# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - February 27, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 27, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4960 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4960?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-02-27 - **Last revised**: February 27, 2020 - **Length**: 9,083 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on February 27, 2020, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mike Owens presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed five agenda items during the session, taking a total of six votes on various development proposals and zoning matters throughout the afternoon. The meeting saw mixed outcomes for the development projects under consideration, with two items being postponed for future review, two receiving approval, and one application being denied by the commission. No public comments were heard during this particular meeting session. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 27, 2020 meeting: • Mike Owens • Headley Bell • Patrick Brewer • Anthony de Movellan • Larry Forester • Karen Mundy • Graham Pohl • Carolyn Plumlee • Bill Wilson **Absent:** • Bruce Nicol • Frank Penn No members arrived late to the meeting. Nine members were present and two were absent. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on six items during the February 27, 2020 meeting, with four postponements and approvals alongside two failed disapproval motions. **Postponements** The commission unanimously postponed two development projects. PLN-MJDP-19-00077, the Winburn Estates Unit 3 (Hutson-Sirk Property), was postponed on a motion by Bill Wilson, seconded by Carolyn Plumlee, with all 8 members voting in favor [timestamp: 00:05]. PLN-MAR-20-00001, the Schilling Properties Zoning Map Amendment & Morningside Addition, was also postponed unanimously on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Larry Forester [timestamp: 00:10]. **Approvals** Two items received approval. PLN-MJDP-18-00030, the Ethington & Ethington Property Tract 1 (AMD) Development Plan, passed unanimously 9-0 on a motion by Carolyn Plumlee, seconded by Bill Wilson, with approval subject to revised conditions [timestamp: 01:15]. PFR 2020-1, the Fire Station No. 9 Addition Public Facility Review, also passed unanimously 9-0 on a motion by Bill Wilson, with approval including recommendations for landscaping and sidewalks [timestamp: 03:30]. **Failed Disapprovals** Two disapproval motions failed by identical 5-4 votes. The motion to disapprove a waiver request for the Ethington & Ethington Property (PLN-MJDP-18-00030) failed, with Mike Owens, Headley Bell, Patrick Brewer, Anthony de Movellan, and Larry Forester voting for disapproval, while Karen Mundy, Graham Pohl, Carolyn Plumlee, and Bill Wilson voted against the disapproval motion [timestamp: 01:30]. Similarly, Graham Pohl's motion to disapprove the Julie Butcher Zoning Map Amendment & Edgemore Subdivision Lot 3 (PLN-MAR-19-00016), seconded by Patrick Brewer, failed with the same 5-4 vote split [timestamp: 02:45]. All votes were conducted by roll call, with voting members including Mike Owens, Headley Bell, Patrick Brewer, Anthony de Movellan, Larry Forester, Karen Mundy, Graham Pohl, Carolyn Plumlee, and Bill Wilson. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that resulted in a split vote among commission members. **Julie Butcher Zoning Map Amendment & Edgemore Subdivision, Lot 3** The Planning Commission reconsidered a zoning map amendment request related to Julie Butcher's property in the Edgemore Subdivision, specifically Lot 3. During deliberations, commissioners expressed concerns about neighborhood preservation, which became the central point of disagreement. The commission ultimately voted for disapproval of the zoning map amendment, indicating that the proposal did not receive unanimous support and generated debate among members. The split vote suggests that while some commissioners may have supported the amendment, the majority sided with concerns about maintaining the character and integrity of the existing neighborhood. The specific nature of the zoning change request and the detailed arguments presented by both supporters and opponents were not specified in the available information, but the outcome demonstrates the commission's prioritization of neighborhood preservation over the proposed development changes. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item.* ## Winburn Estates, Unit 3 (Hutson-Sirk Property) [timestamp: 00:05] The Planning Commission considered agenda item PLN-MJDP-19-00077 regarding Winburn Estates, Unit 3, also known as the Hutson-Sirk Property. Fred Eastridge served as a key speaker for this item. The commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this development proposal due to unresolved questions regarding access to Russell Cave Road. The specific nature of the access concerns was not detailed in the available materials, but these issues were significant enough to prevent the commission from moving forward with their review at this meeting. The postponement indicates that additional information or clarification will be needed before the Planning Commission can make a determination on this development project. The item will likely return to a future commission meeting once the access-related questions have been addressed. ## Schilling Properties Zoning Map Amendment & Morningside Addition [timestamp: 00:10] The Planning Commission addressed agenda item PLN-MAR-20-00001, a zoning map amendment and subdivision proposal for Schilling Properties' Morningside Addition project. However, the item did not proceed as scheduled. Hal Baillie spoke regarding the application, explaining that the applicant had requested a postponement due to illness. The Planning Commission agreed to accommodate this request without further discussion of the project's merits. The Commission voted to postpone the Schilling Properties zoning map amendment and Morningside Addition item to a future meeting date. No substantive review of the proposal, public testimony, or debate on the zoning changes occurred during this meeting. The postponement allows the applicant additional time to prepare their presentation and attend the hearing when they have recovered from their illness. The item will be rescheduled for consideration at a subsequent Planning Commission meeting. ## Ethington & Ethington Property, Tract 1 (AMD) [timestamp: 01:15] The Planning Commission reviewed application PLN-MJDP-18-00030 for the Ethington & Ethington Property, Tract 1 amendment during the February 27, 2020 meeting. Key speakers Tom Martin and Matt Carter presented the development plan to the commission. The discussion centered on two main components: the proposed development plan modifications and a requested waiver that was part of the application. During deliberations, commissioners expressed concerns about the potential environmental impact of the proposed waiver, specifically regarding its effects on existing trees on the property. This environmental consideration became a significant factor in the commission's decision-making process. The Planning Commission ultimately reached a split decision on the application. They approved the development plan itself, but with revised conditions that addressed concerns raised during the discussion. However, the commission disapproved the waiver request due to the potential negative impact it could have on trees located on the property. The approval of the development plan with modified conditions suggests the commission found the overall project acceptable while ensuring additional safeguards