All right. We're ready. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome you today. This is Veterans Day. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is now 1.31. November 11th, 2021. Before we do anything, I do would like to honor, are there any current active duty members or non-active duty members, men or women that are currently vets? I am a product of a military father and grandfather, Navy, and I'd like to give honor to our veterans. This is your day, and we really appreciated that. So if there are any in the audience, Please stand. We want to recognize you. If not, please remember those that have served so that we can be here in this country and have meetings like this today. So. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Mr. Simpson. That's all right, man. We don't have any approval of minutes, but I would like to get a motion for approval for performance bonds. on page 5, excuse me, page 6 of the agenda. Ms. Wirth? I move for approval of performance bonds as noted on page 6 of the agenda. Okay, so we have a motion for approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit. I have a second by Mr. DeMovillin. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. just a reminder to turn on your microphone when you make your motions thanks I forget all right any postponements and withdrawals today Mr. Simpson Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. I do have one withdrawal on page 6, item number 1, LADA, LLC, ZOMAP amendment. We would like to withdraw that request at this time. Okay. Does any Commission member have any questions for this application? Seeing none, the floor is open for a motion to withdraw LADA, LLC. Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Holder. I move to withdraw Lata, LLC. And it's PLN MAR-18-23. Okay. Thank you, sir. We have a motion and a second. Second. By Ms. Meyer. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. I just want to make sure, should we withdraw the development plan as well associated with the zone change? Yes, we're withdrawing everything filed in connection with the request. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, commission members. I'm going to point you to page 3, item C, PLM, MJD, P21-50, the Ramsey-Sullivan property. We're going to request another 30-day extension to your December 9th date. We continue to work with the adjacent property owner to address some of the access issues the staff had raised earlier. And the discussions are going well, but we need more time. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we have a request for a 30-day extension. to the December 9th meeting. Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone PLN 21-50 to our December 9th meeting. Thank you. I have a second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. And before that, Mr. Pohl, are you able to vote now? I'll let you know in a second. Okay. Yep. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you'll turn in your agenda to page 7, item 2. It's a zone change for Vontaze and Associate LLC zoning map amendment. It's PLN MAR 21-8. is the zone change and the corresponding development plan is PLN MJDP 21-35. We would ask for a one-month postponement. And the reasons is we've got a meeting set up next week to discuss this project with staff. We feel that's needed for our best path forward. Is it the December 9th or is it 16th? It's the 16th. Okay, so December 16th would be the meeting. Okay, thank you. All right. So we have a request for a postponement until the December 16th meeting and for the zone change and the preliminary plan. Floor is open. Yeah, you can raise your hand. Raise your hand. Ms. Wirth? I'm sorry. No, I'm just saying I don't have that in front of me here. Yeah, you can do it without it. Even without you? Oh, yeah, you can do it without. Sorry, the technology is ahead of me here. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN March MAR-2108. Parts A and Part B would be PLN MJDP 2135, postponement until the December 16th meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Seconded by Mr. DeMoglin. All in favor, please raise your hand at this moment while the system is down. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Bring us back. Do we have any consent agenda? We don't have any other postponements? Mr. Chairman, if I may, staff has two postponements to bring to your attention. Thank you. The first item is on page one of your agenda. It is a final record plat, 21-39, the Steele property. This is located out on 3844 Briar Hill Road. Of course, it's an agricultural subdivision. There's a cemetery located on the property, and the applicant is just now in the process of procuring services to submit the required cemetery study. So until that is submitted, they'll need to postpone the plan. Okay. So is that an indefinite postponement? Oh, no, sir. I think just one month. Just one month? It's possible they could get it done. Don't be surprised if it's postponed one more time, but again, at this time, one time. Fair enough. Thank you. Floor is open. Yes. I move for postponement of PLN FRP 2139 to December 9th, 19th. We have a motion. We have a second. Second. Seconded by Mr. Meyer. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Is that the wrong one? Yeah, that's the wrong one. Let's raise our hand then. We're doing the record. All in favor, please raise your hand. We need to get caught up then. Which one do you see on your screen? It says which? Okay. Cervantes? I have it on Steve's. Did you record that one? No, I didn't record it because no one voted. Well, it won't move on until you record a vote. On the zone change for Cervantes, just double check the motion was by Ms. Wirth and the second was by Mr. DeMobleyen. Is that correct? Yes. And it was unanimous. Okay, so now where you should be on steel. Is that what you're seeing? Okay. Okay, and I had the motion by DeMoblian and the second by Meyer. Okay. All right. Okay. So, Tom, you had one more? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'd like to direct your attention to page two of the agenda under development plans, item B at the bottom of the page. This is Major Development Plan 21-39, LFUCG, Mill Creek, Subdivision, Unit 3 in Jonestown. This is property located at 1100 Armstrong Mill Road. There are some floodplain and related issues that the applicant and staff are continuing to work on at this time, and they're requesting a one-month postponement. Okay, thank you. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone PLNM JDP 2139 to our December 16th meeting. Thank you. I have a second by Mr. DeMovillin. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Tom. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay. Staff. Thank you, Chairman Forrester. We do have a number of items today that qualify on your consent agenda, and I believe the Planning Commission has that available at their seat. There are four items this afternoon, so we'll run through those and just see if anyone in the audience is here to speak to any of those items. And if so, we can remove them from the consent agenda and have the Planning Commission have a full discussion about those items. The first item appears on page two of your agenda, item A. It's a redevelopment of a plan, of an existing, reapproval of an existing plan, sorry, For PLN MJDP 20-59, Gateway Lofts, also known as Grogan & Grogan, for property located at 1016 South Broadway. The next item appears on page 4, item D. PLN MJDP 21-56, for Pinnacle Lot 3, that's an amended final development plan, for property located at 1093, 1097, and 1099 Duval Street. The next item is on page 4, item F, PLN MJDP 21-58 for Lakeview Estates, Unit 2E, Block K, Lot 2, also an amended final development plan for property located at 519 Lake Tower Drive. And lastly, on page 5, item H, PLN MJDP 21-61, Cadentown Gentry Family Subdivision Lot 1, also an amended final development plan for property at 2833 and 2843 Cadentown Lane. At this time, we'll just ask if there's anyone in the audience today that wishes to have any of those items heard. by the Commission okay seeing none the Planning Commission can consider all of these items in one motion for conditional approval unless a member of the Commission or a petitioner would like to have the items removed from the consent agenda thanks Tracy okay the chairs opening the floor for a motion to accept the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the items on the consent agenda. Thank you. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So that should put us on page four. PLNMJDP-21-57, item E, staff. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the item that you do see before you on page four, major development plan 21-57, Ethington and Ethington property. Track one, lots two and three, as amended, is a final development plan for property out on Harrodsburg Road. We've seen a fair amount of this property over the last few years as there's been some adjustments to it. Again, here is the Harrodsburg Road frontage. This is Madrone. This is a collector street that has been completed as a part of this development. To your right would be taking you back towards Manowar, and left would be taking you down towards Ramsey's and South Elkhorn Creek. As you all recall, this particular development plan has commercial in the front. We've got townhouses in the rear with single-family homes that adjoin the single-family neighborhood to the north. This particular amendment is for the area that you see highlighted before you today. There is a slight change to the layout and to the lotting in this area and to the parking arrangement. The most significant thing, and I think you'll find this interesting, particularly those of you that aren't on the subdivision committee and may not have heard this, they're proposing a standalone Kroger gas station. So what you see is a canopy with the gas pumps and a little kiosk office restroom area for the employees to oversee and monitor the dispensing of the gas. It's one of the few independent, not associated on site with the Kroger's we are given to understand in the area. So, again, that's interesting. Now, originally, and you have a nice pretty blue sheet of revised conditions on this plan, And when it was initially submitted, it was recommended for postponement due to some issues primarily with access and circulation within the property. And again, being on Herodsburg Road, at this location, there is a right in and a right out. There's a desal lane. And again, here we have an intersection with the Collector Street with Herodsburg Road. As you came into the property originally, this area that I'm circling and into that was somewhat convoluted and difficult. And