this location. The particular block of Nicholasville Road at this location cannot safely handle additional traffic pressure that a P1 zone change resulting in 55 required parking spaces may produce with the existing infrastructure in the area. I also wanted to just reference that the neighborhood, Southern Heights neighborhood, is an involved, active, and concerned neighborhood. They were involved in the process here leading up to this day. They printed large signs. They distributed flyers. They made sure that everyone in the neighborhood had the applicants provided information. The neighborhood that surrounds this property opposes the zone change, but they participated respectfully in the process. At the very least, the zone change is premature as there is an extensive corridor land study in this area currently underway. If we as a community have decided to spend taxpayer dollars to look at future land uses for this area then it simply does not make sense to approve a zone change that's detrimental to the fabric of a historic neighborhood such as this while that study is ongoing thank you thank you staff mr. Bailey good afternoon staff would just like to clarify a few statements that have been made throughout the afternoon first there were a few land use maps there were descriptive in nature that were shown on the screen throughout the day these are not future land mass air land maps or future land use maps for our area as you know our comprehensive plan has shifted away from a future land use map designation to a more policy based decision matrix so pulling it up on the screen right now those maps are more descriptive of what is there currently not what could be there into the future there were also there was also a comment about the state controlling access to Edgemore Road the state does not have control of local roadways those access points are specifically guided by the local government's control and your decisions the state can control some access points along state roads but again you do as a body of this legislature have the ability to designate no no access or access to certain areas with that staff is available for any other questions thank you so what we'll do at this time we'll close the public comments section totally we've We've heard rebuttals. Open it up for any questions from commission members. For those that have them, I'm sure there's a few, and we'll proceed on from there. So, yes, sir. Let me, I have a question for the staff. We've heard a lot today about this conference, the corridor plan. Could you explain to us a little bit about what the corridor plan is about and the scope of the nature of that plan and how does it impact the neighborhood as they've proclaimed that it would? specifically the new study is meant to identify opportunities for intensifying residential and mixed-use land uses along the whole of Nicholasville Road while also identifying potential impacts and solutions for transit non-motorized and vehicular traffic that will result from more intensive land uses so in that perspective it is seeking and planning for a a greater intensity of land uses along the Nicholasville Road corridor, and looking at those impacts of new and increased intensity. It is also estimating the costs and recommending phasing of needed transportation improvements, their relationship to densification thresholds, and preparing a detailed regulatory framework for implementing the plan, including site-specific land use recommendations and corridor-based design guidelines and or standards. So primarily this is really looking at increasing the opportunity for transit-oriented development while also increasing the opportunity for new transit solutions, being mass transit solutions, not so much what we have really been hearing quite a bit about today, which is the single car occupant. Many of the individuals talked about the issues single-car occupants on the roadway including their own participation in that what this study is looking to do is increase the opportunity for residential and mixed-use uses like the P1 to be located along corridors so that we can seek a greater ridership for transit opportunities should they arise mr. Duncan might have more on that as well I think Mr. Bailey summarized the intent of the study. It is a six-mile corridor from the Transit Center to Brannon Crossing. So this study is looking at the whole of the Nicholasville Road corridor. So it's not confined to one block or one neighborhood or anything like that. It's looking at what will make this corridor more operationally efficient, safer, and viable for other transportation options, including mass transit and non-vehicular transportation as well. Cost will be a part of that, certainly up and down the corridor. But this is a much bigger study than just a small area plan or a neighborhood study would be. Mr. Chairman, may I follow up? Yes. A couple of questions. When has the study started and when will it end? Yes, sir. A consultant has been selected and the staff have been meeting with the consultant. There will likely be a public kickoff, public input kickoff meeting in early March. So the study has started and then public input will start by the end of winter, early spring. And will continue on throughout the year. And can I assume then, let me ask you, I don't want to lead you with a question, but I want to know you all were well aware of this when, in fact, this particular issue came to the forefront and your recommendations were put on paper. So I guess can we assume from this that this study, no matter what the results will come, will impact the results of what we are talking about today? Mr. Wilson, the study will have a variety of outcomes. And, of course, we were aware of this study. You all called for this study in the comprehensive plan. So this study has been called for as part of the 2018 plan. and it was funded and has started and will continue regardless. But that does not mean that other development opportunities up and down the corridor cannot be considered during this time. There was no moratorium on development proposed or even contemplated. It should continue and should be considered while this study is going. Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair, I have several other questions, but I'll relinquish my time. For the moment, for the moment. Yes, others? Mr. Nickel? Okay, I would, yes, thank you. This is for the staff. Could you all please comment why, as we're looking at the conference of plan, and you look at the place types, it then shows recommended zones. Now, two of the zones are notably missing in all of these place types. One is P1 and one is R1. Would you please explain why that is? That is largely because both of those zones are covered by other zones or built upon by those zones. So P1 and R1 are our least intensive of those types of zones. R1 is our least intensive of residential, and P1 is our least intensive of our commercial. At the bottom of all the pages of the recommended types, it does have an indication that an applicant can seek other zone types, so long as they are provided within their letter of justification. Now, specifically for the P1, all of the P1 uses are covered within the B1, but it is a more restrictive zone. The comprehensive plan, especially along with the corridor zones, was asking for a greater intensity. The B1 is a far more intense zone than the P1. So, with the comprehensive plan, it is actually seeking a higher intensity, not a lower. And that's where those recommendations were made. Very good. Thank you. Mr. DeMovlin. Yeah, we heard several comments about the property to the south, the P1 property being a buffer property. Is there anything