were in place. The rejection of the waiver indicates the commission prioritized environmental protection, particularly tree preservation, over the applicant's request for regulatory flexibility. This mixed outcome reflects the commission's approach of balancing development needs with environmental stewardship, approving the core development while maintaining protective measures for natural resources on the site. ## Julie Butcher Zoning Map Amendment & Edgemore Subdivision, Lot 3 [timestamp: 02:45] The Planning Commission reconsidered agenda item PLN-MAR-19-00016, the Julie Butcher Zoning Map Amendment & Edgemore Subdivision, Lot 3. Graham Pohl served as a key speaker during the discussion of this zoning matter. The commission deliberated on the proposed zoning map amendment, with particular attention paid to how the change would impact the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioners expressed concerns about maintaining the character and integrity of the existing residential area. After reviewing the proposal and considering the potential effects on neighborhood preservation, the Planning Commission voted to deny the zoning map amendment. The disapproval was based on the commission's determination that the proposed changes would not be compatible with the goal of preserving the established neighborhood character. The denial represents the commission's decision to prioritize maintaining the current zoning designation rather than approving the requested amendment for Lot 3 of the Edgemore Subdivision. ## Fire Station No. 9 Addition [timestamp: 03:30] The Planning Commission reviewed Public Facility Review PFR 2020-1 for an addition to Fire Station No. 9. Cheryl Goff and Charlie Snyder served as key speakers during the discussion of this agenda item. The commission examined plans for expanding the existing fire station facility and evaluated the proposal according to public facility review standards. During the review process, commissioners raised concerns about landscaping elements and sidewalk infrastructure associated with the proposed addition. The discussion focused on ensuring the expansion would meet municipal standards for public facilities while addressing site development requirements. Following their deliberation, the Planning Commission approved PFR 2020-1 for the Fire Station No. 9 addition. However, the approval came with specific recommendations that the project incorporate enhanced landscaping features and appropriate sidewalk improvements as part of the development plan. The commission's decision allows the fire station expansion project to move forward while ensuring compliance with planning standards and community infrastructure needs. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MJDP-19-00077** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Winburn Estates, Unit 3 (Hutson-Sirk Property) - **PLN-MAR-20-00001** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Schilling Properties Zoning Map Amendment & Morningside Addition - **PLN-MJDP-18-00030** — passed (9-0): Approval of Ethington & Ethington Property, Tract 1 (AMD) Development Plan - **PLN-MJDP-18-00030** — failed (5-4): Disapproval of waiver request for Ethington & Ethington Property, Tract 1 (AMD) - **PLN-MAR-19-00016** — failed (5-4): Disapproval of Julie Butcher Zoning Map Amendment & Edgemore Subdivision, Lot 3 - **PFR 2020-1** — passed (9-0): Approval of Fire Station No. 9 Addition Public Facility Review --- ## Full transcript I'll lose track, me I'll bounce right back Maybe I'll sleep real quick Maybe I'll lose some weight Maybe I'll clear my job Maybe I'll just get drunk on apple wine Me, I'll be just fine And dandy, Lord, it's like a hard candy Christmas. I'm barely getting through tomorrow, but still I won't let sorrow break my way down. I'll be fine and dandy, Lord it's like a hard candy Christmas I'm barely getting through tomorrow, but still I won't let sorrow bring me way down Maybe I'll just lie low. Maybe I'll hit the bars. Maybe I'll count the stars until dawn. Me, I will go home. Maybe I'll settle down Maybe I'll just leave town Maybe I'll have some fun Maybe I'll need someone and make him mine Me, I'll be just fine So I'll call this meeting to order. I'd like to welcome everyone here for this February meeting. As far as the agenda, we have no minutes to approve. Do we have postponements and or withdrawals today? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I am Fred Eastridge with Sentara Corporation. On your first page under Development Plans, Plan A, Plan 190017, Windburn Estates Unit 3, Hudson Sire Property, we'd like to ask for a two-week delay to the March 12th hearing. We're trying to work out things with the staff on this. Thank you, Mr. Eastridge. Sorry, I'm a little slow today. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 19-77. Nope, is that it? Yes, sir. We get Windburn Estates Unit 3 Hudson Site Property for two weeks until March the 12th. Thank you. The motion was made for postponement and seconded by Ms. Plumlee for postponement of Plan MJDP 19-77 for two weeks until March 12th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Estreau. Others that would like to, any others for postponement or withdrawals? Mr. Chair, the applicant for PLN MAR 20-00001 shilling properties on page 5 of your agenda has asked for the staff to postpone their application for one month to the March 26th hearing. They had an issue of illness at the time, and they would like to push that back. Thank you. I did hear that myself. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? Apparently the news got out. Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Chair, move postponement until March the 26th of PLN MAR 21 shilling properties. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded by Mr. Forrester for postponement of Plan MAR 20-1 shilling properties and the associated development plan until March 26th. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Any other requests for postponements and or withdrawals? If not, we have a few, just a few remaining items that we'll take in order of the agenda. And therefore, the first would be on page two, continued discussion items, Plan MJDP 18-30, Evington, Evington Property. You do have a waiver request and also a revised recommendations on the green sheet of paper before you. Got good tech help. I need that. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the first item is on page two. It is a major development plan. It is 18-30, the Ethington-Ethington property. This, of course, is the aerial of the property. It is not completely up to date as the road system has been under construction in the area. Here we have Herdsburg Road, Palomar Drive. we have Madrone, the extension of which comes down into here into the old Higbee Road area. This is the final development plan, preliminary subdivision plan associated with this property. This is your B-1 commercial area. This is your proposed townhouse area in this location, and here we have the single-family homes. This is an R1D zone portion of the property. Again, here's Syringa Drive that comes through and comes all the way through the property from Palomar to Madrone, which has been extended as part of this project. Now, as you can see, this is an 2018 plan. It was brought back to you originally to modify this area. and this layout. Subsequently, they have modified the entire area. So what you see now is a revised plan that has adjusted the building layout in the commercial area. There was a CVS model building, you may recall, on this corner, and you can see that that has been altered to show more of a retail structure in this location with parking. They've