# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - December 17, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 17, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5264 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5264?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-12-17 - **Last revised**: December 17, 2020 - **Length**: 7,424 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 held a video teleconference meeting on December 17, 2020, at 1:30 p.m. The commission considered two agenda items during the meeting. One subdivision plan was postponed, while one zoning matter was approved. The commission took four motions and votes and heard one public comment during the session. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 17, 2020: * Ivy Barksdale * Headley Bell * Jan Meyer * Frank Penn * Carolyn Plumlee * Zach Davis * Larry Forester * Bruce Nicol * Graham Pohl * Bill Wilson No members were reported absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions **PLN-MJDP-20-00054: Postponement of Headley, Niven & Vance Property, Lots 1, 2 & 3 (Chick-fil-A) (AMD)** [timestamp: 00:01:37] Motion by Mr. DeMovlin, seconded by Ms. Plumlee. The motion to postpone was approved unanimously. The item has been postponed to January 14th, 2021. **PLN-MAR-20-00015: Approval of Walden Land Project, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 00:52:03] Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Bell. The zoning map amendment was approved unanimously. **Approval of Variance Request for Walden Land Project, LLC** [timestamp: 00:52:33] Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Bell. The variance request was approved unanimously. **PLN-MJDP-20-00075: Approval of Preliminary Development Plan for Atkins Property Lot 1** [timestamp: 00:53:04] Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Mr. Bell. The preliminary development plan was approved unanimously, subject to 10 conditions. Conditions 9 and 10 have been resolved. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 0:38:05] Dr. Fadi Basha, one of the owners of the Walden Group land, addressed the meeting regarding the Walden Land Project. Dr. Basha expressed support for the proposed development plan and deferred to the engineer for additional technical details about the project. ## Final Subdivision Plans - Headley, Niven & Vance Property, Lots 1, 2 & 3 (Chick-fil-A) [timestamp: 0:01:37] The final subdivision plans for the Headley, Niven & Vance Property (Lots 1, 2 & 3), associated with a Chick-fil-A development, were discussed during this agenda item. **Key Speaker** Tom Martin addressed the matter. **Outcome** The plan was postponed. The postponement was due to ongoing revisions needed to address major concerns that had been raised regarding the proposal. ## Walden Land Project, LLC Zoning Map Amendment & Atkins Property Lot 1 (AMD) Zoning Development Plan The commission discussed a zoning map amendment and development plan for the Walden Land Project, with key participation from Hal Baillie and Tom Martin [timestamp: 0:02:09]. The agenda item encompassed a zoning map amendment for Walden Land Project, LLC and a zoning development plan for Atkins Property Lot 1. A variance request for building height was included as part of the proposal under consideration. The discussion resulted in approval of the zoning map amendment and development plan. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MJDP-20-00054** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Headley, Niven & Vance Property, Lots 1, 2 & 3 (Chick-fil-A) (AMD) - **PLN-MAR-20-00015** — passed (0-0): Approval of Walden Land Project, LLC zoning map amendment - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of variance request for Walden Land Project, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-20-00075** — passed (0-0): Approval of preliminary development plan for Atkins Property Lot 1 --- ## Full transcript November 12 and November 19 minutes. Thank you. I have a second by Mr. Poe. Any further discussion? Not seeing any. Please raise your hand. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Next up, agenda item three. Any postponements and or withdrawals? Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, on page two of your agenda under final subdivision plans, this is actually a major development plan. It is 20-54, Headley, Niven, and Vance property, blocks one, two, and three. This is on West New Circle Road and Russell Cave Road. We have received both verbal and written requests to postpone this plan until your January 14th meeting. They have been working on a revision that will address the major concerns on that plan. With that, they anticipate being ready to go on 14th. Okay. Thank you, Tom. Any further discussions concerning that postponement for the January 14th meeting 2021? Not seeing any. The floor is open for a motion for the postponement. Mr. DeMovlin? Sure. I'll move to postpone PLNMJDP 2054. He'd leave them in advance property to the January 14th date. All right. We have a second by Ms. Plumlee. All in favor, please raise your hand. Opposed comments? Pass. Unanimous. Thank you. All right. So next up, we should be on zoning items. We're on number one, page three, Walden Land Project, LLC, zoning map amendment, Atkins property, lot one, and zoning development plan. Stan. