# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - June 24, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 24, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5385 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5385?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-06-24 - **Last revised**: June 24, 2021 - **Length**: 12,126 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 via video teleconference on June 24, 2021, at 1:30 PM, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting chair. The commission addressed seven agenda items during the session, covering routine administrative matters, zoning issues, and public hearings on zoning ordinance text amendments. The meeting proceeded through standard procedural items including the approval of minutes from previous meetings and updates on postponements and withdrawals of pending cases. The commission conducted public hearings on proposed zoning ordinance text amendments, which were ultimately approved following deliberation. Additional time was allocated for zoning items, commission business, and staff reports to keep members informed of ongoing planning and development matters. Throughout the session, the commission took eight formal votes on various matters before them. No members of the public provided comments during the designated public comment periods. The meeting format utilized video teleconferencing technology, reflecting continued adaptations to remote participation protocols during this period. ## Attendance The meeting on June 24, 2021 had full attendance with all 11 members present. No members were absent from the session. **Present:** • Larry Forester • Ivy Barksdale • Headley Bell • Zach Davis • Anthony de Movellan • Janice Meyer • Bruce Nicol • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Graham Pohl • Bill Wilson **Absent:** None **Late Arrivals:** • Graham Pohl • Carolyn Plumlee • Ivy Barksdale Three members arrived late to the meeting, though all eventually participated in the proceedings. The remaining eight members were present at the scheduled start time. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on eight items during the meeting, with most receiving unanimous or near-unanimous support. **PLN-MAR-18-00023** [timestamp: 03:00]: Frank Penn motioned to postpone the LATA, LLC zoning map amendment to July 22, 2021, seconded by Anthony de Movellan. The motion passed by voice vote with 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. **PLN-MAR-21-00005** [timestamp: 55:00]: Headley Bell motioned to approve the Fountains at Palomar zoning map amendment, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed by voice vote with 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. **PLN-MJDP-21-00020** [timestamp: 56:00]: Headley Bell motioned to approve the Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property development plan, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed by voice vote with 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 abstentions. **PLN-MAR-21-00007** [timestamp: 1:20:00]: Bill Wilson motioned to approve the WEK JR. Investments, LLC zoning map amendment, seconded by Zach Davis. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. **PLN-MJDP-21-00026** [timestamp: 1:22:00]: Bill Wilson motioned to approve the Valley Park development plan, seconded by Zach Davis. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions, with the condition to resolve dumpster location at final development plan. **Variances for WEK JR. Investments, LLC** [timestamp: 1:24:00]: Bill Wilson motioned to approve variances for WEK JR. Investments, LLC, seconded by Zach Davis. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. **PLN-ZOTA-21-00003** [timestamp: 1:40:00]: Carolyn Plumlee motioned to approve amendments to Article 6-1 and Article 21-4 regarding Traffic Impact Studies, seconded by Ivy Barksdale. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. **BOAR 2021-2** [timestamp: 2:00:00]: Frank Penn motioned to postpone the Jessica and Gary Houck appeal to July 8, 2021, seconded by Graham Pohl. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with 11 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. ## Appointments The council addressed two resignations from the Urban County Planning Commission during the meeting. • **Carolyn Plumlee** resigned from the Urban County Planning Commission • **Bill Wilson** resigned from the Urban County Planning Commission Both resignations were acknowledged by the council, resulting in two vacant positions on the Urban County Planning Commission that will need to be filled through the standard appointment process. ## Call to Order [timestamp: 00:00] Chair Larry Forester called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. via video teleconference on June 24, 2021. The meeting was conducted remotely using video teleconference technology, reflecting the continued use of virtual meeting formats during this period. Chair Forester presided over the proceedings as the meeting commenced at the scheduled time. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 01:00] The board considered approval of the minutes from the May 27, 2021 meeting as agenda item II. Key speakers during this discussion included Anthony de Movellan and Bill Wilson, who addressed the minutes review process. The minutes from the previous meeting held on May 27, 2021 were presented to the board for formal approval. Following the discussion, the board voted to approve the minutes as presented. **Outcome:** The minutes of the May 27, 2021 meeting were approved. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 03:00] The meeting addressed requests for postponement and withdrawal of various agenda items. Bruce Simpson presented information regarding these requests during this portion of the proceedings. The primary matter discussed was a postponement request for LATA, LLC's zoning map amendment. This item was among those being considered for deferral to a future meeting date. The discussion served an informational purpose, allowing the board to review and acknowledge the various requests for postponements and withdrawals that had been submitted. This agenda item is typically used to formally recognize when applicants or staff request to delay consideration of specific matters or when items need to be removed from the current meeting's schedule. No formal action was required on this agenda item, as it functioned as a procedural update to inform attendees about changes to the meeting schedule and which items would not be heard as originally planned. ## Zoning Items [timestamp: 55:00] The commission reviewed several zoning-related matters during this agenda item, with presentations and discussion led by key speakers Hal Baillie and Tom Martin. The discussion covered two main categories of zoning matters: • **Zoning Map Amendments** - The commission examined proposed changes to the official zoning map, including specific properties and districts requiring rezoning consideration. • **Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments** - Review of proposed modifications to the text of existing zoning ordinances that would affect development standards and regulations. Two specific projects were highlighted during the discussion: • **Fountains at Palomar** - This development project was presented for zoning consideration, though specific details about the proposed amendments were not detailed in the available materials. • **WEK JR. Investments, LLC** - Another development matter requiring zoning review, with this entity seeking amendments related to their proposed project. Hal Baillie and Tom Martin provided technical presentations and analysis of the zoning matters, walking the commission through the various amendments under consideration. The discussion appeared to focus on the procedural aspects of the zoning review process and the specific requirements for each proposed amendment. This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal votes or decisions made during this portion of the meeting. The commission used this time to review the technical details of the proposed zoning changes and discuss any preliminary concerns or questions about the amendments before they would proceed to formal consideration at future meetings. The zoning review process allows the commission to ensure that proposed developments and ordinance changes align with the community's planning goals and regulatory framework. ## Public Hearings on Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments [timestamp: 1:40:00] The council conducted a public hearing on agenda item C, which addressed a petition for zoning ordinance text amendments to Articles 6-1 and 21-4. The proposed changes were designed to simplify and modernize regulations related to Traffic Impact Studies. Jimmy Emmons served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the proposed text amendments to the council and public attendees. The petition focused on updating existing zoning ordinance language to make Traffic Impact Study requirements more streamlined and current with modern planning practices. The amendments targeted specific sections within Articles 6-1 and 21-4 of the zoning ordinance. Following the presentation and public hearing process, the council voted to approve the zoning ordinance text amendments. The approval will result in updated regulations that are intended to be more user-friendly while maintaining appropriate oversight of traffic impact assessments for development projects. The successful passage of these amendments represents an effort to modernize the municipality's zoning code and improve the efficiency of the development review process, particularly as it relates to traffic studies required for various types of development projects. ## Commission Items [timestamp: 2:00:00] Chair Larry Forester opened the Commission Items portion of the meeting, announcing that any item a Commission member would like to present would be heard at this time. No Commission members brought forward any items for discussion during this portion of the meeting. The agenda item served as an opportunity for commissioners to raise additional matters not covered elsewhere on the agenda, but no such items were presented. This was an informational item with no action taken. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 2:10:00] Staff presented updates on various planning activities during this informational agenda item. Jim Duncan served as the primary speaker for the staff presentation. The staff report covered ongoing planning initiatives, with particular focus on: • Long-range planning activities currently underway • Proposed zoning ordinance text amendments under consideration This agenda item was designated as informational, meaning no formal action was taken by the governing body. The presentation served to keep officials updated on the status of various planning department initiatives and upcoming regulatory changes. The staff updates provided transparency on the planning department's ongoing work and allowed for any questions or clarification from board members regarding current planning activities and proposed ordinance modifications. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-18-00023** — postponed (9-0): Postpone LATA, LLC zoning map amendment to July 22, 2021 - **PLN-MAR-21-00005** — passed (9-0): Approve Fountains at Palomar zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-21-00020** — passed (9-0): Approve Hoover & Ford Philpot Evangelistic Association Property development plan - **PLN-MAR-21-00007** — passed (11-0): Approve WEK JR. Investments, LLC zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-21-00026** — passed (11-0): Approve Valley Park development plan - **Motion** — passed (11-0): Approve variances for WEK JR. Investments, LLC - **PLN-ZOTA-21-00003** — passed (11-0): Approve amendment to Article 6-1 and Article 21-4: Traffic Impact Studies - **BOAR 2021-2** — postponed (11-0): Postpone Jessica and Gary Houck appeal to July 8, 2021 --- ## Full transcript Grapefruit Driving, you guzzle chin, commit a little more to see, it's good for your soul. You know it gets so damn lonely when you're on a plane alone. And if I had the money, honey, I'd strap you in beside me And never ever leave you, leave you at home all alone and cry in tense feet But no need, my pickup gets me where I'm pleased Chugging down the street But I'll be leaving In a little while So close your eyes and I I'll be back real soon I'll take it, Reapers Ladies' choice, everybody dance. Here we go. Yes, and if I had that money, honey, I'd strap you in beside me. You're strapless. And never ever leave you. Leave you at home all alone and crying. grapefruit a bathing suit you chew a little juicy fruit wash away the night yeah you chew a little juicy fruit it's good for your soul June 24, 2021. First up, I want to read the governor's statement. Due to the COVID-19 state of emergency, this meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61.826. Next on the agenda item, we have approval of minutes for the May 27th, 2021. The floor is open for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Okay. I second. We got a motion by Mr. DeMoglin and a second by Mr. Wilson. All in favor, please raise your hand. All right. Thank you. Okay. We move over. staff or any constituents or applicants any postponements and withdrawals i'm gonna hand up this is simpson we promote mr simpson now mr simpson you've been promoted you should be able to start your audio and video good morning or good afternoon i should say mr chairman members of the commission um i'd like to request a postponement for item number one on the docket today for a period of 30 days our next okay mrs. Simpson july 22nd is your expectation of the next meeting that'd be fine yes sir thank you mr. chairman no problem mr. chairman what is his reason mr. Simpson do you want to provide a reasoning for the postponement for 30 days uh well number one i just got retained on this case um have had a brief meeting with uh uh the engineer we've uh had a brief conversation with the staff i understand what the issues of concern are and i just need some additional time to meet with my client to make a or for them to make a determination whether they want to go forward with this application or make changes to Okay, thank you. All right. So we have a request for a one-month postponement. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move from postponement of PLN MAR 1823 to the July 22nd meeting. Okay. Second. Got a second by Mr. DeMoglin. Any further discussion to that motion? all in favor please raise your hand okay motion passes thank you mr simpson thank you okay do we have any others not seeing any um well i was waiting on miss plumley see if she would chime in today i'm not seeing her there um i know that this is miss plumley and Mr. Wilson's last meeting. I think they have a little over 20 years of planning experience amongst the two of them. So I just want to say thank you because when I came on, both of you have been great to be around. You helped me out, helped me learn, helped me understand the process and navigate through planning. It's always difficult, but your leadership has been very, very helpful and appreciated by me. And I'm pretty sure some of other members as well, but don't want to speak for them. I do want to tell you thank you. Mr. Wilson, he's here. So we don't have a parking space for you yet, but we'll get that at some point. But definitely would like to give those two a round of applause while we can. It's a little different via Zoom, but I think it's appropriate. Mr. Chairman, as I could say, I'd like to thank the staff. It's been a pleasure working with you all. you all have done an absolutely superb job of leading and guiding and especially helping me when i was new on this committee and also to my fellow colleagues you all have been absolutely wonderful and the journey has been a pleasure so 12 years have gone by pretty quickly but i've enjoyed it i've learned a lot about my city and town and i'm now ready to take my leave and go to the lake or the beach or whatever and i will be praying for you all as you all continue to move forward so you still would be conditioned to 1 30 to be worrying about a meeting on thursday well good mr pen you want to say anything yeah you know with bill and carolyn both you develop relationships and hopefully they're lasting relationships i certainly hope they will be and both of them have really exemplified what uh what planning commission is all about and the The ability to think independently and ability to stand by your decision has been correctly appreciated. And I certainly want to say for me personally, it's been an honor to get to know us. Thank you. Okay. Does any other commission members like to say some kind words? I would, if I may. Yes. Thank you so much. Yeah, you know, you're always looking for somebody to mentor. And I can't think of two better mentors than Bill Wilson and Carolyn Plumlee. Y'all exemplify everything good in the way you conduct yourselves and in the thought process. And I personally look up to you considerably. So thank you for your many years of contributing to make the city great. Y'all are outstanding people. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'm not seeing any. Oh, Mr. Cole. Real quick, I second what has been said, and also just note that I'm going to miss both of you because I really enjoy your presence, your personalities. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. So hopefully we'll keep Bill on the Rolodex. He wants to go golfing at some point, so I've got to get him out there. All righty, so we'll move on now. We'll come back for Ms. Plumlee. If she gets on, I want to make sure we give her her flowers too. She deserves them as well. She'll be on page three of the agenda now. Fountains at Palomar, PLNMER-21-5. And before Mr. Bailey starts, just both of our other zoning items on today, we've been to unqualified for our brigade. So we want to see if there's anyone in attendance who might want a full hearing on either of these cases. Yes, we can. So if there's anyone out there via Zoom that would like to have a full hearing on either of these cases, can you do so by raising your hand via Zoom. And those are the fountains at Palomar for property located at 3801, 3901, and 3955 Hartsburg Road is one case, and the second case is for property at 860 Derody Street. See anything? All right. I think Mr. Cole had his hand raised. Okay, I missed that, Graham. Yeah, I just couldn't understand what Tracy was saying. I couldn't hear it. Okay, she didn't repeat. I understood the last part. I just couldn't understand the first part. So it's okay. We don't need to repeat it. I just, I'm not sure what's going on. Okay, we have an abbreviated application for the two that are on the agenda item, which is Fountain of Kalamar and PLNMER-21-7. I want to say that's Week Junior Investment AWEC. WETM is an additional, sir. Okay. Oh, WK, sorry. Thank you. Okay, staff. All right. And thank you very much. I'll go ahead and try to go quickly through both of these applications. We'll be starting with PLNMAR 21-00005, found at Palomar LLC. The applicant for the properties at 3801-3901 and 3955 Harrisburg Road are seeking to modify the conditional zoning restrictions for a restricted highway service business zone. In this case, there is a slightly different process from what we typically do with our zone changes to allow for this modification. And we don't actually do these that often as they are established during a zone change and then must go through the entirety of a zone change process to have them removed. This petitioner is particularly focused on the removal of a restriction that limits athletic club facilities or the athletic club facility use on these properties. That was applied during the 2018 zone change by this applicant. So just to give you an idea of where we're located, and again, I will go quite quickly. We are at the intersection of Harrisburg Road and Vandervoer Boulevard. It's these properties located back here. You can see that we're located in an area of various different types of zoning, including R3, or the Planned Neighborhood Residential, AU, Agricultural Urban, R1D, and R1C, which are single family residential zones, and then B6P, our commercial shopping center, as well as a small bit of P1 zoning. When we go to the aerial photography, we get a better idea of the actual land use and how it has developed over time. While you see that there is the availability for a variable kind of layout of housing types within the area that is to the northwest of the subject property. It is primarily single-family detached and attached housing. Across the way, that is what you are getting as well, associated with the single-family zoning. And then across Man of War Boulevard, we are looking at the Palmar Center shopping area, which is a mix of commercial shopping. Looking into the property itself, you can see this is just standing at the corner of Manor War Boulevard and Harrisburg Road into the property. They are currently doing a fair amount of construction on site associated with the certified final development plan. On your bottom left, you are looking up Harrisburg Road into town, and then on your bottom right, you're looking down Manor War Boulevard as we move to the west. Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance really does get at the particular aspects of conditional zoning restrictions, and it gets into the specific findings that are required to modify or remove conditional zoning restrictions. In this case, the restrictions are the conditions that have been signed by the Urban County Council with the adoption or the passage of an ordinance to change the zone. It means that they are the only ones that shall have final authority to modify those conditions. When it comes to a development plan, the planning commission is that final kind of level of oversight. But since this is a zoning or a zone change condition, it is associated with the ordinance for the passage of that zone change. Within the findings required, there must be a clear preponderance of evidence stating what has changed, whether that is a major economic, physical, or social change, or how it was improperly applied previously. In this case, there was a bit of work that the applicant had to do to prove that there had been such a change that substantially altered the basic character of the area in making the condition or the condition inappropriate or improper. The procedure, as I stated earlier, is going through the same procedure as a zone change. In this case, the athletic club facilities were restricted on the property. An athletic club facility means an establishment that provides for indoor, commercial, or non-commercial services and facilities that purport to involve the user's physical condition or appearance through participation in sports activities, fitness training, exercise, or bodybuilding. The establishment may offer access to the following, including gymnasiums, swimming pools, tracks, ball courts, weightlifting equipment, exercise equipment, or facilities, saunas, steam baths, or whirlpools. When the applicant came in with their application for the zone change for the B3 zone in 2018, they were very focused on the restriction of potential uses that could be considered big box, large scale facilities associated with a new kind of venture in this area. In their communication with the neighborhood prior to the establishment of the B3 zone, they sought to allow for a bit of flexibility with uses, but also to limit those things that they thought would be detrimental to a neighborhood and highway serving kind of blend of uses. So they were really seeking to do a blend of B3 highway service, getting at that transient population or the population moving through the area, but also involving a fair amount of B1 type uses that would support some of the neighborhood. Um, in the, uh, what the applicant has provided to staff, there has been significant focus on what they are trying to, uh, to change here. And that is not to include, include all athletic club facilities, but, uh, small boutique style athletic club facilities. These small boutique style that facilities range typically from 3,000 to 6,000 square feet. It is typically a higher income bracket that it's serving, and it also gives a very targeted approach. You can see these throughout town with a pure bar or orange theory. This is one that has become quite popular in the Summit as well as Richmond Road. The Epcot has provided a significant amount of information to show that there has been a major economic or fiscal change in the athletic club market. They are now focusing more on a small site or experience driven approach in that general area and in that area. And there has been a shift currently within the retail market. That shift in the retail market is also reiterated within the comprehensive plan in some of the goals and objectives and policies that you adopted in 2019. The modification of the conditional zoning restrictions will allow the applicant to avoid the inundation of the area with big box doors and provide an amenity to both the traveling public and the neighborhood. The inclusion of these facilities will allow the growth of the site and provide an amenity to that area. Staff is currently showing the additional zoning restrictions that are applied to the site with the one modification seen in red and underlined under number two. Instead of reading athletic club facilities, this second conditional zoning restriction will now read athletic club facilities greater than 6,000 square feet, really focusing on the needed space for a boutique or specialized athletic club facility. All the rest shall remain. These were the conditional zoning restrictions established in 2018. Finally, as with all zone changes, this recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of PLM MJDP 21-00020, the Hoover Philpott Evangelistic Association property, or the Fountains at Palomar as amended. This is quite an interesting aspect as Mr. Martin talked about in the fact that this has had no change compared to what was adopted by this commission not too long ago. So with that, if the commission has any questions, I'd be happy to answer on this application specifically focused on the zoning conditions that have been applied, I'd be happy to answer. Any questions for Hal? Not seeing any. All right, I'll pull up Mr. Martin. Take away Tom. All right, thank you for the help. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, you do see before you the final development plan, which is required with this request. And again, as Hal explained, it's located at the corner of Harrisburg Road, which you can see here, and Man of War. There are no physical changes being proposed to the development plan at this time associated with this request. Access, as you can see, is established here for the access road. Here is the full access point that will be signalized in the future. This is the area they have, as you all know, this is partially a final development plan and still a preliminary development plan. But again, they're not proposing any changes. The site is under development. Staff does anticipate in the future, you will see some amendments to this plan, probably dealing with some of the proposed structures, their sizes, et cetera, in the future. But at this time again, this plan was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee with a minimal amount of conditions that you can see on your agenda. And that's all we have to say about the plan today. Any questions for Tom? It depends. Tom, is this still not the final development plan, or is it the final development plan? Oh, it's a valid development plan, yes. There's a signed, certified plan that they're working on. Okay. That's what I thought from the subdivision. This is not a It's a final, not a preliminary. Right, that is correct. Where's the hotel on that plan? It is still located on the plan. Here we go. It is, this is the hotel. Now we've been told, and the applicant can verify this, that this may not happen. So if this doesn't happen, you will obviously see probably a significant amendment to this plan in the future. But it is this location right here. Tom, if I remember right, the whole zoning thing was driven by that hotel. Isn't that right? As a matter of fact, yes, sir. That was the primary driver at the time. I believe that just due to the economy and some other circumstances, that deal failed to come to fruition. Thank you. Any further questions? I'm seeing that. Applicant? Come on, Mr. Simpson at this time. Okay. Mr. Simpson, you should be able to go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, Hal and Tom summarized the case very well. I worked with them over the past couple of months, supplying the necessary data that they needed to review to make their recommendations. So we would simply rely upon their presentation and connection with our application and ask for the planning commission's approval. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Any commission members have any questions for the applicant? I'm not seeing any. Do we have any constituents that would like to speak on behalf or against the particular application? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. Okay, not seeing any. We'll bring it back to the commission for additional questions or concerns or if the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Bell. Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. I move for approval of PLNMAR 21.5 Fountains at Palomar. Yeah. We have a motion. We have a second. Seconded by Mr. Cole. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. And we will, Ms. Plumlee, just join. How are you? Small IT problem, thanks. That was me last week, I understand. Oh, and Ms. Boxfield, join. How are you doing? Okay. We need to do the development plan, or we need a motion for the development plan. Mr. Bell, are you heading that up? Yes, sir, to the best of my abilities. I move for approval of the development plan for fountains at Palomar, PLNMAR 21-5. That's PLNMJDP 21-20. That's right. Hey. That's exactly what I was going to say. You just took it out of my mouth. We got to work together. we got a motion second about Mr. Paul please raise your hand okay motion passes thank you thank you I appreciate it thank you okay Okay, next we should be on page four of the agenda. This is PLNMAR-21-7, W.E.K. Jr. Investments, LLC. We have three motions on this, and we do have revised staff recommendations. Yes, sir. I will go ahead and share my screen on this one. This is W.E.K. Junior Investments LLC, PLNMAR 21-00007. This zone change is for the property located at 850 Darudi Street. The APKIN is seeking to apply for this zone change under the second tier urban place type and the medium density residential development type. In the effort to rezone the property from a townhouse residential R1T zone to a high-density apartment R4 zone for approximately .46 net and 1.39 gross acres, the applicant is seeking to rezone the property in order to build a multifamily residential structure and associated open space and off-street parking. The proposed residential development would include 16 one and two bedroom dwelling units at a residential density of 35 dwelling units per net acre. The subject property is located at the corner of Valley Avenue and Derudy Street located right here. You can also see that we have West High Street or the West High Street viaduct going along this property. Interesting enough, that creates three frontages along this property, even though the West High Street roadway or right-of-way is raised, it is considered a right-of-way all the way across the property, creating three frontages, one valley, one Derudy, and one on West High Street. Additionally, you do have the Norfolk Southern Railroad that is crossing along the rear of the subject property and essentially acting as, in many ways, a fourth kind of roadway or frontage. It's quite an interesting site. Jumping a little closer to get an idea of the zoning, what we have is primarily R3 or the Planned Neighborhood Residential Zone. in that really kind of covers the area to the north, the east and to the southeast. To the southwest, we are getting a bit more of the historical development of industrial landscape in which you're seeing quite a bit of industrial and warehousing uses. We do see a bit of heavy industrial with the I2 zoning in the bottom southwest portion or the bottom left portion of your screen. your screen. Much of the historical development of this area is associated with residential housing that was attributed to the industrial practices that were occurring north of the subject property along Manchester Street which was a major thoroughfare for a lot of the commerce that came into Lexington historically as well as some of those modified or finished products that were being put together along Manchester and then down along the North Park Southern Railroad portion of the southwest portion of this site. Historically, this area has been categorized as the Irish Town neighborhood. As Mr. Martinez noted in the past, just across De Broody Street was an older school that was established for an extensive period of time until that viaduct came through and really separated some of these areas. Interestingly enough, there has been there's no evidence that 850 Derudy has ever had any type of construction on it. Now it is a tough site as you will see with a few of the variance requests that we will discuss after Mr. Martin's review of the development plan. Looking at the aerial photography, we're able to see just the land use development that has occurred over time. You are looking at some very small lot structure, single family detached structures in the Irish Town area and off across the Norfolk Southern Railroad area. And then down to the south of the West High Street Viaduct and West High Street, we're seeing the redevelopment of the South End Park area or the South Park, South End Urban Village. We've had a fair amount of conversation about that area recently within our committees as well. That is associated with the community land trust. And then just to the bottom left of your screen, you can see those industrial and warehousing businesses that have been operated historically and tied to the rail line there as well. Getting into the property itself, it was a bit rainy on the day that we took these photos, so you can also get an idea of just the vegetative growth that has occurred on this site. Another aspect of it that you can see looking into the property up at this portion here, which is actually at that intersection in which Driscoll turns into Valley, is that there is a grade change up into the property, as well as a fair amount of power lines that cut across this property. Those power lines are a restriction on some of where the placement of the potential structure or the proposed structure could go and influenced quite a bit of some of staff's recommendations on this. Looking down this way along the leftmost photo, you're looking down to Rudy into Valley at that intersection. Bottom center photo is a picture looking into the property itself and then along Valley in the top right and then along Valley looking in towards town as it curves around and goes back to Manchester. And you can see in this top picture, and there is the High Street Viaduct. It is approximately around 42 feet in height to the base of that viaduct. And there is a sound barrier that goes along the south end urban park area all the way to the viaduct, but it does not extend over to this property. The rail line actually sits approximately 10 to 12 feet above this subject property, even with that grade change. Since the committee's meetings, the applicant has provided greater information as to how the building is situated and how this will work with the site, specifically providing a setback study in which they're showing where their proposed base of curb will be, where the pedestrian facilities will be located coming across the property and down along Derudy Street, which will be a eight-foot multi-use trail that will connect over to the a planned public project that will connect to Manchester Street and the Town Branch Trail over into the town branch commons. The applicant is showing in this kind of setup that they are actually set back approximately 27 feet at their smallest and 43 feet at their largest from where the proposed edge of curve will be. So getting at some of those aspects that will be discussed here shortly with the variance request. The applicant has also provided a shadow study. This is an October study in which they are showing both the location of the shadow caused by the viaduct. You can see that line here as well as the shadow caused by the structure itself. This exhibit was particularly provided to avoid any overlap or to show that there would be no overlap of the shadow of the structure across onto the neighboring properties, as well as to show why the placement of the structure is located up along the valley rather than being back along West High or oriented along Derudy Street. So jumping back to the applicants in the aerial photography in this situated area. You can see that there are some limits on the site. However, the applicant has provided substantial information to show compliance with the comprehensive plan. The staff is recommending approval for the following reasons. That the R4 is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning accommodates the demand for housing in Lexington responsibly prioritizing a mixture of housing types by incorporating this proposed multifamily residential into an area that is primarily single family in nature and that single family comes both in attached and detached kind of variety. The proposed rezoning addresses the goal of absorbing vacant and underutilized land within the urban service area. The proposed development accommodates the demand for the mixture of housing in Lexington responsibly and prioritizing a higher density mixed housing type and incorporating what is considered a missing middle housing type now this might actually hit on the higher end of missing middle but generally we see that as being something that is between 12 and 20 kind of units this is at the higher end with 16 units in this the proposed development will include new pedestrian connections encourage bicycle use through the inclusion of bicycle parking at the site, both internal to the building and external for short-term use and long-term storage of bicycles, and the establishment of an eight-foot-wide shared-use trail that will connect to the surrounding amenities, including the Manchester Street development, the distillery district adaptive reuse projects, as well as some of the trail uses that are being developed across the city. Finally, the applicant is seeking to utilize the mixed income parking reduction by applying that income reduction of 80% AMI to eight of the 16 units that will bring down at the time of the final development plan some of their required parking. And they are also seeking to make the bottom level ADA compliant units, which will allow for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of older and or disadvantaged residents. As with all new comprehensive plan arguments, there is the review of the place builder and the development criteria within the 2018 comprehensive plan. The staff has found that they are meeting the site design building form and location at this site, as it is creating a residential development that is really supporting pedestrian mobility and trying to act as a buffer for that between the viaduct and the existing neighborhood. The proposed development is in agreement with the multifamily design standards. However, some of those elements necessitate greater discussion during the final development plan. The proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for the potential users through the incorporation of enhanced pedestrian facilities along the property's frontages and the shared use trail. And then finally, the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it works to increase the tree canopy coverage and establish green infrastructure along the frontages of the property, which will help alleviate some of the impact on the development of the surrounding development and the stormwater system. As with all zone changes, this is subject to the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 21-00026 Valley Park. With that, if you have any other questions on this, specifically geared to the zone change, I'd be happy to answer them now. Mr. Martin will hop up with the development plan, and then I'll be back up with the discussion of the variance requests. Do the commission members have any questions for Hal before we move on? Mr. Martin? Okay, Tom? Pull up the brief and finish. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, before you, you seem to the preliminary development plan associated with this zone chain. And as Hal has explained, this interesting, very interesting site has frontage along Valley Avenue, Derudy Street, and of course High Street. The right of the way here, the frontage and the railroad does constitute frontage and railroad right of the way as well. So it is an interesting site in that regard. The site, again, as Hal mentioned, has quite a bit of elevation to it. It's been reported that there's a lot of rock in the area. These may be some of the reasons it failed to develop over the years. They are proposing their apartment building, as you can see in this location. The building square footage, the lot coverage, is 4,436 square feet. It is four stories, 48 feet in height, and that will provide a total square footage of over 17,000 square feet, 17,744 square feet in the building. The lot coverage and the FAR are well within the compliance levels of the zone requested. You can see that they're orienting to Valley Avenue and to the multi-use trail with access into the building. there will be access into the building at the rear from the proposed parking lot. They are proposing access into the parking from DeRuwe with 24 spaces being proposed at this time. And again, as Hal mentioned, this site is impacted heavily by the frontages, the need for the variances, which Hal will go over, relate to those frontages. The electrical lines, these are large transmission lines. This is a large easement. So again, it has a significant impact on the layout of this property. Also, an additional variance that has been requested, Hal will explain, is a variance from the 25-foot setback from a floodplain. And that's in this area. This small corner of the property is impacted by a A-zone floodplain. What that means, it's never been studied. There's been no base flood elevation determined by a study. It didn't show up on our floodplain maps until the 2014 revisions, and it is related to backflow from the down branch creek in that area. what does exist there's nothing on the surface except for a small culvert in this area to the north most of the most of the old creek and the stream and the drainage is actually in a very very large culvert I believe it's eight feet by 12 feet the culvert very large culvert which by the way also was one of the challenges of the south end redevelopment was addressing that issue and that large culvert was a challenge for that development as well. So again, they do need a variance from their setback in order to site this building correctly in this location. Now, we have a discussion item on this plan that is not reflected physically on the plan, and that was the dumpster location. And staff brought that up, although that is a final development plan issue, that was brought up because again the challenges on this site it's a small site it's the functionality of the dumpster and its impact on their parking as you all are aware a dumpster must have a minimum of 50 foot clearance in front of it and the ability to turn around so that issue will have to be resolved at the time of the final development plan there's been various options discussed some are not viewed as well as some others. So that's a significant issue that we'll have to resolve again when you see the final development plan. And with that, I'll be happy answering questions we have about the development plan. Any questions for Tom? Mr. Penn? Tom, if I'm white, then that building will be eight feet above the viaduct? I'm sorry, Mr. Penn. If the bill is 48 feet, will that make it eight feet above the viaduct? Oh, no, sir. I don't believe so. No. And again, the site will be graded. So the base elevation will change. Okay. And then it'll be 48 feet in height. But I believe that viaduct may be 60 some feet in the air. At the top. At the top. Yeah. And they're moving it up to the front as well, so it won't be as close. There'll be quite a distance between it and Nevada. I understand. And that trail, Tom, that goes through there, let me finish up on that. That trail is going to be under the shadow of Nevada? A section of it will be, and that's part of the public project. And, you know, Hal mentioned this, and this is important. This trail linkage, they're just building a very small park along their frontage. but it is an important linkage in our trail system because as hal mentioned it will take people down to the distillery district to the town branch trail and all over our community theoretically and also come hook to the trail in the south end village so it is actually a very very important aspect of this development any further questions for John? I'm not seeing any. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak? Oh, I'm sorry. I went to the applicant. You got the applicant. Take it away from me, sir. Oh. Is that Mr. Gross? Yeah, I think we still talk about the variance. Yeah. All right. So we do have a requested variants, or a few requested variances, and initially with this application, and as with any application for a zone chain, an applicant can seek a variance request. This is the only time that the Planning Commission has purview over variances, typically as associated with the Board of Adjustment. Initially, the applicant applied for three-dimensional variances. We have In red, you see the fourth. The variances are specifically focused on the setback requirement along Derudy Valley and High Street. Those are the street right-of-ways that impact this property. The added variance is a reduction of the building setback from the floodplain from 25 feet to 9 feet. Additionally, there is a parking reduction requested with association with this development plan and the zone change. It would be an 11% reduction in the required parking from 27 parking spaces to 24 parking spaces. So looking at the development plan, it gives us a fair idea of where they're trying to lay things out on site, but it also gives us a bit of an idea of how some of this area works together. The required, well, you can see they are set back further than the requested variance of 10 feet for the building line. However, they are requesting a ship from 20 feet to 10 feet along to Rudy, specifically for the location of the parking. Typically, the parking is required to be behind the building line, which is why they are unable to, that's why they are unable to do it here. It is somewhat of an abnormal situation because of just the layout of the site and the multitude of street frontages at this location. The same goes for the right-of-way along West High Street or along that viaduct. They are seeking that reduction from the 20 feet for a through lot down to 5 feet, which is depicted right here, just what would be typically required for a VUA area for parking. They would still need to provide that VUA for that parking screening. And then up front, what we showed previously was that setback study. This gives an idea of the amount of land that would be between the structure and the proposed back of curve that is associated with some of the enhancement of the roadway at this location. And it does exceed some of that area that would have been necessary for a typical setback in an area that would not have that kind of street expanse. Within our earlier conversations of these, oh, I apologize, I'm jumping the gun on the floodplain. The floodplain is actually located right in this area. As Mr. Martin mentioned, it is a type A or an unstudied floodplain. The floodplain is actually encapsulated underground within a pipe system and is meant to capture a lot of the water that is washing back off the Town Creek area and into this storage kind of area. And then coming down to Ruby, they're catching some of that with some of the great improvements that have been done associated with the South Bend Park Urban Village development. So there has been public projects that have alleviated some of the stormwater implications at this site. However, the applicant has done a significant amount of work to incorporate additional green infrastructure that is meant to alleviate some of the stormwater impacts on this site along the street frontages of this site. This is specifically geared to both give a bit of a buffer between the proposed eight-foot shared-use trail, but also to act as that stormwater best management practice as we are trying to alleviate some of the potential impacts on the area in general. In addition, the applicant is asking for that 11% reduction of the parking. Within the infill and redevelopment area, this is an option for an applicant to reduce their parking. However, whenever we're looking at those types of reductions, we do want to see the facilities that could alleviate the need or the requirement that one might have a single occupancy vehicle at their second call. In this case, the applicant has