moved the buildings up. They went to the Board of Adjustment to deal with the setback issues with the B1. Again, off Herdsburg Road, as you're aware, there's a lot of buffering required. You can see they do have parking in the front and in the rear, and they've adjusted this building. This is a canopy for gas canopy, car wash. This layout's been modified. This layout was back here in more of a monolithic structure. They have brought it forward, and you can see. So those are the B-1 changes on this plan. In addition to those changes, they have modified the footprint of the townhouses to a small degree located in this area. And, of course, this is an easement that serves this portion of the property, the townhouses, as well as the rear of the B-1. You can see on your development plan revised conditions, and they are, again, this lovely green. And they're on the back, most of the revised conditions. The revised plan has met several of the conditions that you can see that have been removed from your revised conditions in that they have submitted the geotech study. They've been to the board of adjustment. Again, that's one of the reasons they've adjusted this layout was a requirement or the Board of Adjustment to do so. They've also added a note stating that the facades will comply substantially with an exhibit that they submitted with this plan originally and with its original approval. There still is a staff still has one condition on their resolve, note 11. That's the landscaping in this area. and they have shown their landscaping, and it is, in fact, above and beyond that that is required in Article 18, Zone to Zone Screening. There's a little gap here and there. We just want to be sure that staff, landscape examiner, and the applicant agree on exactly what supplemental landscaping means and not just normally it would be, for instance, a tree every 40 feet. They're showing them approximately every 25 feet. And, again, that does create more of a dense barrier and more landscaping, and that addresses an initial concern on this plan. With that, again, as I stated, they changed the footprint slightly here on the townhouses. There is a waiver request, as our chairman stated, with this, and we have supplied you with a report. the waiver request has to do with Syringa the public street it is a public street through here and the R1D lots that are proposed for this area the specifics of this waiver request is to reduce the width of the right of way They're not requesting any change to the physical improvements. They're all going to be right where they are, and that's where they are intended to be. The issue is they want to restrict the right-of-way in its width, instead of being at back of sidewalk, to back of curb. By reducing the right-of-way, what this allows then is the 30-foot setback to start at a different point. And therefore, it increases the buildable area on their lot. Now, they're citing some issues with the property, topographic issues, steep slope issues. They're concerned particularly about the relationship in the rear with these lots and the existing neighborhood. That's part of their concern. They've stated that they believe they may need to put in some retaining walls. They might have grading issues and they don't want to get into the tree protection area. They're attempting to save the trees through here. As you all are aware, we lost a lot of trees on this site. They're attempting to save the trees here. So that's part of their concern. And staff reviewed this. With the review of this, and staff, this is a very interesting request in that it cites a topographic issue and a physical issue, and those are the types of things that are necessary for a waiver. planning staff discuss this with engineering and traffic engineering at a considerable length. And what we want you to see, and they have provided pictures that should be attached as well to your report. This is December of last year, and this is the area. This is the development. that. So here you can see the street system. The roads have been built. There's the carbon gutter. There's areas we'll notice that the stormwater system is in. You'll see the inlets. You can keep on going. Again, here we are, I believe, looking down towards the Madrone intersection with Old Higby Mill. That's the church in the background. This is more of the area in question along Syringa. And you can see the trees with the neighborhood. And what staff wanted you to see, and these are courtesy of the Division of Engineering, is just the topography. Keep on moving. That's the same site. And is that it? Thank you. There we go. Again, we wanted you to see the topography because that's really an issue that they're citing as a concern. They're also citing the fact that back in 1994, the Planning Commission granted a waiver to the neighboring subdivision. There's three streets above them. It's also known as Ethington and Ethington property. And they were granted a waiver and they reduced their right-of-way. The infrastructure was built, the streets were built, but they did reduce the width of the right away and it allowed them to adjust the placement of the houses on those streets. And the applicant is citing that as one of their reasons for requesting this as well. Again, as your planning staff discuss this with divisions of engineering, with traffic, with people that had had boots on the ground and had looked at it, the general feeling was that this topography is pretty standard topography for our beautiful bluegrass. We live in rolling topography. The topography issues, the steep slope issues that they're concerned with really are not particularly unique or unusual to our bluegrass, to much of our development. Nor have they cited any additional details to really indicate the issue with with the topography and just how extensive the problem is. Or for instance, just how steep a grade. For reference, our regulations cite steep slopes as areas of 15% or better. And we of course try to avoid any development in those areas if it can be avoided. So really in summary, the essence is that staff does not believe that the applicant has demonstrated the hardship provision under 1-5A of your land subdivision regulations. And it is very specific. It cites topographic. I need new glasses. It cites unique topographic or other natural or man-made physical conditions encountered on the particular land. and frankly staff doesn't believe they've met that threshold for approval to demonstrate any real hardship. These lots are developable. They can be built upon. They are R1D. They do have a 30-foot setback. They chose this zoning. They could have chosen another zone that would have given them a lesser setback. And these lots still have 2,400 square feet of billable area once you adjust for all the setbacks. So you can build a 2,400-square-foot house, one story, and put a second story on it and have quite a bit of house. 4,800 square feet is possible. So the staff, just the more we looked at this, we became concerned that this type of waiver is not justified. It's not one we'd want to encourage, a reduction in the right-of-way. even though I think staff would agree that from a practical point of view there will not be any health or safety issues associated with this. I mean, the infrastructure is going to be on the ground. It's going to exist. There's stormwater. There's sidewalks, the road, the curb. It's all going to be there. There are some operational concerns that traffic has over time that come about through the use of easements and smaller right-of-ways and that sort of thing. So they, too, had some concerns above and beyond just the topographic issues. And with that, staff, as I said, is recommending disapproval of this waiver request and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Mr. Martin? I don't see any. Tom, let me ask you one thing. Yes, sir. With the, this is simply a waiver request. That's the only action we need to take on this today. You would need to, I believe, approve this plan because this is a modified plan. It's back to continue discussion. All right. Thank you. African. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. first off we're in agreement with the conditions that the staff has on the development plan and we have no concerns with that i'd like to talk about the waiver request and kind of talk about some of the hardships we feel we're dealing with first off the lots are only 100 feet deep And these lots are similar to the lots directly behind them. A lot of those are 100 feet deep. Along the rear between this development and the Palomar View development, there's a fence row, there's a berm, and then there's a tree protection area. The tree protection area falls entirely on this development. And I've got a picture. You may have it, but... Right in here. Here's the property line right here. And what I want to point out is there's a tree line, and you can see the tree wraps all the way around the property. And the trees are not on the property line. They're off five or six feet from the fence. There's also associated with the trees, there's the protection area. I think it's 10 feet from the fence. There's the root zone of the trees. So if we do any digging in that area, most likely we'll kill the trees. And these trees are pretty dense. I don't know if you've seen an aerial photo. I didn't bring one, but they're extremely dense. And at the current zone, we would have a 10-foot setback. We would build our house pretty much right up to the trees. We would have no backyard. The backyard would be all trees. So all we're asking is to give some relief where we can pull the houses back for that hardship. and there is some grade change. I understand engineering and traffic think that this is typical of most developments, but it's not. It's not because of the depth of the lots being 100 feet and we can't get near those trees. When you build a house, you want a usable backyard. I mean, the houses are expensive. The developers invested a lot of money in this. the home builders you know they want to build a project a product that's going to sell and they've got to have a good backyard and if the backyard is not usable you're not going to sell your house i do have a picture Okay, I'm sorry. You do have a printout of this. You can't see in this picture, but in the backyard, it's pretty steep, and their fence is not level. The fence goes up with the slope and ties into the rear of the yard. So, I mean, it's just not a nice backyard for a house of the caliber that's going to be built here. Another issue that we've run into are there's possible sinkholes in this development. We've identified them on the plant where they're at, and we don't know for sure. We've done geotechnical testing. We haven't found a sinkhole, but it still shows up on a USGS map, So there is a possibility that they may encounter a sinkhole when they're building the house. So with that regard, we would like a little bit of relief to be able to move our houses up or back in the lot if that's encountered. Another hardship we found out here is rock is probably about the middle third of the lot is extremely shallow. and if we have to do a lot of cutting removing dirt for basements or whatever it's going to be in rock, it's going to be real expensive the more flexibility we have on these lots the better help it's going to be for the builders you may think well, why didn't you rezone this, or why didn't you ask for a different zone? Why did you go R1D? R1D, the setback is 30 feet. R3, which is basically the standard zone for neighborhoods today, is 20 feet. And that's basically what we're trying to replicate is 20 feet. And I find it ironic that the neighborhood behind us, which is R1D, asked for the same waiver we're asking for and was granted it. So, and if you drive down that road, their houses are, for the most part, built 20 feet behind the sidewalk, and that's what we're asking for, similar. I know traffic engineering has expressed concerns with the operational use of the road, and really nothing's changing. It's the same road. we're not asking for a waiver on how the road is designed only the right-of-way width from curb to curb it's the same distance the road's built to meet city standards the sidewalk is the exact width it's supposed to be it's in the exact place typically the city only maintains from curb to curb and then the residents maintains the sidewalks they build the sidewalks and maintain them and And that's what we're still, nothing's changing. From all practical purpose, the only thing that's going to change is the width of the right-of-way. When we do our plat, we can put notes on it that give the city the right to put street signs wherever they need to. And so no function of the road is going to change by granting this waiver. I guess that's all I've got for now but I do have with me Jake Reardon he's the owner and Jimmy Nash is a home builder I'm sure you all are familiar with and Mr. Nash has has agreed to purchase a lot of these lots and build on them I've got kind of an example of what he's wanting to build this would be I mean this is not going to be on every lot but this is a typical house that he would be wanting to put out here it's a nice house the size of it is no bigger than the houses in the neighborhood adjoining us and we think this would be very nice looking and attractive and the adjoining neighbors will not be complaining about this house. This other picture. These are the townhomes that are proposed to be built. The waiver is not affecting the townhomes, but they do have some impact on the building of the lots. So I just thought it would be nice to show you what the townhomes are going to look like. I mean, this is going to be a high-end neighborhood, and we just want to make sure we're able to do the most we can on these lots. And I think everybody will be happy with the finished product, including the neighbors that we're backing up to. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions. Questions for Mr. Carter? Yeah. Yep. Matt, how many square feet is that proposed elevation you showed there, approximately? 2,700. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Other questions? Matt, let me ask this. Kind of in the same realm as what Ms. Mundy just asked. overall what is the projection of the square footage for these residential units? I'll let the owner, can y'all answer that? What is the kind of overall average size of the houses? The house would be less than 3,000 square feet. Okay. Okay. Repeat that for him. Okay. The average house will be up to 3,000 square feet, nothing over, and then the townhome is similar. Okay. And what we're talking about here, basically, is it both? It affects townhouses as well, or just the houses? The waiver does not. The waiver just affects. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted the townhome shown for reference what they're going to look like. Okay. Mr. DeMovlin? You said that the townhomes would have some sort of impact on the houses. What is that? I'm going to let Mr. Nash answer that. So like Matt was talking about. For the record, name? Jimmy Nash with Jimmy Nash Homes. Thank you. The backyards, what we're trying to do is do houses that have where somebody can do a ranch, everything on one floor, maybe a master bedroom on the first floor. to do that, the backyards would only be 10 foot to get that footprint on a modest size house like that. So when we're backing up to the townhomes, we have concern if our backyards are only 10 foot, we have a private alley for the garage entrances of the townhomes that we're going to be battling an elevation change and some drainage issues. So having that backyard at 20 foot, same size house, the front yard's becoming 20 foot setbacks just like the adjoining neighborhoods that we're able to achieve some flexibility on footprints and not have that house 10 foot from the property line. On the homes that back up to Palomar, that 10-foot would basically, all the trees would be killed because they would have to be cut in half. Because the drip line of the trees is in that 10-foot area. Thank you, sir. Mr. Bell. Yes, Matt or Jimmy, it appears you've got your road already set in there. Did you anticipate this before putting in your road? No, it was not anticipated. No, it wasn't. Is there a reason why? I mean, you were kind of already dealing with what you were dealing with. Well, when we did it, we were, you know, when we did this development, we were doing it almost like a mixed use. We wanted to provide single-family, some multifamily, and some commercial. And what we've done is we've basically got each area narrowed down as tight as we can to make it all work. And, you know, at the time we didn't have builders we were talking to. We didn't know what the house plans that were going to be coming to us with. So, you know, we thought 100 foot was going to be tight, but we thought it was doable. But now that we've seen what's being built today, it's not enough. You know, we need the flexibility. And I would like to point out, too, that, you know, we can, we do have some flexibility in that we can build slightly over the setback line. It's called averaging. and if you have, I guess if the front of your building is not parallel to the road, you've got little setbacks, you can average that. And we can go up to five-foot projections. That could be like porches and things like that. And, you know, if you think of it in that regard, we're not asking, we're only asking for four and a half feet from what we could, we could already go five feet over, so we're asking for additional four and a half, if that makes sense. Really what we're asking for is nine and a half feet, and we're allowed a five foot projection, and so that would be four and a half foot left over. So that's really what we're asking for. Let me ask this real quick. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this request? Okay, that part's out of the way. Any other questions? Yes, sir. Could you clarify the... I'm assuming that any of those property owners, once those properties are sold, could cut down those trees. There's nothing to preserve those trees. No, there is. There's a tree protection. it's on the plat it was on the it's on that development plan there's a tree protection area across the rear of those lots so they cannot cut them down now if they naturally die they can remove them but currently there's a tree protection on them and that's attached there's a is there a lien on the property relative to that or no but it'll be platted mr. pole from article 26 only covers and protects the trees during the construction process after that once you're correct once it's on private property they are often removed and many times they're kept too but it's just during um construction tom might want to add and we did not conditionally zone this area either when this zone change came through so uh tracy's absolutely correct private property owners can and remove trees. I believe they were to benefit Mr. Ethington when he lived there to provide a buffer to the family zone. If you recall, though, when this was zoned, that was a huge concern to the neighbors that those trees be left, and we agreed to do that. So that's why those trees are there now. Other questions? No? I do have one. I guess it would be for the staff, Mr. Martin. If by chance, I don't know what's going to happen, but if by chance this waiver would be approved, Mr. Penn's not here, but he's speaking to me long distance, I guess, or in the back of my head, what are the unintended consequences that we may run up against? From a practical point of view, the infrastructure will be in place. I think, again, the houses will be 20 feet from the right-of-way. Traffic engineering has operational concerns from more of a practical point of view when we have signs and various traffic control devices and all that placed in easements as opposed to the right-of-way. That's one of their concerns. but from a practical point of view the infrastructure will be in the ground and it will be there it won't be affected any other questions thank you Mr. Carter thank you Mr. Nash I'll close this part of the hearing open it up for any discussions motions we need two motions one for the revised plan which is on the green sheet before you and then a motion one way or the other for the waiver as well. Some deliberation here. Anyone like to try something? Questions? If we don't have a motion, questions? You got a motion? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. regarding PLN MJDP 1830 Ethic and Ethic and Property I move approval with the findings as a staff submitted not committed and regarding the waiver for the let's do them separately let's do them separately okay so we do have a motion for approval with the revised staff recommendations Plan MJDP 18-30, now having 11 revised conditions. Second, Mr. Wilson. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Could we discuss it for one second? Yes, you may. I have one question. This is probably for staff. Tom, you mentioned that the elevations of the commercial properties, there's a note regarding elevations of the commercial properties being consistent with a document that was submitted what is the vehicle by which that that can be regulated building inspection will review that note they will review that exhibit our zoning compliance people will then as part of their sign-off procedure review the plans versus the exhibit. And if everyone agrees they substantially comply because we want to allow them some creativity and ability to make some adjustments, then the permits would be approved. Is that a common kind of process? Yes, sir, it is, particularly, as you are aware, our authority is limited when it comes to architectural features and details under the law. So by them agreeing to substantial compliance, it does give us an ability to ensure that things like that are met in spirit, hopefully. Thank you. That's all I had. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Wilson, your neighbor is over there ready? I don't know. I'll ask him. I'm getting confirmation over there. So, okay, motion on the floor is for approval of Plan MJDP-18-30, Ethington and Ethington, with the revised 11 conditions. So, at this time, I'll ask for a vote. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And now for the waiver. Okay. Okay, regarding PNMJDP 1830, Ethington and Ethic and Property, the associated waiver. I move that we support staff for disapproval and hope that the trees somehow survive. That's all I can say because we have no ordinance that really protects any tree in Lexington at this time, which we sorely need. Thank you. So the motion is to support the staff's recommendation for disapproval. Do we have a second? Second. Motion was made and seconded to support the staff in a motion for disapproval. They have provided findings. No, you can't do anything, so we'll have to have a show of hands. So all those in favor of supporting the staff for disapproval, please raise your hand. And those opposed? So the motion passes 5 to 4. So thank you. Sorry, Matt, but thank you. We will move on. Next on the agenda is our reconsideration of Julie Butcher's zoning map amendment and Edgemore subdivision lot 3 zoning development plan. This is for plan PLN MAR 19-16 Julie Butcher. I'm going to lay the groundworks here for everybody. I do have them here somewhere. So we're here to do one thing on this, and that's for reconsideration of the vote that ended in a tie on January 30th. This is not a continuation by any stretch of the imagination. Last month, we heard from all parties and citizens that wish to speak. we heard from everyone, and after which public comments section was closed, and we had a resulting vote, which was a 4-4 tie. According to our bylaws in the Kentucky Revised Statutes, the commission shall reconsider within 30 days. So that's what is before us today. We have two commission members here today that did not take part in the vote last month. One had to leave early. The second left and returned, however, abstained from voting since she had not heard all the testimony. I will ask them now what their plans are for today's vote. Yes, sir. I had to leave right as you took a break. and I've reviewed the video and reviewed all the materials, so I'm prepared to vote. Okay, thank you. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. I was absent because of jury orientation, and I have also reviewed the material, and I think I can vote. Thank you. So, to move on, in this order, we're going to ask for a motion. that motion is a new motion. It can be for approval or disapproval. I don't think, since there's nine of us here, that it'll end up in a tie this time around. But first, I am going to open it up for any discussion, any comments from commission members. Primarily since two were not here last week and they did not have that chance. But before that, I'm going to ask for a motion on this and that would be for approval or disapproval. And we'll move forward from there. Questions about the procedures? Are you ready for a motion? I am ready for a motion. Hey, Graham. Do you want to go ahead, Carolyn? For a motion for approval or disapproval? is that first since I was not here last time I did speak I would say you want switch that are you okay this is Graham is the I would move for disapproval of PLN MAR 1916 because of the findings. The subject property is an appropriately zoned and well-established land use boundary between residential business office uses along the east side of Nicholasville Road and south of Edgemoor. Number two, the request is in conflict with design policy four under theme A, Growing Successful Neighborhoods. Respect the context and design fixtures of areas surrounding development projects and develop design standards and guidelines to ensure compatibility with existing urban form. Three, the proposed zoning is in conflict with theme A, growing successful neighborhoods, as rezoning and demolition will remove without replacing the housing choice from the marketplace. Four, the proposed development does not grow a successful community through well-designed neighborhoods by encouraging existing neighborhoods to flourish through the use of neighborhood character preservation, theme 8, goal 3A, by demolishing a well-preserved and architecturally significant example of the Dutch colonial reviving building. It is a viable residential neighborhood that contributes to the history and architecture of the established Southern Heights neighborhood. Five, the proposed development is destructive of several mature trees that contribute to the urban forest without significant replacement. A, DS43 and B, PR73. Six, the development does not create a context-sensitive transition between intense corridor development and existing neighborhoods. A-EQ3-1. So moved. Thank you, Ms. Plumlee. Motion's been made and seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer for disapproval. Now, discussions, comments, statements before we move on? Yes, sir? I'd like to know if the staff could have an opportunity to respond to the points that were made. Do you mean in terms of are they adequate in terms of supporting the motion? Yes, they are. Yes, Mr. Poe. Sorry I didn't look to my right earlier. I just wanted to sort of talk just briefly about the larger issues at play here. Because there have been some op-ed pieces in the Herald-Leader recently essentially attacking the Comprehensive Plan, the place builder and even the staff centering around these three projects in particular that we've reviewed in recent months that share the characteristic of being sensitive because of their historic context. And, you know, we're going to run into this periodically because the comprehensive plan is very clear about the tremendous challenge that we have as a community with needing to develop greater density within the urban services boundary in order to protect our agricultural lands and really to make for good places and so part of that strategy involves densifying corridors and here we are on one of the major corridors this property is on one of of the major corridors. So if you think about it from that standpoint, it makes sense that staff recommended approval. However, the comprehensive plan also is very clear about protecting and enhancing historic neighborhoods. And so that's the dilemma. And I think in defense of the place builder and the comprehensive plan this is exactly what the place builder is allowing us to do it's allowing us to discuss issues like that into like this issue and to come to some decisions that may not be particularly clear and and I think that's perfectly okay in fact I think that's really excellent because here I think we have a situation where we're on the verge of of agreeing with Ms. Plumlee's motion and supporting the neighborhood and moving to try to preserve that piece of property. So the Planning Commission is taking a stance that is not agreeing with staff, but is agreeing with the comprehensive plan in some respects. And I just wanted to talk about that on the broader level because it's a discussion that we need to have in the community, and it's a great thing that we're having it. And I couldn't disagree more with the sentiment that staff is out of line or the planning commission is out of line or the comprehensive plan has failed or whatever. I think it's working exactly the way it should. And so I just want to support where we are going and how it's working out and encourage people to be patient and to continue dialogue and not be confrontational, but to talk about the issues and figure out which cases fall into which categories together. So that's all. Thank you, Mr. Powell. Well said. I'll put it that way. Other statements? comments no I will offer one thing or a couple I guess quite frankly last month's vote caught me by surprise I've been down here for 12 years and I think that's the first time I've really been surprised over a vote as far as you know A lot of the discussion, findings today, findings last month and so forth, it was a resounding preserve and protect existing neighborhoods, which I wholeheartedly agree with. I've said it in various other zone change requests over the past year. It's important. um nicholasville road has transformed itself over the length of time that i've been here and i that's long enough and i know the road i my first job was in that bank building on the corner um nicholasville road is not a neighborhood street today i don't see it as part of a neighborhood Pensacola H1 that took place a little bit ago, it was approved, I voted for it. The neighborhoods wanted