staff had concerns. We met with the engineer for the development. We met with Kroger's and their designer. And we talked this through and worked to get to where we are today. To where what it is now aligned so that you can see it. there's a nice clean and clear entry and movement into this area and it reduces the conflict that existed here. There is an access across the front of these properties and you can see access into that and again this will allow customers to come in regardless of where they're going but those that are going to buy gas can just come right in here go to the pumps. The trucks will be able to come in. This is the location of the tanks that they'll be filling up with fuel. And they will be, they can head out through here and then out through this access easement that does serve both the townhouses and this commercial development. Staff did discuss that particular situation with the applicant. That is a private arrangement on that access easement in terms of maintenance, and obviously we could see some issues between proportionality. And so we just raised the issue. They're aware of that. The developer is going to have to deal with that, as well as the construction of that access easement that we'll be handling not just traffic cars and the people that live in the townhouses and customers, but the trucks as well can utilize that. But that has been discussed. They're aware of it. I think they could probably elaborate on that and how they're addressing that particular issue. Now, there's heavy landscaping in open area, green space in this location, as well as heavy landscaping here, again, to help cushion the effect of that canopy. One of the discussions we had with them was lighting. Now, this site drops significantly. In fact, they've terraced it to deal with the change in topography over the site. So the canopy is actually going to be sitting lower in that particular location than these properties through here. It is also, and we have this, as you can see, on a condition, and this is right out of our discussion with the applicant, number 12, to denote the type of recessed lighting fixtures to be used. and they have a standard fixture they use their their recessed bucket fixtures up in the canopy they direct they direct the light down as we were concerned staff about bleeding off and over into the residential areas with that they also informed us that this is not a 24 hour they don't have many of those so there's uh there it closes at 11 so that will help mitigate some of the the potential nuisance value of this activity, again, relative to the residential area. And with that, your staff is recommending approval of the plan. Be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions from staff? Not seeing anything. So is there a condition that the closing at 11 remain in place permanently? That's an excellent question. We did not place that condition on there. It is certainly something that could be addressed. Again, in discussing it with Kroger's, it's their standard practice. There's no motivation at this time to have later hours. But they're better suited to answer your question, Mr. Pohl. Thank you. Mr. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Again, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. As Mr. Martin stated, we did have a meeting and went over a lot of the issues that were brought up at the technical committee and the subdivision committee, and we've resolved those issues, and we're now down to these 12 conditions. We can certainly denote the type of recessed lighting that would be under the canopy. I forgot to mention with me here today is a representative of the Kroger's lot, which is lot three, and his designer two. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions of me or if you have any related to Kroger's for lot three, they can answer those. Any questions for the applicant? I guess the question would be, would the applicant be willing to have a condition that the 11 o'clock closing remain in place permanently? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Kerry King. I represent the Kroger Company of Cincinnati, Ohio. That would be a condition that we would need to discuss with our Louisville division market. Loosely discussed, we do not have any plans to operate this facility after set hours of 11 p.m. through the week. I can't make that commitment publicly here. I would need to discuss that with our operations, but I can tell you that that's not a standard operating procedure for us to operate 24 hours in this market. Yeah, is anything other than gasoline going to be sold? Yes, basic sundries, no perishable items. There can be some landscaping merchandise that's at retail at this location, but we will not be constructing a walk-in convenience store layout. This is just a walk-up kiosk, so there's no beverages or hot dogs or anything like that. This is basically non-perishable retail merchandise and fuel, of course. Mr. King, is this similar to the one in northern Kentucky about a levy? I'm not familiar with that. Is it a standalone? Yes. It's possible it would be very similar to that. However, those Kroger locations belong to the Cincinnati Market Division. They do operate some of their locations 24 hours or what's better known as unattended, unattended, but that's not an operating condition we utilize in the Louisville market area. Thanks. Mr. Martin, you want to? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, staff would add that if the Planning Commission would like to, we could add a condition to resolve hours of operation, which would allow us to engage with Kroger's further, allow them to engage. And if we can't reach a suitable solution, well, we'll be back before this body. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? on this particular agenda item today, you can do so by stepping up to the podium. Okay, not seeing any. So bring it back to the commission. Now for either further questions, discussions, or a motion. Mr. DeMovlin. Chair, yeah. I'll make a motion for approval of PLN-MJDP 2157, Ethington and Ethington, with the 12 items, adding a 13th item to resolve hours of operation. Okay, thank you. We have a second by Ms. Boxdale. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So that should put us on page 5, PLNMJDP 21-59, staff. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this is a major development plan on page five of your agenda item G it is major development plan 21-59 Columbians Inc on for sales road and it actually is a final development plan preliminary subdivision plan as well. And this is for property located at 1604 Versailles Road. And you can see here by the rendering. Oh, went the wrong way. Here we go. Again, this is the frontage on Versailles Road. It is, oh, about in the middle of the block, roughly, between, there's a lot of local streets, but it would be between Virginia Avenue, Red Mile Road, Red Mile Road in this direction, and then Cardinal Valley, and that area would be to your left of your screen. And this is the site of the old Knights of Columbus building. Some of you may remember their fish fries over the years. They were well known for that. This particular development is proposing a single building with 12 apartment units in this location. There's a large tree right there that they'll be protecting. With parking, you can see the parking delineated here. And here's their 23 townhouse units in this area. Access to their parking will be provided off the extension of Hillrise Drive in this location, which extends over into the adjoining property. They are proposing duplex units here and here and here on this particular version of the plan, and they're proposing duplex units to develop in this location. And this is the area of the preliminary subdivision plan. That will allow them to build the infrastructure, create the lots, build the duplexes, but then they don't have to deal with final development plan amendments for the residents of the duplexes. which is not something we do to single-family style developments. However, any changes to the townhouses or to this apartment building, the parking, that sort of thing would still have final development controls, and that's part of the purpose of the double plan, the combined plan. The site that you can see is long and narrow, similar to the lotting pattern that exists in this area. and again I want to try to demonstrate the history of this area, the layout, and how important it is to this development and the fact that there is a waiver request associated with this property which has been distributed to you. Now, here we have the property, this location. You can see the old driveway entrance into the, when it was the Knights of Columbus, there appears to be a little parking associated with the nursing home. These are nursing homes here in this location here. Again, here is a single family affordable housing development located here as well. Now, what's important to note about this, there's an interesting piece of our community history here in this photograph. And that's very relevant to this development. It's very relevant to the waiver requests that you have before you today. Interesting enough, across Bursells Road, all through here, that area was developed starting in 1914. and through the 20s and 30s and into the 40s. And it is actually in the infill and redevelopment area because of the age of this particular part of our community. That surprises some people I know when you find out that that actually, the age of this particular area. And if you look at the lotting, do we have an additional photograph that you and I talked with you? It's hard for me to see. But this is an interesting area. there's a lot of long and deep residential lots here as well. This area did not develop on the same timeline at all. And you have long, linear lots. Again, you can see here there's a lot line that runs through here, dips down, comes over, kind of goes up, and runs over. Demonstrates a very historic, long, deep pattern of lotting in this area over time. This particular lot, for instance, has never been planted. It just was created by deed. There was no final record platted here. Not uncommon for all these. Subsequently, they've been platted. Now, what's interesting and what's important is the road system that serves this entire area. These developments in here came in in the 60s, as did Pine Meadows. 