preventing, assuming they follow P1 building requirements from them tearing that property down and developing it? The only area that would prevent a demolition of a property would be the H1 overlay or the historic district overlay. There is no historic district overlay at that location, nor is there one on this location. Okay, other questions? Mr. Bell. Mr. Bailey or Mr. Parker, I'm still struggling just with the 50 parking places. and to understand in that particular location how this, how Nicholasville Road absorbs this. So if you're willing to share with me on that, please. So Nicholasville Road is a corridor area. As such, it does experience the greatest amount of traffic during those peak hours, So basically the 7 to 9 time frame, and then we're looking again at that 4 to 6 time frame. At that time, there are traffic solutions that are meant to lessen some of that impact. However, with all roads, at those peak travel hours, you are going to see high amounts of congestion. With this use, typically the P1 zone is having an hours of operation between 9 to 5. You don't see those extended periods of time. And most of the traffic that is coming into that office is occurring during the daytime hours. Think your dentist's office, your doctor's office, those type of uses. With those uses, they will be utilized throughout the day, but at the peak hourage, in which you're seeing the greatest amount of traffic on the roadways, the amount of traffic is usually limited to those who are just coming in or just leaving, as well as those who are working at those locations. With the comprehensive plan, it does push for the intensification of those corridors to reduce some of the impact that you might have on neighborhoods. We don't want development like a P1 or a B1 to happen in the middle of a local roadway or in the middle of a neighborhood. This is on the periphery. It does access Nicholasville Road, which is a highly trafficked road, but is where we are looking to provide greater solutions to the traffic. That is where we are aiming for greater transit. That's where we have the greatest amount of transit ridership currently. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Graham probably next. Okay. Mr. Billings, I think this is for your team. I heard some complaints or concerns about the lighting on there, and I noticed that under our recommendation, staff's recommendation, it would be at a maximum of 10 feet in height and would be shielded and directed away from the neighborhood adjacent and adjacent to the property. I know there is a residence right against the property pretty close. We're going to have some headlights and so forth back there. I'm just curious how that lighting is going to be able to, I'm looking and thinking about the neighborhood. They're already being affected by lighting from across the street. What can be done there? How tall is that fence going to be and the landscape buffer in that? I think we talked about it in the subdivision committee, but I want to get it on the record. Sure. So this issue was raised during one of the engagement meetings with the stakeholders that when the hotel was constructed across the road on Nicholasville Road, that they were concerned that a multi-story building in this location would have similar pole light structures that would create light pollution into the adjacent properties or even two or three on. and so we recognize that as one of the concerns and in shifting the building based on neighborhood concerns towards Nicholasville Road away from the property lines we knew that that was going to be addressed and so in talking with staff we suggested there be a limitation on those poles if that lighting basically be directed away from those two owners into the lot there is a buffer that's been created along the sides we already have a landscaping buffer proposed with a six-foot fence which should be sufficient to block you for the time period where whether it's at six o'clock at night somebody's leaving the office or seven o'clock in the morning somebody comes in early the headlights should be a fairly minimal issue anyway but considering the amount of light pollution that's already exists from the street lights there which are which would be taller than this property and from the other traffic sirens ambulances fire police that already travel on nicholsville road we have agreed to that staff recommendation as part of this process because we think it's a better result for the neighborhood Does that help? Mr. Poe? I have a question for staff. This is relative to the comprehensive plans seeking intensification of use on the transit corridors. And particularly, I guess I don't quite understand the relationship between P1 and mixed use, because a comprehensive plan, as I understand it, encourages mixed use. We're talking about a P1 here. So how are they related and how does that relationship serve the intensification of use on the transit corridor? So the P1 zone was modified some years ago to allow for more of a mixed use context. This includes all of the P1 uses, but also the inclusion of residential uses. Those residential uses must be on a separate floor than the P1 uses. So it really laid the base for that intensification towards the B1, which also includes residential units, and then moving into our mixed use zones. So the inclusion of that P1 is around the time of the IR, I'm sorry, the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee. Now, that allows for mixed use, but does not require a mixed use. That is really the difference of the P1. And in this case and in the case of the B1, by not requiring it, it allows for typically lower-lying structures as well as for allowing for the applicants to choose that they just strictly want to do some sort of business. So it allows for the option of mixed use, but does not require mixed use like the MU1, 2, or 3. So within the P1 zoning, you can do a mixed use project? Correct. But here we're not talking about a mixed use project. The applicant has not indicated that they would be seeking to do residential on the second level, or if they came in, how they would allot that space. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Nickel here. I do have another question. I just thought of this. Maybe this is for Mr. Billings. On the documents that you showed us, it looks like at one point you had a three-story building. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. Okay, so at one point you had a three-story building, but what you've submitted today is a two-story building, correct? That's correct, sir. Okay, thank you. Well, yeah, somewhat as a follow-up to Mr. Nichols' comment, I noted that from the three-story to the two-story, but the question is from the letters that I read, and I was doing that Evelyn Wood speed reading kind of activity here, most people were referencing the three-story, and I guess the question is from the community, Does the difference make from three-story to two-story make any difference with you all related to whether or not this is a perceptible project in your opinion? Okay. Just want to get. I didn't know the question. I can't. Maybe I can say this, that through the public engagement process, we presented multiple building designs and heights, square footage, parking layouts to walk through this process. and we evaluated based upon those potential variances and when we came to the P1 application filed on November 25th we initially had a three-story P1 office building that would have required the parking variance because of the additional parking it wasn't a lot but it was it was still required a variance through that process considering from other meetings we've had with