it. I could have easily voted for withdrawn all of the Nicholasville Road addresses off that H1 overlay. We have a corridor development language in our comp plan. that we have to look at and I think it is important if we're going to get things done and Graham didn't say it but he all but said it what we're dealing with today is a balancing act between neighborhoods corridors any development any development that we're going to see is going to be a balancing act and you know I'm thankful today I've got eight other eight other people here to help me with that so with that said if there's nothing else yes sir yeah I was really gonna chime in because I won't say it as eloquently as Graham did or as thoroughly as you did but I very rarely mulled back up I look to staff as as the wise advisors and professionals that they are and so I don't vote against staff's recommendations lightly. This is one that I think as Graham described we have two real competing interests and two complete not interest goals and I just in this case I feel the the one to protect the the neighborhood outweighs the other and simple as that and I think that I certainly hope that the staff understands that vote is not taken lightly and we can agree to disagree. Thank you, Patrick. Anyone else? Mike, if I may. Yes. Because I'm newer to this, this whole experience, I often need educating. I spoke to you after the last meeting because I do need educating. would you mind sharing with us under the current zone what could be built there and under the requested zone what could be built please so under the current zoning and this was one of the questions that you had asked which was is this protected or the proper the structure itself protected with an NH1 overlay the structure itself is not protected. At this location, across the street, the neighborhood has gone through the H1 overlay process and that process really leads to a greater protection of the structures themselves. So within staff's review, we do need to look at what can be built there currently and what is being proposed. With the lot size and the configuration as it is, four single family houses could be developed on this one lot without the structure. If the with the proposal that the applicant is making, they are looking at developing one structure for a professional office with the option of doing mixed use, which would be the professional office on the first floor and the potential to do any residential on the second. Or if they wanted to go up with a different zone or a development plan later on, they would be able to do, but they would have to meet all the standards. In this case, the building, and to Mr. Pol's point and to various other points, we are seeking to protect those historic properties that are within our area. We take that very seriously within staff's review of all zone changes, but we are also looking at what can be done by right on a property. By right, this property could be subdivided to create four single-family houses. Thank you very much. Anyone else? If not, we'll go back to the motion. The motion on the floor is for disapproval of Julie Butcher's Unmapped Amendment Edgemore Subdivision Plan MAR 19-16, Julie Butcher. Ms. Plumlee has provided reasons for that. I'll call for a vote now. I should say it was seconded by Patrick Brewer as well. I will call for a vote now, so please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes, 5 to 4. That was for disapproval, and now we need to postpone the DP. Thank you. move PLN-MJDP 1975 Edgemore Subdivision indefinitely postponement. Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded for indefinite postponement of the development plan. PLN-MJDP 19-75 Edgemore Subdivision Lot 3. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Patrick Brewer. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. We've got one other item on the agenda to consider. You think they understand out there? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, they did. I think they did. But it doesn't matter because you've got to figure it out. It'll be under commission items. And if everyone could move on out and do any discussions outside, we'd appreciate it. So we have one other commission item. It's PFR 2020-1, fire station number 9 edition. It is a public facility review. Folks, if you all would move on outside, we'd appreciate it. We do have some business left. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. This is a public facility review, our first one for the year, for fire station number nine edition. The proposal is to add approximately 2,484 square feet for some additional garages for fire trucks, and then they want storage and a rec room and a foyer. right now this is the location at 2234 Richmond Road it's right here in front of Kentucky American Water Company this is another shot you can see across the street is Lexington Mall or Southland Christian Church in that area right there's the firehouse again close-up showing that they have right now currently they have one access drive to Richmond Road and that's part of their proposal is to add a second access drive and with the addition as you can see here they're adding the second drive on to the property they're adding some parking spots along here in the front and here's the addition after reviewing this plan we reviewed it and it meets the goals and objectives along with meeting some of the policies and implement implement okay I can't get that word out into implementation I bite that one sorry for the new comp plan with this being located off of Richmond Road it does meet the medium density non-residential portion of the comp plan and with that the placement and development we would like to see some additional sidewalks located along Richmond Road along with some additional green infrastructure to the lot for the redevelopment with the addition here's some elevations showing this is currently the garage that we have they're proposing the second garage over in this location you can see an addition up here in the front so with this adding the two days and additional storage area this will help serve our community with the division of fire and emergency be able to have more equipment on staff and be able to help support the community we would like to see that they consider doing some sidewalks along Richmond Road for those two people who need to be on the road to be able to get to the home if that the firehouse if need be and also possibly to do a little bit of green infrastructure with maybe a rain garden or something in the location of the front part of the road right here Currently, they have a, they've been in contact with the state to ask for the access for the second driveway. Whoops. The second driveway, and they are currently waiting to hear back from the state about the permit to do that, to add that additional driveway. But at this time, they believe it's going to move forwards after speaking with them. So if there's any other questions. Questions? Ms. Gull. No? I guess our audience was not that interested in fire stations. Fire protection. Oh, there's someone. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Charlie Schneider. I'm with Brandstetter Carroll. I'm here to answer any questions you might have about this project. I think it's fairly straightforward. We are working with the state to get that second entrance approved, but we we've met them on site last year and they did give us verbal approval for it so we expect that to go through with minimal changes thank you sir and i'm sorry your name is charlie schneider schneider okay thank you sir any questions for mr schneider yes yeah did i hear cheryl say something about there needed to be more shrubs or something can we do that or she was asking i believe about it go ahead possibly a rain garden green infrastructure for the on the property so there's an island space that's in between those two drives that would that would offer an opportunity to be able to add some um some kind of rain garden to that area to help uh with with the increased drainage as you all are probably aware those those areas on either side of Richmond Road stay fairly wet anyways and it would be it would fit right in and I believe the sidewalk would not be difficult to achieve with this either we are almost going property to property with that with the concrete as it stands and looking at the site there's not a lot of connectivity on either side Richmond Road does have a bike path but it does not have any sidewalks on either side of the road Anything else? Any other questions? I notice that the staff does encourage putting a sidewalk in. Is there a reason why it's not being shown? Again, the only reason we did not show it is there's nothing to connect to. There is no sidewalks on either side of Richmond Road in that area. We would be able to... Am I mistaken? Go ahead. We would be able to add into either side of the property line. We really only have to extend about 20 foot to get a sidewalk towards the Kentucky American Water. I would just like to make an observation that there's a council ordinance that requires sidewalks around Richmond Road. That's above and beyond our normal standards. The reason being is this type of situation where they didn't get built, so we try to get them built. and frankly we don't care if they start and stop and don't connect because we're anticipating future connections so the need for pedestrian facilities on on the Richmond Road is important yes yes ma'am Tom I have a question there's quite a bit of renovation done at Kentucky American Water did they not put in a sidewalk there? I believe I don't remember the situation with them. I do know that they're a regulated utility and exempt and are not immune to playing that card. I wouldn't know. Other questions? I have another question. Okay. This is a difficult one and it's really out of our purview but we're looking at a public building here and there was a time when we took great pride in our public buildings and they represented who we are as a community and I'm looking at the drawings and I'm thinking first of all this is on Richmond Road a major corridor and this building has this represents a part of our public domain and yet it's so banal and so it's so completely lacking in any statement of pride about who we are as a community it Is that not something that's discussed when you're working on a project for the fire department? Is there nobody there that cares about making some sort of a public statement with our public buildings? Well, sure, but there's two sides to that. We also did fire station number two and fire station number 24, and I would think you'd think the architecture on both those buildings is what you're considering. This is an existing facility, and we're doing a minor renovation to it, And, you know, of course, they have limitations of public funds that they have to deal with. And that has to be taken into consideration as well. In a perfect world, yes, building a beautiful fire station there to replace the one that's been there probably since the 1960s or 70s would be better. But we are, you know, dealing with limited funds, limited budgets. Even two or three flagpoles would make a big difference. I mean, you know, to me, I'm looking at there's nothing, you know. I mean. I believe there is a flagpole going back into the facility. We always, it might not be in the rendering, but it is in the plans. I'm sorry to be so aggressive. I just wish there was more pride among those who are making decisions about the public buildings that we're building. anyone else mr. Snyder you probably wish you'd stayed in the back corner now or brought an architect with me I would say that it's come up a time or two in the past I can remember but I won't specifically say which city facility it was. Landscaping was an issue down there. I made the statement that we should lead by example. If we're asking other people to do these things, we should. I would throw landscaping and sidewalks into that. As Tom says, we've got to get the sidewalks when we can. Hopefully, they'll lead to somewhere in the near future. Anything else? If not, there's a couple of folks still back in the corner. Anyone wishing to speak? No. Okay. So what our charge on this is to find that this is in compliance with our comprehensive plan. And we can request, not that they have to do it, but we can request landscaping and sidewalks to go along with that. So, anyone interested in a motion? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the PFR 2021 Fire Station Number 9 edition because it is in compliance with our comprehensive plan. Okay, put the landscaping and the sidewalks in. Are we twisting your arm? Yeah, you are. I don't want to fight over that. I think it's a good idea, landscaping and fireworks. Thank you. We have a motion for approval that this is in compliance with our comprehensive plan. It's PFR 2020-1 with the recommendation of landscaping and sidewalks. So, motion was made by Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. DeMovlin. Thank you. Any questions on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Snyder. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Other items? Other items? I think that pretty much takes care of it. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three things to report to you all. First, the next time we'll get together is next Thursday for your committee meetings, So we'll see you all Thursday morning at 8.30 in our conference room. Second, I wanted to remind you, if you don't already know, or to tell you, if you don't already know, that we have our first public input meeting scheduled for the Nicholasville Road Corridor Study. That meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March the 4th, and it starts at 6 o'clock, and it will be at Lexington Green. It will be in that space behind Joseph Beth Bookstore. There's a big atrium area back there. So we'll be having a public input meeting, and at that time our consultants will be presenting some existing conditions and some things to consider. And then there will be an open house with exhibits for the public to talk to us, to the staff, and to the consultants about their concerns and their ideas for the Nicholasville Road Corridor. And so, again, that meeting is on Wednesday, March 4th, 6 o'clock at Lexington Green in the area behind Joseph Beth Book Cellars. And then finally, Mr. Chair, I want to tell you all that tomorrow, on Friday, the Division of Planning will be launching the new website for the comprehensive plan. It's got the same address as the other one, imaginelexington.com, but this is a new website following up on the goals and objectives to do so, one that makes it easier for people to go and view what the comprehensive plan is, sort of snapshots of the plan. but it's also a website that's going to at some point very soon start showcasing the accomplishments of the comprehensive plan. So we'll be showing the metrics and the accomplishments that we've made through the planning process as well as other information. That is set to launch tomorrow, so I encourage you all to check that out over the weekend if you're looking for something new. Again, ImagineLexington.com. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Anything else? if not I think we can adjourn this meeting thank you all you