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. This is PLNMAR20-00015, Walden Land Project, LLC. Before we get started, there is one letter that has been submitted to the Planning Commission. You can find that in your Google Drive, and for those members that are sitting here, you should have it in your packet. That letter specifically asks for a postponement of this application. It is made by the representative of the Board of Trustees for the Lexington Public Library, which is located across the street from this location. Currently, it does appear that the individual that has submitted that letter is on the line, but this would allow the Planning Commission to consider that prior to moving forward. We have heard from the applicant. They did reach out to the individual that had submitted the letter and were unable to contact them or have a conversation. If there's no discussion, I'm happy to move forward with the presentation of the PowerPoint. Yes. If you bear with me for just one second, I'll share my screen. And just double check, we are seeing what I'm seeing. This is PLN MAR 20-15, the Walden Land Project LLC. The applicant is seeking a zone change from the planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to the high-density apartment R4 zone for .8964 net and 1.4068 gross acres. They are seeking to situate this development within an enhanced neighborhood place type in the medium-density residential development. With this application, they are seeking to construct or develop two multifamily structures, which are planned to be sold as condos. The proposed four-story building would include eight units per structure, based on being utilized as a project. The planned residential density for this proposed development is 18 dwelling units per net acre. We're looking at the area of the rezoning. We are located off of Tate's Creek Road, just along Walden Drive at the intersection of Walden and Laredo. It's this bow tie shaped property located right here. You can see that there is a significant amount of residential development or residential land use that is surrounding this property with some professional office also neighboring the property. Zooming in just a little bit closer, you can also get a feel for how the loving has been developed over time. This property has had several rezonings and changes to the development plan since it was initially an agricultural urban in 1996. This portion of the property that we'll be discussing today has remained R3 or that planned neighborhood residential since the rezoning in 1996. However, the portions of the property surrounding this property, including the P1 that you see here with the dashed lines around it, was rezoned in 1997 to allow for some professional offices to go into this space. If we just take a look at the aerial photography, you can see some of the development that has occurred over time. To the west of the subject property, you're looking at primarily duplexes that have been developed associated with the 1996 rezoning, but primarily towards the end of the 90s. You also have a bank at this location and the Lexington Public Library right here. Across the way, you see a blend of single-family detached and duplexes, which extend along this portion of Walden. And then across Tate's Creek, we get into a little bit more density with some apartments that have been developed and some single-family detached. Looking at the property itself, on this top photo, you're able to see the whole of the frontage of this property. One of the interesting aspects of this property is portions of it are located within a tree preservation area. We'll talk about that just in a little bit, but the view that you get here gives you an idea of both the slope and the trees that are involved with this rezoning. Here we're looking down Walden Avenue to the intersection with Laredo. I'm sorry, Walden Drive towards the intersection with Laredo Drive. Looking across the street right into the library's parking lot and into the library. And then down Walden Drive towards the northern portion of the site. These next photos give you a good view of looking into the property as well as the slope and grade change that we see with this property. You can also look up. This is Laredo Drive heading to the west. Looking down Laredo Drive towards Tate's Creek Road and looking along Walden Drive at that intersection. With review of this application, the applicant worked with staff to discuss what the place type and the development type were. In this case, they are seeking to develop the enhanced neighborhood place type with a medium density residential development type. And they are choosing a recommended zone of the R4 zone. One of the aspects that was a serious consideration throughout this has been the historical development of the area. As you can see here, that is the northernmost portion of this subject property. It has been restricted with a tree preservation area. That tree preservation area has been modified a bit between the 1996 zone change, which allowed for the R3 zoning for this portion of the property, to now. However, that tree preservation area has a very interesting note associated with it. It essentially states that there can be no removal, grubbing, or modification of the tree preservation area. That has led to a bit of a problem within the maintenance of this area. There has been an increase in invasive species, as well as a large issue with the dying out of the ash trees at this location because of the boar. Some of the issues with some of the insect damage to some of the trees. During the previous conversations revolving around this zone change and during the zoning and subcommittee meetings, there was extensive conversation about both the grade of this property, the tree preservation area, water management issues, specifically stormwater management running off of the duplexes located to the west of the property down towards Tates Creek Road. This is the downward slope. Everything is funneling its way down towards the roadway and to the creek. And then also talking about issues with the multifamily design standards, as well as traffic calming and safety along Walden Drive. Since the conversations that we had at the committee meetings, there have been several