stakeholders from staff comments we felt that the two-story building would still be would be the best fit as on the development plan it's different from the zone change but on the development plan in part because a two-story office building is still probably going to be below the roof line of most of the residences in the area when you consider their two stories plus a peaked roof where this would probably have a flat roof and so if they have opposition to the the three-story building it is probably because you may recall the revised plan we submitted before the subcommittee hearing just had one incorrect notation for three-story that we just inadvertently didn't remove we'd already changed it to a two-story building and we just hadn't removed that one line and staff report actually said we needed to change that note which which we did for the for the final submission for this week but all of that every time we updated it for all the people who who had said we want to get updates we would upload those changes to our google drive file and email it out to people so it could just be misunderstanding from people referencing the three-story that they didn't go look at the revised plan which is understandable I mean, there's a lot of stuff going on. So, hold on one second. What I'd like to do, we heard some grumbling. I think for the record, Ms. Winters, would you like to respond to Mr. Wilson's question? For the record. For the record. Yeah, come to the podium. I was just hearing some input from the neighborhood related to your question on the reduction from three-story to two-story. and i think nathan covered it i think it was partially because of the parking variance request and it was at the prompting of planning staff i believe but it wasn't in direct response to a neighborhood request for a reduction although the neighborhood definitely prefers two to three i think the the main issue for the neighborhood is the zone change so okay thank you um now one other quick question what does it take to trigger a traffic study in a particular area Give me two seconds, I'll pull up that exact language. Mr. Wilson, it takes 100 new trips in one direction, either into the property or out of the property during the peak hour. So for Nicholas Phil Road, that corridor's peak hour is going to be in the evening from 4 to 6. It's actually a two-hour window, and it would have to generate 100 new trips either in or out during that time. This building did not hit that threshold, and so the ordinance does not require a traffic study. In a few circumstances, the commission can still require one if there are significant traffic concerns, but in my history here, I've never seen the commission ask for one beyond the requirements of the ordinance. Okay. Just one. Tom says there's one. This brings in redevelopment. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'm going to close this part of the hearing, open it up to the Commission for comments, questions, no, comments and or motions. I would like to say I did here want to thank everyone for coming and speaking and providing input. There was a comment as to the number of hours that people have put into this, which we all recognize on both sides. It's serious hours, and we also sit here looking at things in a serious manner. we get into this situation on zone changes and it seems to be occurring more often where we're walking a fine line as far as a balance as to which way to go and I said when I say we you know I really think it's all of Lexington that is providing that input in that decision we're sitting here as a body and in this situation we're making a recommendation to the council so you've got this body making recommendation that's going to go to the council making decision and once again it's it's taken in a serious manner and I appreciate everyone coming it's not always easy and it's not always a you know win for one side but hopefully we're sitting here you know doing what is right for for lexington and hopefully that's our decision whichever way this goes so any other question any other comments i didn't mean to take up anyone's thunder yes ma'am thank you I hope that went well. Any other comments or statements? I'll make a comment. Yes, sir. I'm opposed to this application because I think it's very clear that this property is, it's a single property, it's a small property, and it's very clearly the corner piece of a substantial neighborhood that has been intact for 100 years and should remain intact. I don't see that the opportunity to increase density on this particular property is an adequate argument for the loss of that identification of the neighborhood. I'm concerned about the fact that there are no sidewalks on Edgemoor and that forces people to walk in the streets. I think that's a legitimate concern. I also think that the opponent's argument that the use is already oversupplied is a good argument that supports my sense that this particular increase of intensity really doesn't serve the city in the long run. And I think it's more important that we're thinking about density, not intensity in this case. And this actually decreases density. So those are my feelings about this application. Thank you sir. Others that like comment? Anyone that would like to make a motion? I'll take either. Yes sir. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the Julie Butcher Zoning Map Amendment and Edgemore Subdivision PLN MAR19-00016 for the reasons that the staff recommended approval. Thank you we have a motion for approval of the Zone Map Amendment plan at 9 MAR19-16 Julie Butcher for the reasons provided by staff do we have a second second okay we got a second mr. Wilson popped up mr. Forrester also concluded confirmed that as well so motion has been made and seconded for approval of plan MAR 19-16 Julie Butcher for the reasons provided by the staff if there's no questions I'll... Bill Wilson chimed in pretty quickly so we... he wouldn't let you do it you pushed a little bit late I guess so Miss Wood since it's your birthday you can pick whoever you want to so we've got two that's seconded Mr. Wilson and Mr. Forrester. So once again we do have a motion for approval with a second. I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Do we have a discussion? Discussion if yes sir. I would just like to make one more remark and that is that the comprehensive plan specifically says that we should be protecting and enhancing existing neighborhoods and I think that that we've had several instances of this kind of proposal coming before us in which there's a tendency to ignore that, both from the staff and from this commission. I think we need to be taking that seriously. That's all. Thank you, sir. Any other discussion? Well, I would echo that. I think Mr. Pohl made a very good point that the location of this particular site is very specific to great concerns as far as I'm concerned. So I would echo his thoughts. Anyone else? If not, once again I'll call for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. We have a tie vote. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4. Ms. Plumlee's abstention needs to be recorded. Can you record? I abstained. Yeah, you'll need to click abstention. And an abstention counts with the majority. And the majority, there's a tie. No, it would actually be a 5-1 vote then, right? There's no majority. An abstention counts with the majority. Oh, I see. So we'll have to hold for a month and vote again in 30 days. Your bylaws provide that an abstention does go with the majority. However, there is no majority because it's a tie. And so a tie requires that you come back in 30 days and reconsider the vote. That's according to the statute and the ordinance. So. Ordinance procedure as well. Okay. So according to our statute and our ordinance with the tie, this thing has continued for 30 days. And Ms. Jones, please help me confirm this. We'll be coming back for a second vote, not opening the discussion up again, correct? I don't believe there's a reopening of the hearing because you closed it. Correct. Okay. So the hearing's been closed. we will be coming back in 30 days simply to ask for a question on procedure here the coming back I mean the whole point of taking another vote would be some additional information should come to before the body of such in other words if no information comes before the body all you'd be doing is switching votes now Miss Plumlee I guess you'd still abstain from that so you either you have you vote at this stage of the game and you I guess my question is what's the value of coming back in 30 days unless there's new information or additional information that will be provided to us wait you haven't done this for a while so let me double check to make sure about this also there might be other members commissioners here who aren't here today well they if they weren't here to hear all the presentation and discussion they would not be able to vote unless they watched the video. So Ms. Plumlee could watch the video if she so desired. And reviewed all of the documents. That would be the same as Mr. Brewer left early. So that would be the same for him. So just those two. Frank Penn I guess would be a possibility I don't know if he'll be back from Florida as long as anybody watches the video then they can participate as reviews the documents video gets up to speed with everything that we've seen and heard today they would have the opportunity to vote yes yes we'd be voting in 30 days according to miss jones yes yeah they would have to verify that for the record they'd have to verify that yes yes a lot of material i know of no affidavit that needs to be signed they simply make a statement that they have mr chair i have to if i could ask ms jones a question at this next time will new information be acceptable i'm looking right now okay that's the question that i have otherwise if they get the same information we get it still could wind up as a And Mr. Chair, Mr. Wilson, also all of you may not be here present at that next meeting too. So depending on who shows up, even from this group, could affect the outcome of that vote, even if no one changes their vote. Which one of y'all wants to volunteer to be sick? She's still looking up to see what the deal is. If you kind of voted the way you voted, we did the same thing for you. Come on now. You can't put it all on me. Chair, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. We can also check this and ensure that we have the right answer for you and get that back to you. I don't know that that needs to be stated at this time, but if there is information that we can pass on to you, we can do that, or we can move on to the next case and then continue to look or take another break, whatever you'd like to do. Thank you for that offer. I think what we'll do, we'll consider this to tie for the moment with the understanding that we'll be coming back in 30 days to reconsider the vote. And in the meantime, we will move on to the other agenda item that we have. If we do have an answer at the end, we will share it with everyone. Just for everyone's knowledge, the next zoning hearing is February 27th in the same location. So the next opportunity for this would be February 27th. Okay. Well, hopefully we'll get done with this. This should be short. So thank everyone for coming. And as I said, at the present time, this is a tie vote. It will be considered in 30 days at our February 27th hearing. And if there is new information that comes to light as to our vote or reason for vote, we will share that with everyone. Chairman Owens, it would be appropriate to postpone the development plan as well. Thank you. Thank you. So at this time we would need a motion for the postponement of the development plan. You ready? Yes. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 19-00075 Edgemore Subdivision Lot 2. with the conditions as set forth. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for the postponement of plan MJDP 19-75 Edgemore subdivision with showing the revised staff recommendations. This is for postponement for 30 days. Let us vote on that and we'll get back to you Ms. Jones. That motion passes. Ms. Jones? The way the statute reads is it says it'll come back to you in 30 days for further consideration so I think that potentially would allow for a limited amount of information as you determine as the chair in the past I can't recall what we've done to be honest we've only had it what happened one other time that I even remember but you would have to reopen the hearing in order to be able to take any new information but you could do that well mr wilson yes sir here's what i was hoping about and i may it may have been a far hail mary as such but i was hoping that the community and the applicants would get together and they might come up with some new information and if that's the case i didn't want to deprive them of that opportunity that was the point that could issue some things so that's my thinking i mean all the statute says is for further consideration so however you want to do that it also says if you cannot resolve that tie at that time that it moves forward to the legislative body without a recommendation okay if we open to move on to the council without a recommendation from us so 30 days uh if new information is warranted both parties please let it be known to the staff it would be considered and we'll move forward at that time okay question this is odd new information thank you yes ma'am new information yes ma'am so okay I've got a chance to look at the statute so I can't comment I'd offer to take it through miss winters on that we're going to exponentially increase everyone's costs and legal fees and everything i feel as if the record on the matter has been made clear here today with our presentation and rebuttal and the hearing's closed so that was my question i i i have been involved with this on one occasion i believe and there was no new information on that one occasion i don't see that there's new information coming forward here our ordinance says give it 30 days and we'll reconsider so you know that's what we're doing in the meantime i you know let's not overly burden ourselves with the possibility of new information at this time okay yes sir is this a process question i can probably just answer it in the hallway I would offer you know offer to the staff if they're you know the point is not to open their hearing again yeah really it's too it's no no it's not not the public and if they end with a tie next month we send it to the council anyway and they'll decide no only if the chairman says so okay okay so at this point we are going to move on to our other agenda item which is on page three Lexington Habitat for Humanity. It's plan MAR 19-17 Lexington Habitat for Humanity with the associated development plan that's on the following page. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. We are now shifting to PLN MAR 19-00017 for Lexington Habitat for Humanity. The applicant is seeking a zone change from the single-family residential r1d zone r1d zone to the planned neighborhood residential r3 zone for approximately 0.2 net and 0.3 gross acres for the properties located at 213 215 217 219 221 223 225 and 229 perry street the applicant is proposing to construct a townhouse development containing five attached single-family dwelling units the developer is seeking to subdivide the properties to allow for fee simple property ownership of the dwelling units the developers mission is to provide affordable housing for families in the Lexington area at a rate of 80% or less AMI so looking at the area in which we'll be discussing today we are located right in the second property in along Perry Street a small older and somewhat substandard local street that extends off of Manchester Street as you know there is a significant amount of redevelopment that has been occurring in this area over time that redevelopment is really through the adaptive reuse process mainly focused along Manchester Street and along Oliver Lewis Way in this location there are two portions of the distillery district that are those primary adaptive reuses the distillery district east and distillery district west zooming in on the property we get an idea of what the current zoning is for that area it is primarily primarily your light industrial up along the the rail lined in this area shifting back you do have some industrial uses you'll see a better view of that when we go to the aerial photography up in front of these subject properties is a b1 zone that is a restaurant primarily and then we move into our b4 historically this area was zoned primarily as i1 in the late 1970s the neighborhood pushed for rezoning to include a greater amount of single family residential and move away from that industrial warehousing type of zoning that actually happened for this area but it at the same time Davis Bottom was seeking to have that rezoning done as well. They did not get that rezoning. Over the past few years, there have been several zone changes that have sought to increase some of the housing that has been developed in this area. We do have some R1T in this area, some R3. Those were developed primarily as townhomes in this area. Shifting to the aerial photography, you can see that there is a fairly intense industrial development in this area where you're shifting over to the adaptive reuse of these properties. The current subject properties that we are discussing today had several houses on them, single family, small lot houses, primarily shotguns, that were demolished in the early 2000s. taking a view into the property itself on this top picture here you can get a view into the property and into the property behind it looking towards manchester street along perry street in this location you can see that there are it is a older substandard street it does not have those sidewalk facilities it is also quite a bit narrower than most of the city streets that we require today going back into the neighborhood you can kind of see the lighting's not great on this photo but you can kind of see the residential development that has occurred over the history of this area these lower photos do give an idea of how constricted this site is the applicant is seeking to incorporate two dimensional variances into their request for this zone change which mr. Martin will describe after the development plan when looking at the proposed redevelopment of this site staff must look at the types or the place type and the development type that is being proposed by the applicant in this case the applicant is seeking the enhanced neighborhood place type looking at what the enhanced neighborhood place type is and the goals of achieving increased density within neighborhoods as well as well as providing a variety of types of housing staff concurred that the enhanced neighborhood designation for a place type could be possible for these subject properties next staff looked at the applicants justification for the low density residential or their their asked for a low density residential within this property at this these properties in this location the comprehensive plan defined low density residential as primarily attached and detached single family homes of a variety of formats including accessory dwelling units it is supported by a few different policies here as well including trying to infill residential on vacant lots meeting the demand for housing across various different income levels and then supporting the missing middle housing types throughout Lexington this is well it is a low density residential type this is such a small lot configuration this actually results in something that's a little more higher density than what we usually see for townhomes staff is recommending approval for this zone change for the requested shift to the planned neighborhood residential in this area as they are in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plans goals and objectives for the following reasons the proposed rezoning accommodates the demand for housing in Lexington responsibly prioritizing a mix of housing types theme a goal one while also supporting infill and redevelopment with modern safe and dense housing theme a goal two the proposed rezoning provides a well-designed neighborhood theme a goal three by adding pedestrian facilities and decreasing the potential for on-street conflicts between pedestrians and vehicular traffic this is specifically important in the fact that the applicant is including sidewalks in the front of their development now there are no other sidewalks but as development redevelopment occurs in this area much like other places in our city that currently don't have sidewalks we are seeking to add those facilities in which redevelopment does not occur it is it is on the neighborhood and that council member to push for increased financing and facilities in those areas the re furthermore the proposed rezoning strengthens the opportunities for housing affordability within the lexington fayette urban county theme a goal one objective d this is specifically important as the applicant lexington habitat for humanity is seeking to provide affordable housing options for individuals and offering them at a feasible purchasing rate the justification of the corollary development plan are in agreement with policies and the development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for site design building form and location as the site creates a residential development that supports pedestrian mobility specifically trying to get residents out to manchester the proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for the potential users of the site by prioritizing the inclusion of safe safe pedestrian facilities these improvements address the transportation and pedestrian connectivity development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan and finally the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it works with the current landscape limiting the impacts on surround the surrounding environment and adds tree canopy coverage in the form of street trees and land buffers finally as with all zone changes this recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of pln mjdp 19-76 perry street townhomes which mr martin will now discuss if you have any questions on the zone change i'd be happy to answer those now i'm just curious about the width of the roads or the street rather so that actually impacts some of what is going to be discussed with the development plan what one of the major concerns of the neighborhood at the neighborhood meeting was the amount of parking that could be put on the street this concern was then echoed by traffic engineering and the fire department the applicant has shifted their buildings back so that they could have a 20 foot driveway which would allow for a car to park both in the driveway and or in the garage and on the driveway that essentially allows for two parking spaces for each lot which is one greater than what is required by these zoning ordinance and those