1963, Pine Meadows was developed and platted. the immediately adjacent properties came in in the 90s. And again, several of the plants that were created were created then. These, again, were just deeded, long tracts of land. One of the reasons for that, not the only reason, I'm sure, was the fact that they were on septic tanks. Back in the day, there was no sewer in this area. And so, again, undoubtedly, that was the reason you have a lot of the big lots and long lots in the older area across Vercels Road as well. With that, what was established is access to Vercels Road. There's a light here. There's a cross street and a cross street. These were set up in the 60s in order to serve this deep, deep development and to avoid development coming in and having constant access issues out to Vercels Road and the the need to maintain as good access as we can on Versailles Road. And again, this street was established for the light. We have a street here with access to Versailles Road, and you can see where the streets have been extended. And here we have a gap. This development is so important to finishing that gap and finishing that street system, which again was set up in the 60s. And that was before we had codified our subdivision regulations. They came in 1965. Now, Concord Drive, this little stub right here off Pine Meadows, there's only one way in to Pine Meadows historically. It's a very isolated neighborhood. There's a park right here. There's the golf course, which is now public. It's the old Campbell House golf course here. Oops. Again, big. Again, that frames this development, frames Pine Meadows. Now, I will go back, and one aspect of this layout that is so important and why it works this way is the public infrastructure. There are public sewers, sanitary sewers, and storm sewers that run down the edges of this property to serve the property. There are detention basins that impact this property. There's a large one right here that was put in when this area was developed, as well as this. There's a large detention basin at this location and at this location. And they have an impact on the waiver request and the report. Now, again, it's only 175 feet wide. There are constraints. It's part of a historic pattern. We're trying to complete a street system. and they have agreed to complete this street system, you can see here and here. The waiver report concerns the geometrics of what they're calling street A at this location, as well as the spacing here between the local streets and the connection of Concord. the applicant has requested a waiver to the geometry the geometrics of street a and that is so they cannot build a sidewalk here there's going to be a sidewalk here they'll tie into the system here and here but they're proposing this and they're going to actually create a 17-foot wide strip to help buffer this development against the nursing home, the institutional use, the parking in that location. And in fact, they're doing that up here with their parking relative to this nursing home also. And again, as I said, there are public facilities, utilities, and infrastructure located along the boundaries of this property that necessitated this layout. This also allows these duplex units to back up. Their backyards back up to these backyards as well. So that's a good relationship, and the staff would agree with that. The important issue is the connection of Concord Drive. And again, it's been there since 1963, and it was intended to complement and serve the overall development in the area and to serve pine meadows as i pointed out there's only one way in into pine meadows down beacon hill and they have a stub street into what is a public park and so they've been in essence cut off so this this concord stub staff has recommended that it deconstructed and connected into the Cross Street Hillview Drive in this location. The applicant had asked for a waiver for that connection. However, they did give us an exhibit that shows that it can work, it can be accomplished. So we are recommending, and you're going to have to bear with me because you've got, you see a lot of numbers on this waiver report but it's not really as complicated as it seems. It is really simple actually. One is just the geometrics on Street A again and that is the sidewalk and the right-of-way in this location which again will help with the buffering and plus it complements the best layout for the property. And then they have provided us with an exhibit that shows they can bring Concord through and with a slight offset connect up through here. And staff believes that is the correct thing. And so what's a little different is we're recommending approval of the waiver on the geometrics. We're recommending approval on the access spacing because as Concord comes through, they won't meet the access spacing. You've got to remember that access spacing came long after this area and this street system was put into place. And then the street in this location, and I always get the name wrong, I want to call it Hartwood, but the street that is built that serves this single-family home development in this location. So there'll be the problem is right in here with the space. So staff is recommending approval of that spacing waiver. What we're recommending disapproval of is six eight dash 16 B, which is continuity. And that is we want we're recommending that Concord be continued and be completed. And you can see this plan does not reflect that. And that's one aspect of their waiver. So, again, I didn't want it to sound more complicated than it really is. One is street geometrics. Two is spacing. You need to approve those in order to support the recommended