meetings with the applicant seeking to alleviate some of the potential impacts of their development on this area and seeking to provide solutions that would create an increased canopy coverage as well as an increased viability of the trees that would come from this development. Specifically, one of the large conversations that staff had with the applicant was the trees and the viability of the trees if they were to be planted on such a small site. Over the past two weeks. Staff has worked with the applicant and the applicant has agreed to the planting of 18 large trees, which have a canopy coverage of 750 feet, square feet, and planting those elsewhere in this area. They would still have to meet their 30% required canopy coverage as associated with the high density apartment zone. So that would essentially cover the entirety of this lot with trees should they be replaced on this lot specifically, but allows them to transfer them off-site to an area in which they will probably be able to have a longer viable lifespan and do a little bit more for the community while also achieving some of our goals of infill and redevelopment. Associated with some of our conversations with the multifamily design standards, the applicant has submitted updated renderings and has provided staff with greater information as to why they can and cannot meet some of the multifamily design standards. Over the course of the committee meetings and then over the course of staff's review, there was a concern about the activation of the frontage along Walton Drive. The applicant has remove the concrete inserts within each of the windowed areas associated with the ground floor or the parking area and replace them with glass. This can act as more of an activated space, making it look similar to a residential type development, but still allow them to have that area to park cars under the structure and create an activated feel for residential movement throughout this area. The applicant also has removed their garbage cans that were located along the front of the structure and placed them into the development. Mr. Martin will go over a few of these aspects with his review of the major development plan. The applicant also provided renderings for how the structure would look along Laredo Drive and also clarified that the elevation difference along Laredo Drive here and here would preclude the ability to add doors or direct entryways which is called for in some of the multifamily design standards. The applicant has discussed with staff the potential of adding traffic calming along Walden Drive specifically due to the fact that that this is a collector street intersecting with another collector street. And the fact that we have seen some high speeds along this area. It's also right across the street from a public facility that gets heavily used. So staff is really interested in creating some greater traffic calming at this area. Due to some of the time restrictions on this and some of the involved engineering aspects of the design of any traffic calming, Staff would like to, and the applicant has agreed to, review this in a greater way at the time of the final development plan. So looking at this site, staff has reviewed this and has found that it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. And staff is recommending approval for this request. The request for the high-density apartment zone is an agreement with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives. The proposed development will accommodate the demand for housing in Lexington responsibly, prioritizing a mixture of housing types by providing a denser type development with the condos than that which is primarily single family in the area and duplex dwelling units. The proposed rezoning will support infill and will add a well-designed neighborhood and community while upholding the urban service area concept. Additionally, the proposed rezoning addresses the goal of absorbing vacant and underutilized land within the urban service area and accommodating the demand for housing in Lexington responsibly, prioritizing a higher density and mixture of housing types. The justification of the corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies and development criteria for the 2018 comprehensive plan. It meets the criteria for the site design, building form, and location as it creates a residential development that allows for increased residential options in the area. It provides safer pedestrian mobility and amenities for both residents and the surrounding community. And the development will meet the multifamily design guidelines. The proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for potential users, both for pedestrians and vehicular users, along Walden Drive and Laredo Drive. Specifically, their willingness to work with the inclusion of traffic calming elements during the time of the final development plan will add a certain element to this that will produce a safer and more appearance-driven kind of location. Finally, the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for green space, environmental health as it adds green infrastructure, as well as through the creation of bioswales, and it will also add native tree canopy coverage in the area that will support the growth of required canopy coverage throughout Lexington, supporting some of our other goals and objectives. With this, staff is really concerned about any future development that might occur, including the creation of surface parking on this lot. Staff is recommending the prohibiting surface parking. This is specifically geared towards surface parking associated with residential development. The development plan, as Mr. Mark will go over, does have two surface spots for pickup and drop-off locations. Staff is not seeking to