parking spaces would not be on the street then is what you're saying they would not uh fire has fire and traffic engineering has already talked about limiting uh parking to only one side of the road and that is limiting it on one side they essentially need it on the other side not all houses have the availability of a driveway there this area was developed in a historic period in which they were seeking to create a compact and efficient neighborhood for their needs other questions yes ma'am thank you there will be sidewalks yes ma'am there will be mr martin Good afternoon. Your questions preempted. It's part of my presentation, by the way. That's okay. This is a preliminary development plan that you see associated with this zone change today. Oops, let me get the right one. Here we go. You already seen where it's located. Here we go. So the proposal is to provide five townhouses on this property. The townhouses are over 1,900 square feet, well over 1,900 square feet total. They're two stories. They're proposing a one-story garage. And you can see the outline. They are attached, of course, they're townhouses. You've got the sidewalks leading into the living areas. These are your garages, and these are the driveways, obviously, that will serve the development. Again, as I stated, they're two stories, one-car garage units. This is a new unit for Habitat. They haven't built townhouses in the past, so they're proposing to do that. And in the R3, they're required to meet the R1T standards on their property. Now, the infill and redevelopment standards, as you all are well aware, they encourage innovation. They encourage giving developments breaks where appropriate because it's difficult to do infill and redevelopment. However, also there's a provision on the rear yard being 20% of the lot depth. and in their desire and effort to meet concerns with the parking on the street and provide the appropriate driveway depth, they have requested two variances. One of those is the rear yard variance dealing with the depth of the rear yard and then the second one relates directly to your R1T standards in the ordinance which requires a minimum amount of open space, which they actually meet. However, the R1T section goes a step further and actually defines a minimum dimension on that private open space, which they cannot meet with this particular configuration. And as Hal said, yes, they have agreed to do sidewalks. And yes, there's going to be restricted on-street parking. Now, this is a preliminary development plan. You will see a final development plan on this property, which will be combined with a preliminary subdivision plan that will allow them to file a record plat and sell these properties fee simple. As part of that process, you will see, either at the preliminary subdivision plan or a final record plat, and you all don't see those as often as you used to, There will need to be a waiver on this property because it is a substandard street, 21 feet of pavement, 33 feet of right-of-way. They will have to, normally they're required to dedicate right-of-way through the subdivision process. They don't intend to do that, but they do intend to put improvements along the frontage of their property. Now, we have prepared a variance report for you. and the first one that I mentioned is the required rear yard. Back in here. They're requesting a variance from 10 feet to 7 feet. And again, this is all primarily designed to give the appropriate depth to the driveway and the cars can park on the driveway and not block the sidewalk. So they're meeting that standard and that's why they're requesting that variance. The second variance that they're requesting is, again, back here you can see their open space. They meet the square footage, but they do not meet that minimum eight-foot dimension, so therefore they are requesting a variance from eight feet to six feet on that private space dimension. So again, staff has reviewed this, and along with your subdivision committee and recommended approval of this plan and staff is also recommending approval of the variances as well and the reasons for that you can see in your report and I'll answer any questions you may have for staff any questions for mr. Martin do not see any thank you sir applicant anything to add I'm Jason Royster I'm construction director at Lexington Habitat for Humanity and this is Kevin Endres he is with Kevin Phillips with Endres engineering he's gonna pass out a few handouts that show some of that development plan that you see on the screen now I think he's also passing out a floor plan as well if you'd like to see our preliminary floor plan for the houses Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Martin and Mr. Bailey. Thank you guys for hearing us today. I'm going to keep this short. I'll just hand on a few things they've already talked about. They covered it very well. we are looking at turning this from an R1D to an R13 and this helps us better serve more families in this area the main reason why we were looking at doing the townhomes is to have higher quality housing we could maybe build a few single family houses on these properties but with certain setbacks we would not be able to have garages so by doing switching to the R3 and building townhouses we are able to fit more people in this area and serve more families that need you know affordable housing in our community and the number one thing from our neighborhood meeting that we held I think it was back in December was concerned from the local residents on the parking so that also brought about the driveway and the ordinances and changing the variances to have the setbacks so we can have parking on the street so that was one of the main takeaways from there but our main thing is providing high quality housing and so I think with the townhouses with the square footage wise and with the garages we will certainly meet that and then also on our final development plan we haven't talked about it much here today but we do request we're gonna look more into the BSU 11-1 green infrastructure and we'll address that on the final development plan where it talks about we maybe will do rain barrels or just be able to disperse the water over permeable areas of the yard in terms of grass or certain areas like that so there's not much more I have to say I'm willing to answer any questions but they did a great job of summing up our plan thank you sir thank you any questions for the applicant If not, others that would like to speak in favor of this. Others that would like to speak in opposition of this. Please come forward, sir. Thank you for your patience today. Your name and address, sir. My name is Roland Taylor, and I live at 224 Perry Street here in Lexington in the Irishtown neighborhood, and I live in the same house that was formerly my great-great-grandparents' house. I live directly across the street from where this project will go. I think some things may have changed from the initial meeting that we had with Habitat about the driveways and parking and the size of the structures. but if I understand correctly just a moment ago that they had made the comment the driveways will be 20 foot long and you're more than welcome to dispute what I'm about to say if I'm incorrect but I think the typical car is nine to eight foot long that's not allotting for any trucks to go on those driveways and again I was one of the ones at that meeting that was held at night there was more neighbors there but because of the time of this meeting there wasn't very many of the neighbors that could actually make it out here today so I apologize for that but the street is narrow I'm stating the obvious but if if you from my measurements