provided both short-term and long-term bike parking, and they are looking to do that increase in the shared use trail system. Those combined really allow for some of the necessity to own a car or a vehicle to be alleviated and cut down on some of the requirements in this area. Going back to that study, this is just that setback study that they have provided, showing some of the uniqueness of the property, the really large width of the right-of-way, as well as some of the impact of the established easements on the site. The types of facilities that are located on this site are very large scale transmission lines that would be prohibitively expensive to modify, change or put underground. For those reasons, staff is recommending approval of the various variances. Staff finds that granting the requested variances should not adversely affect the public health state of your welfare, nor should it affect the character of the general vicinity, as the proposed project will buffer the existing single-family land use from the elevated highways. The need for the variances arises from the special circumstances of the existing lot, and the development will help buffer those neighborhoods from higher intensity roadways. The strict application of the minimum front yard setback requirements and floodplain setback would create an unnecessary hardship on the proposed development, forcing the placement of the structure to be in the shadow of the viaduct, getting it closer and closer to that roadway. And finally, the inclusion of the three parking spaces would result in decreased usable open space and a decrease in the building footprint. The requests are not a result of a willful violation of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has taken care to go through the necessary process for this project and has requested the variances prior to preventing any sort of construction. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions on the variances. Any questions for Hal? I'm not seeing any. Okay, applicant. I will go ahead and promote Mr. Barrett and Mr. Gross. Good afternoon everybody. I think Hal and Tom summarized our application very well. As you know, we have, my client has worked very hard with staff in the various departments to make this, you know, difficult site much better. And we think it's going to be a great gateway corner into the South End development. We have looked at the conditions for the variants. We're agreeable to those conditions that were proposed by staff. and so at this point I'm here and so is Tony to answer any questions but I think staff did a good job and I'll just get out of the way unless you guys like to ask any questions. Thank you Mr. Gross. Do we have any questions for the applicant and commission members? Okay Mr. Penn. I don't know whether this is for you or Tony but I'll just throw it out there. I drove down and looked at that after the subdivision committee because we've reviewed that and talked about it quite a bit uh do you still feel like that you can do the dumpster and not force people to park out on the derogatory street yes we think yes sir and i think right now if you see we proposed um the parking spaces but we think the three space uh elimination is going to be uh it's going to be necessary so we can do the dumpster in the parking lot. We've talked with staff, and we've also talked with sanitation, and we've come up with two or three different proposals that are being kicked around. I think at the end of the day, we're going to be able to find a space for the dumpster. We're going to have to as part of the final development plan, but we're not concerned that we're not going to find a workaround for that. Tony, do you have any comments to that? No, that pretty much sums it up. We've been working with it to try to figure that out have some some options that seeming to be viable. My concern is that people have to park on the road street because it would be about parking and that street is horrible right now. I don't know how you park anybody on the road street. But the other question is if I may on the variances and where the trails shared use trails supposed to go through there are we okay on that are we are the variances going to cut that off make the trail hard to get in there no we don't think so the trail has shown is it's going to fit within where the the building is located in the variances we are proposing due to the fact that with the right of way we're proposing part of that eight foot trail will be an actual sidewalk easement on our property because there is not enough room to fit in the eight-foot trail. But no, we've discussed this with Scott and staff, and everyone's comfortable that that eight-foot trail will fit there. What we did was we initially had a five-foot sidewalk proposed, as is a typical requirement now, within the right-of-way. And then when it was brought to our attention that we needed an eight-foot path in this location, We kept the five foot in the right-of-way location and then added a three-foot sidewalk easement on the property to create the eight foot. So it's somewhat of a compromise between the owner and the city, and that provides us enough room to do what we need to. That's good, because when we left the subdivision committee, we weren't sure how that was going to work. Thank you. I'm not seeing any questions. Okay, Mr. Paul. Tony, could you describe how the retaining wall works and what happens to the grade at the retaining wall and also north of the retaining wall as it leads up toward the street? I can. We're anticipating that we'll have a 12-foot retaining wall at the end of the street or at the end of the parking lot and then taper down towards Derody. And then it'll be tapered down to the utility easement. So at the back of the parking lot will be its tallest, and that brings the grade down so that we have a level pad for the parking lot and for the building. And then it also does not have an imposing wall at the street level at Derody, and also it doesn't get us into the utility easement. So it worked out pretty well at that location. So I guess there'd be a pretty good hill coming down from the west side of the property line toward the building. Well, that's the railroad track. So similar to what's on the other side of High Street, they've got a retaining wall and a sound barrier. We just won't have the sound barrier. We'll just have the retaining wall element. Okay, so what happens at the, where you have a 12 foot retaining wall, is there any kind of requirement to prevent people from falling off of that? Sure, there'll be a, we have to have a rail at the top. At the top. And so that six foot solid fence that's noted there, I guess that would stop at the retaining wall and be replaced with a rail of some kind? Yeah, or both. There's no reason for the fence at that point, but we would just have a rail at the top of the retaining wall. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Brent. any other commission members okay now i can move on to this do we have any citizen comments i'm either for or against this particular agenda item please do so by raising your hand via zoom i'm not saying any case i'll bring it back to the commission close this part out and the floor is open for the discussion or a motion. Mr. Wilson? Are you ready for a motion? Yes, sir. Okay, you got three things here. First of all, I move for approval of PLN MAR 21-7 WK General Investments for the reasons provided by staff. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Mr. Davis. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Okay, Chairman, I move for approval of the preliminary plan MJDP 21-26 Valley Park. We have a motion to provide a staff motion. Mr. Chair, may I make a recommendation of Mr. Wilson? Yes. Yes. For the condition that states discuss the location of the dumpster resolved at the time of the final development plan, sir. Okay, good one. And also about the dust placeholder and building criteria, has that been taken so long? We believe that those are resolved at this point in time, and those elements that the applicant has referenced within their letters of justification and supplementals will be discussed at the time of the final development plan per their statements. So can do we leave that in or take it out? In other Do we have 10 or 11? We can take that out, sir. Take that out? Okay. I'll revise my motion to simply say that we approve the PLNM JVP 2126 with the 10 or 11 items provided by staff substituting the word discussed in item 11 to resolve the dumpster location. Okay. Okay. Mr. Davis, are you seconding that motion? Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. All right. The motion passes unanimously. Okay. And then, Chairman, in continuing the move for approval of the grant request suggested by the applicant for the reasons provided by staff. We have a motion Seconded by Mr. Davis All in favor, please raise your hand Motion passes Thank you Thank you, Mr. Gross Thank you Mr. Chair, if I could say something real quick Ms. Plumlee, I'll miss you We don't cross paths Very often other than the Planning Commission Mr. Wilson, I see you once a month Anyways so I'll continue to see you but I hope both of you find something to do you're going to have a lot of free time that you're going to need to fill now and I appreciate your service of being a volunteer public servant myself I know how much this takes and I wish you both the best thank you I appreciate it I'll see you at the next meeting okay oh we got him up okay So we're going to page six. PLN Zota 21-3, Jimmy Emmons. And I'm told that, Jimmy, this is your last meeting as well. Yes, it is. Thank you for pointing that out. I will be retiring at the end of July, but this is my last planned presentation in front of the Planning Commission after over two decades. So I'm just, I'm very excited. And, but it is also with my regrets because the planning commission and the planning staff are excellent and like family. So thank you very much. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wilson wants to know how do you keep your hair so black since you're retiring so early? It's just good genes. He's a little jealous, Jim. And I was thinking earlier, in particular about Mr. Penn. I do believe over the last two decades, I think I've actually spent more time with Mr. Penn than I have my own family. Thank you all very much. Let's go out on a bang, and I'd love to present this Zoning Norditz text amendment to you. If I can share my screen to get us started, and also to keep myself on track. Okay, can everybody see? Thank you. I'm very pleased to present our modernization efforts for our traffic impact study regulations. to kind of get right into it. The just some of the items about this is that our current traffic impact study requirements were originally passed in 1983 and they've remained relatively unchanged for the past 38 years, even though our goals and available data and best practices have changed dramatically over that time. So what we really are doing is that we looked at this on trying to update and modernize our regulations, trying to get rid of regulations that reference things that no longer exist, and also at the same time, increase both the predictability and the flexibility in our current process. We did look at our comprehensive plan, and it's in your staff report for this, and I'm not going to reread these to you, but in general, these proposals are in line with our goals, objectives, and our vision for what we want the city to be as far as growing successful neighborhoods, protecting the environment, and improving our community. In particular, every objective under providing the effective and comprehensive transportation system is being met with this proposed zoning ordinance tax amendment. Just a little bit about where we are today is that the current traffic impact study requirements are heavily focused on just vehicular travel and vehicular improvements. One of the big things, if you're looking at the big picture of what we're doing, is that we're really trying to blend and balance those necessary technical engineering practices with an overarching planning analysis for this type of thing. We're going to elevate our analysis of our multimodal improvements, talking about pedestrians and bicycle and transit, and put them on even footing with our vehicular transportation system. Also, one of the new things that we're doing, and one of the things that we have changed this draft since it was originally done, is that we're also effectively creating tiers of traffic studies, and that's based off of the infrastructure needs of the area. So one of the things that we're doing is that we're simplifying our thresholds for when a traffic study is required. We'll now have a three-tiered system, 100 new peak hour trips, and this would be the lowest threshold if the proposed development will impact our known congestion bottlenecks and our known safety areas. This will be identified by staff by our transportation planning staff, and we will publish the math, map and methodology and update that map as necessary. The 200 new peak hour trips, and that's really kind of where we are today. That's, that's very, it's very synonymous with our current threshold. So the first threshold going through the problem areas will be a lower threshold than it is today. And then finally, we are proposing at 600 new peak hour trips that will increase the additional analysis of travel times and demographic data that we know is the, that we are calling the access to opportunity mapping. And I'll talk about that more at the end of the presentation. The other thing that I wanted to talk about as we're talking about the threshold and when do we require a traffic impact study. Currently, our regulations only applies, it's in Article 6-1 of our zoning ordinance, and therefore, they only apply with zone changes, map amendment requests. One of the things that the staff has listened to the commission over several years is that whenever you look at final development plans, their traffic and stormwater are always the two biggest concerns. But there is a valid concern at the time of a final development plan, if that final development plan comes in and it has a very different traffic impact than it did whenever the traffic study was originally done with the zone change, or if they're doing something different, or if the traffic impact study is old enough that the area around the proposed development is there. So we are proposing in Article 21-4C, we are proposing to give the subdivision committee the authority to require a traffic impact study along with the final development plan, but that would only be if it would otherwise meet the development thresholds that are in Article 6-1 that I just went over. So, other things that we're doing with this is that we're really focusing on trying to increase the communication between the city and the applicant's engineer. Really trying to just put out there that goal that we will cooperate and coordinate to try and bring all of the best information that is available because ultimately we're all working towards the same goal. One of those things that we're really trying to also talk about is that predictability and flexibility, because one size does not fit all. And it's really important to understand, especially with traffic impact studies, that little things change here and there, and that that can have a big impact on how you set up the traffic impact study for a particular site in either way. And so really what we're, where the predictability comes in is it sets a lot of new standards for this, but it also allows the professional judgment of both the applicants engineer and the planning commission staff to lead to better outcomes. outcomes. So we think that that, you know, whenever we're setting that goal of having that increased communication between the government and the applicant, and ultimately that will result in better traffic impact studies for you as the planning commission and the public in general. So some of those areas that we are proposing that kind of that predictability and flexibility is kind of like on the scope of the study area. We are actually giving some defined characteristics that will be measured to the boundary of the property, to the arterial intersections in all directions within one mile, or as otherwise necessary as agreed to with the transportation staff. So that's where the geography is different for every single site. Another thing on that is that we're trying to, that we are proposing that we change the acceptable and safe level of service from a D to an E, if we agree to it at the transportation planning staff level. And finally, you know, there we go. And another thing that we are doing is that we are requiring new requirements. First and foremost, if the development proposal would likely result in future subdivision regulation waivers. Currently, our current requirements only require the applicant's engineer to give us an analysis of what they are proposing, whether it would meet our regulations or not. And so what we are doing is that we're making it clear in here is that if they are proposing something that is going to be looking, that is going to need a future waiver request, that we get multiple scenarios so that we can evaluate the proposal against the proposal that would fully meet the subdivision regulation so that we can see if there are any benefits or costs to those different alternatives. Another thing that we are proposing is additional assessment of commercial vehicles for the really large industrial sites because the FHAW class 7 or above, that's really talking about semi-tractor trailers and bigger. It's not going to capture your typical UPS or FedEx type of delivery van or any kind of box truck. It's really those big ones because we do know that our semi-tractor trailers and our really large vehicles actually have a different impact on the thing than a typical standard vehicle would. Also, this is the one that I was the most proud of in the initial analysis. Under our current regulations, we say that if necessary, an assessment of safety and traffic calming and all of those types of things should be done. But at this one, we are making it, there's not going to be any question on whether it's if necessary. We are just making it a standard part of the requirement of any required traffic impact study that they address safety, neighborhood traffic calming techniques, multimodal improvements, and we're setting a goal for that in order to encourage that mode shift away from the single occupancy vehicles. Another new requirement is that we're requiring to include in our capacity requirements the queue links and the functional area of operation of intersections. And I've kind of shown this to you before and reason why it's very, very important is because this leads directly into access management decisions for the planning commission to do. So if you can see like the diagram on the left, where if the functional area of those intersections overlap, then it is very inappropriate in order to allow access in those segments. If they don't overlap, then that's whenever really you should be looking at things like right in, right out. And really the access management is truly the win-win-win situation for this community. It is a way to increase safety. It is a way to increase the operational capacity of our roadways without having to add more lanes. It is just one of those things that is truly the win-win situation, and that's something that we are wanting to move forward in that direction. Finally, the last one, and this is where if the proposal would generate 600 or more peak hour trips. And so that's, I know the 600 doesn't really mean a lot, but let me tell you, that's going to be a really big development. And those are the types of developments that are going to have more likely to have kind of a regional impact on that. So what