prohibit that use, but in the case that this development does not go through, staff would really want to make sure that a building or a developable portion of the site was not replaced with surface parking lots. This is done specifically to reduce the potential of impact of stormwater runoff onto the adjacent properties. And then finally, the recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 20-00075 at Atkins Property Lot 1 as amended, which Mr. Martin will come up and describe here shortly. Involved with this application, there is a variance request, which I will come back and describe following Mr. Martin's presentation. but if you have any questions for me i'd be happy to answer them now regarding the zone change application any questions for hal and commission members miss blumley yes you mentioned 18 large trees now at the time of planting what will be the dbh the diameter at breast height for those trees and how long will it be before they actually grow to the 30% coverage? So, Ms. Wade, would you like to cover that? Sure. So Ms. Plumley, the 30% coverage can be met on site with a variety of trees, small, large, or medium. The 18 trees that we're suggesting of the staff be planted off site would not be going towards the 30% canopy coverage, but rather replacing the lost TPA. So those 18, again, don't count towards the 30%. They're going to be off-site somewhere. And then there's maybe a bit of confusion about diameter of breast height is what the arborists measure once it's planted and it's growing and we're looking at preserving trees, I think the right thing we need to ask is what's the caliper of the tree that they're selecting at the nursery? So instead of measuring it at breast height, they measure the caliper of the tree when you're selecting a new tree to buy about a foot off the ground, just above the burlap area. And I think as long as the urban forester or the arborist is happy that we're happy. Generally I would think they would be about the same size as those planted as street trees and they have a particular caliper that they're required. I can look that up. Does that make sense? Yeah. Oh yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to make certain that we weren't replacing mature trees with just little spindles. I just need some assurance for that. They are going to be much smaller. They will be much smaller. So one of the elements of the trees in this area was that the urban forester went with the applicants and the environmental planner out to the site. They did review the current situation of the tree preservation area and the urban forester found that it was in a poor order. Due to the note that is currently on the plan, note 12, there isn't really a mechanism for a owner of a property to go ahead and modify that tree area, removing dead trees, bringing in new trees, or grubbing. So within the urban forester's perspective, he recommended that this site is probably more viable for development. It was staff's perspective that to remove a TPA, it was really important that we still get some sort of tree stand from it. So with the 30%, those 18 trees, the 18 large trees, that technically adds up to approximately 70% of their proposed tree preservation area that they would be removing. So essentially what we're getting with this modification of the trees is we're getting 100% of that tree canopy coverage that would have been on that tree preservation area if all the trees were healthy, located either 70% elsewhere, which we are recommending that the applicant work with the Parks Department and the Division of Environmental Services to group in with the Reforest the Bluegrass Project, which is currently taking place at the Bella Woods Park, which is less than a half mile away, so that there is tree canopy going into this specific area. So we are looking to actually get healthier and a greater amount of canopy coverage from this, and the applicant has agreed to that. Thank you. I've not seen any other questions, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, the, am I in charge here? Can I get to where I need to go? You are in charge. Good. All right. All right. All right, I got the mouse. All right. Of course, I can't see all that well from here. I like it, even with my new eyes. But I can do this. This is a preliminary development plan, 20-75, that you see before you today. And I would like to emphasize that for you today and make it very clear this is a preliminary development plan. You will see a final development plan on this property. Now, staff would anticipate they are going to be extremely similar, if not virtually identical, when we see that final. And that's important to note because, again, there'll be no construction, no modification of this site until the Planning Commission has approved a final development plan and it has been certified and they can pull permits. And again, at that time is when detailed infrastructure and drainage plans will actually be prepared. That is how the system works. And it's important to note that, that again, you will, that is the stage at which they will be addressing in detail those issues. Let's see, can I move that? There you go. So here's the area in question that Mr. Bailey has already described to you. They are proposing the two buildings, four stories, a garage at the bottom level, with three residential levels above, 16 units total in the development. The square footage of the footprint is just over 6,900 square feet. And you can see the configuration is somewhat different. Again, that is response to the challenges of the site, both its size and slope. There is a total of 20,000, just over 20,000 square feet for each building that you see proposed before you today. Now, we'll close in. Go ahead. Okay. There we go. Thank you very much. All right. You