disapproval of the waiver request not to extend Concord. Because, again, Concord will help connect the Pine Meadows subdivision. It will help complete that overall system that was envisioned back in the 60s when this area was developing. So I know that sounds somewhat, I hope it doesn't sound as complicated as it may appear. Because it actually, it really isn't. It's, again, why I wanted you to see this. It truly reflects this historic development of the area. and the attempt that prior planning commissions made, prior staff has made to help build a local street system that would really truly adequately serve this area as it developed over time. And again, these came in in the 60s. Some came in in the 90s. This was the 60s. You get over here, it was the 50s. As you all know, you can't compel people to develop their property. These things come in piecemeal, and it takes work and forethought and sticking really with your plan to create a system that will function as it's intended to function. And I hope I haven't confused you. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Staff is recommending approval of this plan. Again, we're recommending approval of two of the waivers and disapproval of the one waiver, which will result in the extension of Concord. And Mr. Nichols got me worried because he looks he's studying this real hard. And I'm hoping I did not make this sound overly complicated because it really is. We're talking about completing a local street system to serve this area of our community. So, Mr. Martin, if we were – go ahead, Mr. Nichols. I do have a question. As we're looking at this development plan, shouldn't the development plan come to us with Concord Drive completed to Hillview Place? Again, they submitted a waiver asking that it not be completed. We're recommending that it be completed. We have seen an exhibit that shows that they thought about it after a discussion with us. And we've seen an exhibit that does show that they can bring it through. Okay. So it's doable, Mr. Nickel. That, in essence, is the gist of that. Okay, so I suppose we'll hear from the applicant. Yes, sir. On that. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir, you will. Any further questions? I see any. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Gross. Good afternoon again, ladies and gentlemen. Brandon Gross with Dentons on behalf of the Lexington Housing Authority. I think Tom did a really good job, especially with some of the historic aspects. I will say one thing, since Tom always likes to talk history, as a Boy Scout at Mary Queen Church, this is where we went and had a lot of activities at the Knights of Columbus. So I spent a lot of time as a youth on these grounds. So it's nice to actually be able to be part of this project. As to Mr. Nichols, I'll discuss the Concord. Initially, this is the plan we brought forward without the Concord extension. And the reason we did not include that extension was really two. Number one, our mission is affordable housing and any little bit of savings we can come to on a plan that we could put into our mission. And we like to do that. So we did not propose the road to save money on the construction. And then second is, as you are aware, oftentimes neighbors don't like the connections that are proposed by the comprehensive plan and our ordinance and subdivision regulations. So we also thought that would be a way to mitigate some of those issues. My client and I have had good conversations with staff and traffic engineering and the fire. We have offered initially to not build Concord, and we would build a pedestrian multipath, 8, 10 feet, whichever one is needed. And we talked with the fire about putting in a crash gate or collapsible bollards. That is one option. We have also agreed that if this body directs us, we will build Concord. is not shown on this plan, but that's something that we would have shown as part of the certification process. We've already submitted to the staff an exhibit that shows that we could build it. And so as to your comment, Mr. Nichols, I think we can handle that during the certification process. So it would be a conditional approval for us to have that shown on this plan. So that's the first thing I want to address. Second thing is, as Tom said, this is a long, narrow lot. What we've tried to do is we have tried to do a step-down development where we have some more intensive use along the corridor, and we back up to the neighborhoods with less intensive uses. And so that's what our plan shows. Other than that, I didn't have a lot to add to Mr. Martin's presentation other than, like I said, Concord, we're willing to build it or not, whatever this body decides to do, and I'm here to answer any questions. And, of course, Tony Barrett is here, who did the design work. And then Austin Sims and Joan Whitman with the Housing Authority are also here. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on this particular application? Not seeing any. Okay, so I'll bring it back to the commission. Any further questions? The floor is open if there isn't any. I have a question for staff, just for clarification. Regarding the exhibit that you saw, was that the pedestrian? It was the complete street. It was the complete street. Yes, ma'am. Well, I'm of the opinion that it just makes sense to complete the street rather than have the pedestrian. That's just my view. Mr. Pohl? I agree. All right. We've got heads and nodding, so the floor is open for a motion. So I'm making a motion that we're going to complete the street. Is that if I, if I, yes. Okay, I just want to make sure. Okay. Okay, I'll make a motion. Ms. Meyer, could you just move your microphone a bit closer so we can get it on? Sorry. Okay, Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll just make a motion to approve PLN-MJDP 2159, Columbians, Inc., with the, do we have 18 conditions? Yes. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion to that motion? And please vote via Granicus. Okay. Okay. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Unanimously. Okay. Okay. Now we've got the waiver. Okay. I'll give it a shot. Regarding the waiver for PLN MJDP 21-59, I move for approval of the requested waivers to Article 68A, 68N1, 68B, and 68G2E. QE. QE. QE. QE. My eyes don't work today. And for disapproval of the requested waiver to Article 68B. 68B. Just to clarify, 68A, 68N1, 68P, 68Q2E are the approval list, and 68B is the disapproval. Yes. Thank you. Second. We got a second. Mr. Pohl? Mr. Pohl, Ms. Wirth, she beat you to the punch. Any discussions to that motion? and please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Well, that puts us to page 9 of the agenda. PLNMAR, that's 21-14. and we also have revised staff recommendations for this and is a variance request too part of it? Yes, sir. So this presentation will be done in three parts. I will present the zone change. Mr. Martin will come back for the development plan and then I will follow up for the variance. On your Granicus program in front of you, you should have another supplemental staff report for the variance request as well. This is PLN MAR 21-00014 Broadway 12th LLC. The applicant is seeking to rezone two properties 1114 and 1118 North Broadway for a total acreage of .517 net and .742 gross acres. The applicant is seeking to rezone these properties within the corridor place type and the medium density residential development type and is seeking the zone change from a single family R1C zone to a high density apartment R4 zone. They are seeking to construct three separately lotted apartment structures and associated parking. The total dwelling unit on site would be 16 with a density of 31 dwelling units per net acre. They are seeking to have a total of 26 bedrooms in the entire site. Just giving you an idea of where we are located, here we have North Broadway running up down. We are located pretty much between West Loudoun and West New Circle Road right at the intersection with 12th Street. Just for reference, we have the baseball stadium located right up here, and then a host of different zoning. Jumping into the zoning, we see that there is some variability in this area. It is representative of some changes that have occurred over time. There is a significant portion of B1 that pretty much runs north of 12th Street all the way up to West New Circle Road. As we go down North Broadway, it is a blend of different zoning, including neighborhood business, professional office, and single-family residential. The single-family residential zoning that is established here was established at the time of the comprehensive rezoning in 1969, but is representative of the historical development of this area from the early 1900s through about the 1940s. There have been several rezonings in this area since that time. Across North Broadway, we get into a little bit more of the multifamily complexes that have developed over time and a little bit of professional office. Jumping into the aerial photography, we get a better view of just the land use that has developed over time. We see this large kind of shopping center that's also associated with the baseball stadium right there. The single family, primarily single family detached neighborhood. There have been some grandfathered nonconformities in use in this area. There are a few triplexes and duplexes throughout this portion that is between North Broadway and North Limestone. You can see that the subject properties are currently vacant. That is a historical context for this property. there has been no development that we have been able to identify on these two properties by going through some of the Sanborn fire insurance maps, as well as many of our other platted and unplatted maps that we have in our office. So this is an interesting site in the fact that it has not had development occur on it. Jumping into the photos of the subject property, This photo on the left-hand side is a view from the corner of North Broadway and 12th Street, just at that intersection. You can see that it is fairly wide open with some treed areas along the property boundary line. Here we are looking down into 12th Street, and then the auto service station that is opposing the subject property that is on the northern corner of 12th Street and North Broadway. looking further around the property here we're looking across the street down 12th across the street and we can see those multi-family complexes over on this side and then a professional office tax office across the way looking up North Broadway as we're going out of town towards West New Circle Road and then looking down North Broadway as we're going towards downtown here we we're able to see another photo into