we're doing there is that we are requiring for those larger developments that have more of a regional impact that those mapped areas would also kind of look at the number of households, employment, schools, parks, everything that's available within a 15-minute walk or bicycle route and a 30-minute transit mode so that we can start seeing how much opportunity there is. And for instance, if there is a missing sidewalk somewhere within that 15-minute walk or bicycle route, how much more opportunity could people have if that gap in that overall system, even though it might not be on the subject property, how much more gap and how much more opportunity would that allow people to have? So finally, these are just some of the examples of access to opportunity types of studies that have been done in other areas. The one on the left is a very large one from the Atlanta region. And the one on the right is from near the Washington, D.C. area. But really, they kind of look at those same things. You're looking at demographic data and travel times in order to assess what is going to be the true planning impact for these new types of things. So in the end, the staff is recommending approval of the revised text. We believe that this modernization of the traffic impact study requirements is both timely and in line with our comprehensive plan. It will increase that predictability and flexibility, and it will really try and blend that balance between our necessary technical data and practices and our overarching just planning goals and objectives. So I believe that is it for my planned remarks. If you have any questions for me, I would be happy to try and answer them. I'm going to go ahead and stop sharing there. we can go back to anything that you have any questions on. As normal, I have more stuff pulled up on my computer if you want to get into any details of anything. Hey, do we have any questions for Mr. Emmons? I'm not seeing any. Do we have any citizens that would like to give a comment as well? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. I think you're not seeing any hands. Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission. Floor is open for a motion. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you, and thanks to Jimmy for, once again, a very thorough, comprehensive study. And I move that PLN Zota 21-3 amendment to Article 6-1 and Article 21-4 traffic impact studies be approved. We have a motion and second by Ms. Barstow. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Hey, Jimmy, before we go, hang on a minute. I want to thank you for this two decades, as you said, of relationship with you. I want you to know that from a planning commission's perspective, the staff earns two things. They earn respect and they earn trust. and I want you to know that over the last two decades your work, whether you're in this department or the other department, has certainly created both of those situations, both the trust and the respect and before you get rid of your tie collection I really think you ought to try to share it with some of the people in the staff because I'm going to miss seeing those ties they're ugly belong to belief but anyway, you wear them as pride I specifically chose this outfit with my bright yellow coat and my favorite Looney Tunes tie for today. I think if I'm going to make my last presentation, I was going to do it with my favorite outfit on. We thank you for your service and we certainly respect and trust you. Thank you, Jimmy. Thank you very much. Mr. Wilson. Yeah, Jimmy, I'd like to thank you as well. Well, we've served together on some outside committees and still, I guess, I don't know where that is at this stage of the game, but the bottom line is, I thank you for your work and for the support and for the things that you've contributed to the city of Lexington. I appreciate it. And as far as your ties are concerned, I have some other ties that are equally as ugly as Mr. Finn would put it. And all I can say is, the better of the two ties, well, it's a tie. Thank you, Jim. Thank you, Jimmy. All right. Anyone else wants to give Jimmy his flowers as well? Hey, you get them too, Jimmy. Ms. Plumlee, before we move on to the next agenda item, I want to make sure you hear your flowers and see them as well. We really appreciate your time. I know you were trying to get in. You had some technical difficulties, but we're happy you're here and we're definitely happy you spent time here on the Planning Commission and give so much service to the community of Lexington. So I thank you and I think the Planning Commission thanks you as a whole and staff. But I don't want to speak for everyone, but I want to make sure you knew that. Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah, and you will get a round of applause. We can't hug you right now, so we give a round of applause. And I'm going to miss your candy that you used to bring to the meetings. Do you want to say anything? Sure. I've never passed up an opportunity to say something. And I'm humbled by the privilege of having the Planning Commission experience. It's been a challenging experience. And I really appreciated the very talented staff and the extremely dedicated volunteers who show up weekly. And I would be remiss upon my departure if I didn't mention a couple of things, however, a recommendation or two. And the number one being is the Urban Service Foundry. I hope that common sense and wisdom will prevail and that we can hold the urban service boundary because that is Lexington. That ag industry is our most valuable asset and we need to hold on to that. The second one is to be neighbors. Neighbors, we need to listen, listen to neighbors, whether electronically or in person. Neighbors serve a most unique deserving perspective. again my thanks for opportunity to serve and i'll miss these thursdays but mostly i think i won't cry because it's over i'll laugh because it's happened and it's been great knowing you guys thanks thank you miss blumny all righty well i said i said earlier carolyn before uh before you you were able to get on but but how much you've meant to our entire, our entire commission. You bring, you know, such quality and class and civility to it and great insight and discipline. And you really contributed. And I mentioned you to be a mentor and grateful for your service. So thank you so very much. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bell. All right. All right. So we'll move down to agenda item here. We have a commission item. We have a BOAR for 2021, number two, Jessica and Gary Howe. Yes, sir. We have somewhat of an abnormal situation in that I do not see the applicant on our attendees section right now. And I'm looking at it. I know everybody on there, but I'll just say just in case someone is using someone else's computer. If the appellant for this case will please raise their hand digitally right now, we can bring you into this meeting. Sir, I am not seeing any. If it is all right with you, I would like to make a recommendation about how to proceed forward. Yes. Staff would recommend a two-week postponement to the July 8th public hearing to allow for the applicant to be, or the appellant, excuse me, to be present and to be heard in front of this body regarding the retention of windows associated with the property at 255 Del Mar Avenue. We are already having one other BOAR appeal that day. Hopefully, Ms. Kerr is all right with that change in date. She should be there. She's nodding affirmatively. but we would like to give this applicant their due process and make sure that there is no issue going forward. So over the next two weeks, I will be reaching out to the appellant and trying to get them to be present or to withdraw their appeal. Okay. All right. So we need a motion for that for two weeks postponement. Mr. Penn? I move that we honor House request at the Conurrence of this curve And that we post on this For two weeks in July July July Second Second by Mr. Poe All in favor please raise your hand Okay Thank you Thank you very much See you in two weeks yes thank you next up staff items don't see any mr duncan thank you mr chair uh do want to remind you all that uh next week thursday july the first you will have your uh committee meetings subdivision 830 zoning at 130 and those will be via Zoom as they have been for the past year. We look forward to seeing you all then. And Mr. Chair, I would also like on behalf of the staff to express our sincere and deep gratitude to Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plumlee for all they have meant to this planning commission and certainly all they have meant to us. I know that the staff learns from our commission members and Ms. Plumlee and Mr. Wilson have both been active communicators with us expressing their concerns, their questions, and we have cherished that time with them individually and certainly collectively on this commission. And we will invite them to come back at some date certain, perhaps in the fall, once we are back together in the council chamber so that we can formally and officially honor them and present them with a memento so that they can have something to remember their time on the planning commission. But Mr. Chair, we do appreciate Mr. Wilson, Ms. Plumlee for what they've done for us. We will miss them and we wish them all the best. Thank you for that. Ms. Plumlee. I have a question. Is this where the nominating committee reports or not? No ma'am, that takes place at the first meeting, the first meeting in July. So that will take place at the subdivision meeting in July. Thanks. Ms. Plumlee, I love that. You're still working. You're still working. You're right on. She's a finisher. I'll give you calls tonight sometime. We're going to have to talk about this meeting. You talk all you want. Y'all fine. Well, with that being said, thank you, everyone. Have a great weekend. I look forward to seeing everyone next week. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.