can teach an old dog new tricks. Here's a close-up of the site. As you can see, here's Laredo, here's Walden. They're proposing driveway access to each building in this location. Again, you can see the footprint of the building and the green areas surrounding the building. This is a proposed rain garden. They're proposing public art in this location. You can see the pedestrian system, both for the public and interior to the site for the residents. And again, addressing those concerns about good pedestrian access out to the right of way. And these are areas, of course, that Al talked about where we were looking for activation relative to the public right-of-way. This is the uphill side, obviously. And as you all recall, as part of the discussion, it's these areas that gave staff great concern about replacing this 6,000 over square feet of trees here and try to make it work in these restricted areas. Now, that being said, again, to address Ms. Plumlee's questions, they are going to meet their 30% canopy, and they're going to have to plant street trees. And these areas will be adequate to meet those requirements. But as staff tried to stress at the committee meetings, the ordinance requirements for canopy coverage, the street tree requirement they don't equal this tree protection area they are separate things separate issues and uh how do i want to go back about me how do i let's go back thank you and again to emphasize that and and not to reiterate hal's presentation it's important to note that the tree protection area that included this property extends all over here on adjoining properties. In conjunction with this tree protection area, we have sinkholes, sinkholes. We have a non-buildable lot. We have Walden Pond right here, and that is not a natural phenomenon. That is a man-made retention stormwater facility. That's why that is there. Again, this demonstrates the overall challenge on this piece of property. And again, the challenges that they face are sloped primarily in this location. But again, as I stated, their stormwater plan will have to address the runoff. Our stormwater manuals do require that pre-development and post-development rates match. That's why we have a larger tension basin. That's why we have detention basins. It is to control the flow of stormwater, and it's how we manage our stormwater, and in fact, it's how we've done it for many years. Now, again, this plan was reviewed by your subdivision committee, and they recommended it for postponement at that time due to the questions on the tree protection area. And as you've heard from Hal's presentation, they've agreed to mitigation for the loss in this area of a tree protection area. And again, stating that the remaining areas should adequately provide for the 30 percent canopy coverage. And again, as well as the street trees, which are beneficial in this regard, the street trees do count towards canopy. So in that regard, I think staff is comfortable that this site will meet those regulatory requirements. With that said, you can see from the recommendations on your staff report, they are all sign-offs with the exception of 9 and 10. 9 is discuss the pre-protection area, which we've done. You've heard the proposed resolution of that. Discuss place builder criteria. Again, Mr. Bailey has done a fine job in explaining that to you and discussing that with you. So again, those two items can be resolved. And I will point out just one more time that you will see a final development plan on this property. And with that, staff is recommending approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Okay. Does any commission member have a question for Tom at this moment? Mr. Penn? Tom, I don't know if this is for you or Hal, but if you look back to subdivision later, the question is postponed because they did not submit a significant application for a variance request. That's what we discussed quite a bit during the subdivision committee meeting. Yes, sir. I just wanted to hear all the rest of the variance. Yes, sir. And I should have mentioned that there is a variance request associated with this. It's a heightened variance. And Hal is going to go over that with you. Okay. All right. I'm going to let you back up. Yeah. All right. Thanks, Tom. I'll share my screen one more time. So associated with this request, the applicant is seeking to increase the height of the structure from 40 feet to 45 feet in an R4 zone. This is actually a great view of how to discuss this variance request. They are seeking a variance from the ordinance to allow for their structure, not the one along the corner of Laredo and Walden, because they actually meet the height requirements along that. So with their initial application, they were asking for a 45-foot structure for both sides. They have mirroring structures, one on the south, one on the north. Due to the fact that this Laredo and Walden Corner property is actually on a, the Walden side is the smaller street. The Laredo side is the larger street. They actually utilize the height of the structure along Laredo. So they are not asking for a variance on that structure. However, they are asking for a variance on their northern structure. This is largely to allow for the construction of their parking subgrade essentially for the rear portion of the lot. If we look at the lot, there is a significant grade change from the back of the lot to the front of the lot. There is also a significant amount of narrow space for them to work in. It's an odd shaped lot. The applicant has provided an updated justification letter for this. Within that justification letter, the applicant hits on all three different justifications. The African states that they are actually claiming for a unique circumstance at this property due to the grade change as well as the