from the back fence line to where you actually touch a portion the first portion of Perry Street is 54 feet and if you're going to put 14 foot of yard space that being combined front and backyard and then a sidewalk and I'm not exactly sure maybe someone here can tell me what the width of a typical sidewalk is we do not have sidewalks and when the former homes that were there were built at that time the major means of transportation there in our area were horseback and myself I am very much appreciative of all that Habitat does I applaud their work but I do not think that the location that they are currently interested in is the ideal situation, given the whole scope of everything that goes on on Manchester Street. And I would challenge any of you, if there is a function there at the music hall on Manchester Street, to attempt to come up and down our roads, you will see exactly what I mean when I talk about parking. and I've taken the liberty to do a little bit research and part of that was the with give or take a few inches up some of our emergency equipment is like eight foot four inches well when you go to put on a sidewalk of that on top of this I think it's gonna get really really dicey and I think as we all know I'm and a neighborhood as small as that fires are a major concern because the houses do sit close together uh... and there are other properties there within irishtown that uh... currently would accommodate this project i think it's two hundred or two or one driscoll street which was formerly the period park or also just right across uh... and davistown uh... they're still quite a bit of vacant land there with there's not been uh... any further building there and uh... i think before you all move forward i would humbly ask that you would seriously look at the overall scope of everything that's going on on manchester at this point I understand that much of that business there is up and down Manchester. It's been well publicized, and the Herald-Leader, there's parking issues already, so I'm not stating anything that's not public record. I think this could be a very hazardous situation. and I really wish that you all would not vote in favor of this project but maybe elsewhere there in the neighborhood granted there is a need for additional newer housing available but I don't think this particular location is idea for this pilot project of what Habitat has for Lexington at this time. I think they have done it in a few places in Texas, maybe in New York, but this is the first type multi-unit that they've done here in Lexington. And that's in essence about all that I have to say. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to speak? Yes. Paul Holland, 4573, 7 Drive. Once again, I applaud Habitat. They do great work. I'm all for them. The situation with this is he stole most of my thunder, though. We talk about family structures. I'm all for it. with the reese on him, all this back where the bottom was and all that. There's no grass or anything. Where are these family kids going to play? There's no park anymore. They took the two parks away from this area. all three from all one, I'm just I'm like rolling. I think it's just a little bit overkill. Again, I hope nothing but the best for Habitat. I'm all for it. That's all I had to say since Roland said most of my other stuff. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Thank you. Applicant? I don't see anyone else that wants to speak. Applicant, any sort of rebuttal on the comments made? Good afternoon. I'm Kevin Phillips with Interest Engineering. just a couple of comments and I guess comments to those opposition notes the the handouts we gave out to you there you can see it's pretty demonstrative I think about you know where the cars are parked and the remainder of the street want to stress though that we are not reducing the width of the street with the addition of the five foot sidewalks that is going from the existing edge of pavement into what is now kind of the shoulder of the road. There's, you know, everybody just pulls off. There's nothing to keep you from pulling off the pavement and into the adjacent grass on these vacant lots. So we are not diminishing the street in any way by the addition of the sidewalks. That is keeping exactly what's there. And it is a substandard street. It's 21 and a half feet of pavement. It's what's there now. It's what we propose to keep. Obviously with the car you can see the red truck parked there underneath where it says Perry Street. So that truck is six, six and a half feet wide which is sort of a nominal vehicle. I mean I understand the concern of a wide fire truck or dumpster truck or garbage truck, whatever sort of service vehicle might travel that street. But you can see there is, you know, you take it 21 feet minus 7 feet. So you've got 14 feet of clear pavement that any of those service vehicles will be able to travel that street appropriately. The open space, we are not increasing density. I guess I want to make clear that you can tell by the addresses. There are seven addresses there, which means that at some point there were at least seven homes here, here and I believe there are actually nine at one point. I know one deed even mentions having multiple homes on one address. So we're not increasing any density here. If the zoning were to fail for some reason, there are still five deeded lots here of various sizes. So there's still five homes to be built here, whether they're town homes or detached homes. But if they are detached, then there are setbacks associated with that. So with the reduction and elimination of the setbacks between the lots, Habitat's able to offer a better quality home with the driveway. If you build shotgun homes back where they used to be, then there is no opportunity for driveways and off-street parking. So that's part of the reason we're combining these into attached units is to give that extra space for the driveway. You can see across the street directly underneath that red truck, those are the two of the shotgun homes that are inches apart. So obviously there's no opportunity for a driveway in that sort of scenario, but you'd end up with something not just like that, but something close to that on the other side of the street if they were not able to offer these attached homes. So no increased density from what they're available to build right now, just a better quality I just yes sir I'd like to add just one more note about the playground area in the parks area I do know that Davis bottom that whole area and community land trust I know it's still states alone some of it but I know that is moving towards a park that may become the Southside Park which is in within walking distance where you can get to it down Perry Street and through the back underneath of Vercels Road. I do know that is in the future plan for Lexington. Thank you. Mr. Bailey, anything rebuttal-wise? Questions from staff? Mr. Nickel? I do have a question for the representative from Endress, please. So can you confirm that these eight lots are vacant property right now? They are indeed vacant. Okay. I commend you taking vacant property and providing affordable housing. I mean, it's much needed in our community. This is exactly what we need to be doing with our vacant and underutilized land. And also, I see that you could have had more units if you wanted to, but you decided to add covered parking in the form of a garage and a driveway to better, I guess, to provide the parking necessary and in an adequate street. So I think everything you're doing here is great. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions, Mr. Bell? Mr. Martin, whether it's this project or any project, the issue with the parking in Manchester Street and that area is really significant. And I guess my question is more for the, whether it be for fire or for police, when these units be built, would thus more awareness of parking and thus towing and things like that, do you see that, whether it be this project or another project, does that come into play further down the road type of thing, awareness? Do you understand my question? Yes, sir. I mean, parking is considered the right-of-way, the width, fire protection, public safety, all those things are just intensely looked at and talked about and considered. Yes, sir. I mean, it is a function of our jobs to do that. Right, and probably part of the reason that the parking is such a problem now is because there aren't structures back there and people just utilize it because there aren't that many. Well, people are going to park wherever they can when they're looking for parking. And as was stated, this area was developed long before the automobile was our primary means of transportation. Thank you. Other questions? If not, just maybe clarification, Mr. Endress. Phillips. Mr. Phillips, yes. I know that. See, he started me on it. Yeah. Mr. Phillips. Yes, sir. Just for clarification, there was a question as to the sidewalk. If I'm reading this right, it's a five-foot sidewalk? That is correct. That meets the current standards that the city is asking. And it's on your property? It's not taking any part of the street or anything like that? It is on the right-of-way, but it is not extending any further than the street than the existing edge of pavement. All right. Good deal. Thank you. And just one clarification for Mr. Taylor. He brought up Manchester Street. I don't have answers for you. It's one of the things that we often talk about as far as traffic and pedestrians on Manchester Street. I do know that your councilperson, Josh McCurn, is working diligently on that. I don't have details, but he is talking to a lot of people. and I think, I cannot speak for him, but I think he's making headway on some of that. Real quick, I didn't want to extend this, but I'll let you go. I just wanted to say that I had spoken with Mr. McCarron and Lexington citizens advocate Mrs. Dietz. There is no funds currently for a park in the area, and I'm curious, what is the width of each of these eight lots. If my thinking is correct, they're between 12 foot wide and 16 feet wide. And I guess even more so with there already being sidewalks in Davis Bottom or Davis Town, what particularly drew habitat to this specific location? I mean, I understand that one of their former board members owned that property, but I was wondering what specifically brought them to this particular location. Okay, thank you. I will allow this. I'll let you come up as part of the rebuttal, primarily because I started down another avenue. Mr. Phillips. Oh, question as to the dimensions of the property. i think he was looking at the dimensions of that property oh i'm sorry uh i don't recall i didn't prepare anything that showed the existing lots but there are five lots here they vary from literally from like he said 12 and a half mr phillips uh the dimensions of the property are located on your development plan um the length from front to back is approximately 50 feet the side to side width of the edge property is approximately 42 feet so if you have the zomar plaid it might be on there if i may assist kevin you all a lot of these existing lots weren't platted they're deeded what's going to the end result is going to be new lots and that's really what's relevant because that they're going to be creating new lots for these townhouses consolidating not create not increasing the number of lots but consolidating changing their widths because by deed they are you know let's say one is 14 feet the next one is 40 feet and then 16 feet and 24 they're all varying widths for whatever reason and in some cases there were multiple structures on single lots in the past. So I do not know the details of those five existing lots, but as Hal had said, the lot depth is 50 feet and the interior units are 37 feet a piece. So you have three 37-foot lots and then the two end lots are a little bit larger, which is 37 plus that side yard. So in essence, your houses are going to fit on this property. Oh, these houses will fit on this property for sure. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yes. Sorry. Okay. Any other questions from commission members? If not, I'll close the public hearing comment part, open it up for any discussion amongst among commission members and or motions. Yes, ma'am. I just want to make a comment. You know, we are limited on land for affordable housing, it seems. I'm involved with another agency. We build a home a year for homeless veterans, and we haven't been able to find property. So I commend you, as my colleague said, that you have found some vacant land that's sitting there, and you're going to put something on it, you're going to revive basically a dead piece of property. So I commend you for what you're doing. I've always been a proponent of Habitat and what you do, and I think it's great that folks make an investment. They're not just getting a house, they're making an investment in a home when these are being built and they're participating in that. So I think it's great, and hopefully it'll be comfortable for your neighbors and hopefully they'll enhance the neighborhood and make it a better neighborhood. So thank you. I'm sorry, anyone else? Motion? Yes, sir. I'll make a motion for approval of PLN MAR-19-17, including the variance as proposed. I'm sorry, let's do a motion at a time. Okay, sorry. Don't change the variance. So, you've got a motion for approval, I believe you said? Yes. For the reasons provided by staff, this is Plan MAR 19-17 Lexington Habitat for Humanity, seconded by Ms. Mundy. Any discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And then a motion for the variance. You can put both variances together. Okay, yes, I'd like to make a motion for both variants on the PLN-MAR-19-17 Lexington Habitat for Humanity as proposed. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of variances associated with Plan MAR-19-17 Lexington Habitat for Humanity, and I presume Mr. Forrester for the reasons provided by staff? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Motion was seconded by Ms. Mundy. please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the development plan. I have to make a motion for approval for PLN MJDP-19-76 for the reasons provided by staff. We've got clarification I guess. We've got 12. One I've discussed. Should that be denote or since we've had that discussion can it be removed? I think they will need to denote their green infrastructure on the plan. Mr. Forrester. Okay. Which one is that I'm looking for? Number 12. Number 12. Okay. So let me see if I can redo that. I think I'm going to make a motion for approval for PLN and MJDP-19-76 based on the staff 12 conditions, but change discussed to denote on number 12. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for approval of plan MJDP-19-76 Perry Street Townhomes with 12 conditions, change to number 12 to denote compliance with place builder criteria. Any questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you folks for coming. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Phillips. Thank you. Not Mr. Enders. Commission items? Staff items? Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, thank you all for your diligence again today. We'll see you next week at your committees on Thursday, February the 5th. Thank you. If nothing else, I'll declare this meeting adjourned. Thank you.