narrow lots. In this case, staff does agree with that justification due to the grade change and because of the height of each of the floors and the ability to gain that light and air access, the applicant would need to build their bottom floor or that structured parking at a 13-foot height. This pushes their building up above the 40-foot requirement, which allows them to utilize the R3 setbacks rather than the R4 setbacks, which would push them into a two-to-one height-to-yard ratio issue. In this case, staff does agree with that justification. However, could not find that this was in a way that their second justification was that the buildings would look odd or unattractive due to the different heights. Staff disagrees with that justification. However, staff does agree that this is not a circumvention of the zoning ordinance, and there would be no potential health, safety, or welfare impacts from their justification or from the proposed development as it has shown. Staff is recommending approval of their variance request, as it will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, there, nor should it affect the character of the general vicinity, as the site's grade change allows the structure's additional five feet of height to be a little undistinguishable compared to what is around it. Furthermore, the need for the variance does arise from that special circumstance of the proposed development due to the steep grade from those duplexes down towards Walden Avenue or Walden Drive, excuse me. And that is not characteristic of the overall area. Specifically, the narrow lot also creates a special circumstance. This narrow lot was developed largely due to some of the issues with the location of the road and the plaiting associated with the 1997 zone change. This recommendation is subject to the following condition, providing the Planning Commission approves the requested zone change to the R4 zone. Otherwise, the requested variance shall be null and void. This goes forward with the Urban County Council. The development shall be constructed in accordance with the final development plan or as amended to address the design requirements of the Division of Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and Building Inspection. All necessary permits shall be obtained by the Division of Planning, Engineering, Building Inspection, and then action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on the development plan for the subject property. With that, we'll stop share and see if there are any questions regarding the variance request. We're all are if you're ready for us. So I'm doing it right now. Yeah, let's. Hi, we have a phone caller from 859-312-9674. If you would like to go ahead and say hi to us, tell us who you are, we can either bring you into this meeting or we can go ahead and label you for later comments. Okay, well, this is Dr. Basha. First name is F-A-B-I, Fadi, last name Basha, B-A-C-H-A. and I'm one of the owner of the Walden Group land, and we're in association with Mr. Brian Hill at CMW and trying to develop this particular plan. Great. Thank you very much, sir. Would you like to defer to your engineer to describe what they're doing with it or what you are hoping to do with the proposed rezoning? if Brian can take over I think he's well aware of what we're trying to do thank you everyone can hear me right yes well first of all thanks for the two very I guess comprehensive presentations you all did a very thorough job and we applaud your diligence and we enjoyed this process As I think everyone is aware, it's a very, very difficult site, and it's currently zoned residential. Dr. Basha and one of his partners have owned this property now for approximately five years. They have attempted to look at various types of development on it, and it's because of the constraints. It's just not cost effective to do it. So we posed the idea to Dr. Basha several months ago that, you know, let's look at trying to get a really high-end condominium development on here where the units warrant a size and we get the parking to where it would be an asset and a supplement to this corner, to the neighborhood. You've got restaurants, the drugstore, the library, office space, you know, just literally within walking distance right on Nicholas Hill Corridor. It's a great, great, great location. But again, a constraining site. So with all the discussion about, you know, the hillside and the terrain and all, we certainly acknowledge that. But this plan will actually fit right, tuck right into the hillside. The back wall of the building will act as a retaining wall and the foundation wall, if you will, that makes its way on up and supports the remainder of the building. I think you saw from the elevations that it's going to be a really beautiful building. Each unit will have terraces. These are large condominiums, 14, 15, 1600 foot condominiums. each condominium will have two dedicated parking spaces as has been mentioned there'll be a surface space for deliveries ups pizza drop-offs what have you we've worked with the staff we think to meet all of the architectural criteria from a constructability standpoint i know that drainage has been a concern we have and i'm not sure if the library i know they submitted the letter i'm not sure charlotte was going to be speaking today but we we what one thing and how you did not know this uh when i sent an email later this morning when we found out about the letter i had attempted to contact um the library's attorney i did speak with charlotte about 45 minutes before the hearing so we actually did talk and uh um so that was my era i should have gotten back to you sooner on that didn't think to do that um i'm not sure she's going to speak but i explained to her like like tom said while i go this is just a preliminary development plan we had um a public meeting approximately a month ago there were two library representatives on that call their their concern was drainage when when there is a major runoff a major storm on occasion water will come down that hillside and because the crown starts to flatten at the intersection will literally make its way across the street and has actually come down the driveway of the library we are confident that this project will eliminate that concern because we're capturing all the water on site the buildings it's a flat roof there'll be internal scupper and collectors that take it down we've got an underground detention system that we've designed that connects the two buildings All the surface water will be channeled around the building and inlets. And then we will be holding that back and releasing it into a curb inlet on our side of the street, on the low side going north. So there's no question that that issue will be improved immensely. I know we talked about the pre and post condition. This will be a situation where we actually improve on the condition. So I explained to Charlotte that those issues will continue working with the staff, engineering, the library board to satisfy their concerns about drainage because that was one of the reasons they were asking for postponement concern about how is that going to be handled. The plan that got submitted, there was a little more refined plan earlier this week just to better illustrate how we will handle that underground detention. And that stemmed from calls based on subdivision, technical review, and conversations with the staff. It's in general concept with the same plan we showed the library board a month ago. It's just got a little more definition to it. but the same premise underground large storage between the buildings released, as I said, into that curb inlet. So hopefully you all understand, you know, that we don't want this postponed today for that reason. We will continue to work on that and satisfy everyone prior to the final development plan. And again, as Tom and Hal both said, nothing can start on this side and be constructed until those engineering measures get resolved. The tree canopy scenario, we've worked diligently with the staff. We applaud their notion of, they felt like we were trying to take too many trees and concerned about placing them over and within utility easements. We still are going to have an abundance of trees. It's going to be more aesthetically pleasing. I think you hopefully saw from those pictures that were presented earlier that those trees are in decline there's a lot of honeysuckle underbrush brush um five ten eight fifteen years from now most of those trees will be gone this is an opportunity to actually reforest that area make it aesthetically pleasing on that corner and to improve the condition at the nearby part where there was a as i understand a utility project that took out some trees and maybe here's an opportunity to restore that. So we view that as a win, win, win. I won't rehash all the things that Hal and Tom and others have said. We feel good that we have listened. We have attempted to resolve all the concerns. We know that from here to construction drawings, to construction permits, there's a lot of work to be done, but we certainly need your all's recommendation and we need the zone change to even begin that part of the work. It's an opportunity to take, I'll be honest with you, an extremely difficult site in a prominent location that's just calling to be medium density residential and opportunity to do something with it. So thank you all for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Does any commission members have any questions for the applicant at this time? Great. All right. So we'll move over to the citizens' comments. And first up, I want to see if there's anyone out there that would like to speak on behalf of... Oh, Bruce, do you have a question? Oh, okay. Okay. If anyone out there would like to speak on behalf of this application, please do so by raising your hand. I'm not seeing any. Is there anyone out there that would like to speak against this application? Please do so by raising your hand. I'm not seeing anything. All right. I'll bring it back to the commission. Any further questions? Mr. Wilson? And then I think Mr. Penn will be next after Mr. Wilson. Well, first of all, for the applicant, as far as our staff are concerned, I think the city of Lexington has gotten a wonderful Christmas gift in advance. You all have worked very hard on a very difficult situation, and I think you've taken into consideration all the concerns because when this proposal was presented to the zoning commission, there were lots of questions that we had. And of course, many times people always ask us, why do we postpone? And we postponed for the very reason that we've come back today with a very solid plan and something that I think will add immeasurably to the value of Lexington, Kentucky. So thank you all on behalf of me, at least for the plan, for the work that you've done. And like I said, for the advanced Christmas gift to the city of Lexington. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Nichols, Mr. Penn, he's up and then you can go after Mr. Penn. I want to ask a procedural question to staff on this. When we first started looking at this, there was a note on the, I would say, the plan that said that this would not be developed because of the development that had been done on the other part of this block. and that this would be a permanent tree protection area. What did we do or what are we doing that takes that off? Amending the plant and amending the zone. Would we pass the zoning? That will automatically take that off? No, sir. Nothing is actually taken off from this. You will be modifying the tree preservation area, removing it from this property. And you will also be modifying the conditional zoning restrictions in a way with what you are choosing to do with increasing the density. So in the staff report, it talks about this briefly, but there are two separate forms of conditional zoning that's been recommended. One is the new conditional zoning restriction associated with the restriction or the prohibiting of service parking. The second is the modification of the current conditional zoning restriction on the site. This is actually done not so much through a modification of the language of the conditional zoning restriction, but a modification of the plan itself. So by allowing or by passing this with the zone change and with the development plan, since it is then going to the Urban County Council, we are able to go ahead and increase the available parking that is allowed on site and the available density that is allowed on site. The note that specifically was developed by the Irving County Council was a bit strange in the fact that it limited all parking and density to what is shown on the plank. So we have done this in a different type of way, but it is going to cover all of the bases so that we are able to go ahead and allow for a site to be in. The reason I asked that question, I want to get your hands on, Rick. Yes, sir. The other reason I asked that question is I don't want the trees that are being planted off-site to be seen as a reason for allowing this to go forward. It's a mitigation reason, but it's not the reason for the problem. Correct, and I think there is a special circumstance, we talked about this in the bit of the staff report, in which the urban forester has indicated that this area is not being maintained largely because the note says it can't be maintained in the same way. The note actually does not allow for any removal. It does allow for planting to occur but it doesn't allow for any type of negative action. I just think that needs to be farther because going forward, the council is going to be dealing with that same question you've already handed. Yes. Mr. Nibble? Okay, no question. All right. Thank you. Any further questions? I'm not seeing any, but the floor is open for a motion. We have three motions. We have the zone change, the variance, and preliminary development. So we want three separate motions? Yes, sir. We need three separate motions. Mr. Penn, you're up. I have no question. I vote for Mr. Smith. You got all the notes there, Pop. Learn something from that, folks. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNNAR 2015 for the reasons provided by staff. We have a motion. We have a second. I'm Mr. Bell. any further discussions to that motion all in favor please raise your hand okay motion passes now I move to approve of the variance request that's presented by Spare second by Mr. Bell any discussion any all in favor please raise your hand Okay, motion passes. Okay. Subclaim moves to the development plan PLNNJDP 2075 with the 10. Yeah, I got 10. Yeah, 10 conditions. Change 9 and 10 to resolve. Okay. All right. Thanks, sir. We have a second by Mr. Bell. Any discussion to that motion? All right. Ain't none. Please raise your hand for voting paper. Mr. Wilson. I think Mr. Wilson froze. Oh. Can I hear you? Can you say something? Motion passed. I don't know if that's, we can't count it as unanimous, right? You'll be broke. I don't know. Do we have to? How do we handle it? We'll just count it as an extension. Extension, okay. Yeah, I don't know how to. We didn't team vote, so. No, I didn't. I didn't want to count it. But he compliments quite a few, so I think I'll be honest. Mr. Jill, motion passed. Thank you for your hard work. I also, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I also, and I think everybody does, express appreciation for staff and developers working together. It was really outstanding. So thank you so very much. Well, thank you all. And we appreciate everything we've heard here. And it's a great project. Happy New Year and Merry Christmas to everyone. Safe holidays. And we'll see you soon. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Excellent. Jenna Adams, any commission items? Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, I want to express my gratitude for you giving us a gift this afternoon of a meeting that is less than an hour in length. So thank you very much for that. We're going to expect a lot of it. You took us going pretty late earlier this fall, though. He just needs to know. Yeah, not yet. Hey, Jim, thank you for your comment. I do want to remind you all that this is your last meeting for a while. You're off the next two weeks. And we'll see everyone again on Thursday, January 7th for the committee meetings. And we'll be in a new year. And we will all be hopeful that 2021 will be so much more promising than 2020 turned out to be. We wish you all a Merry Christmas. Thank you. Jim, this quick question. We will still be here, right? Everything's on, nothing's changing. Everything is status quo for the time being. We will certainly let you know and celebrate when we can do something different. I don't think it's going to happen. Oh, also, I was told you did the flowers here. If you're doing that, I need one. I can give that to a few customers. You just take that one home with you then. Right. Is anybody giving Frank internet for Christmas? It would be much appreciated, Anthony. But I'll tell you what, I'm afraid I didn't move a little too far. I'll be with you. It's good to see Bea back. I missed seeing Bea, so good to see you, Bea. He got out on good behavior. Yeah, missed him. Well, good. You're muted, B. Have a great Christmas and a happy new year. Stay safe and healthy. Take care. See you, everyone. Bye. Thank you very much.