the subject property from 12th Street. With all zone changes, when the applicant is seeking to rezone a property, they are first pushed to look at the comprehensive plan. In this case, the applicant has identified this within the corridor place type. North Broadway is an identified corridor within the comprehensive plan. This property is facing or the proposed development is facing onto North Broadway rather than onto 12th. So staff was in agreement that this would be an appropriate place type for this application. The applicant is also seeking to develop a medium density residential development type. Per the information that they have provided to staff, they are seeking to develop the three separated, three-story apartment buildings. They stated within their letter of justification this was really meant to mimic some of the context in the area by not having one monolithic building, but kind of separating it out a bit more, tying it into the historic development that has occurred in this area. Much of their development plan meets the intensity and density requirements of the corridor while also meeting the medium, the descriptive nature of the medium density residential development type. Staff was in agreement that this would be an appropriate development type. The applicant also is seeking to rezone the property in the high density apartment or the R4 zone. This is a recommended zone type within the comprehensive plan. And as such, staff is in agreement that this would be an appropriate zone, provided the applicant was able to meet many of the development criteria and goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. The applicant has supplied some renderings of what they are seeking to build on the property. They are looking at these three different types of structures. On the top row, you are able to see the fronts of the structures that would be along North Broadway. Here we have the rear of the structures facing essentially the parking lot, the shared access and parking that would be along the rear. And then just the side elevations for the property. There were concerns initially about the open space of this development, but as you can see, they are including those balconies that would meet the requirements for their open space or much of their open space that is required at this site. Here we get just a quick view of how this site is being laid out, and we will have a further discussion. Mr. Martin will have a slightly better view of this with the colored rendering when he describes the development plan. However, during the zoning committee, there was one aspect that was discussed a little bit more towards the end, and that was this location of the property right here. At one point, the applicant was showing a parking spot at that location. There was conversation within the committee that it would be better to move those parking that parking away from that area to create a better transition, especially neighboring the the single family detached residents at that location. Staff would also point out that right now they are showing a fence right up on the property line right here, a six foot fence that would be pushed out and will be impacted by some of the recommendations that staff is making within the variance request. In review of the applicant's submission, staff did find that this was in agreement with the comprehensive plan. The proposed high-density apartment zone, or R4 zone, is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan's goals and objectives, as the proposed rezoning will accommodate the demand for housing in Lexington responsibly, prioritizing a mixture of housing types, adding in this multifamily along North Broadway, while also supporting infill and redevelopment by constructing these two parcels of land, which have remained underutilized and vacant for all of their history, as of what we can find. The proposed project will add a well-designed neighborhood and community transitioning away from the intense and dense kind of corridor into the neighboring single-family detached neighborhood, allowing for the expansion of mixed housing types and providing a positive and safe interaction between the pedestrian and the automotive kind of development that has occurred along North Broadway. Finally, the proposed rezoning will allow for the maintenance of the urban service area, addressing the goal of absorbing some of the vacant and underutilized land within the urban service area and prioritizing higher density dwelling along our corridors specifically. The justification and the corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies and development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan. They do meet the site design, building form, and location. This is specifically really tied to some of the elevations that they have provided. Now, the applicant will have to do a bit more work as we move forward with the multifamily design standards at a time of final development plan. However, they have provided sufficient evidence at this time to show that they are in agreement with the site design building form and location. Additionally, the site of the rezoning is situated in an area that allows for greater pedestrian and multimodal kind of mobility throughout this area. There is a transit stop that is nearby. The applicant will work with Lex Tran and staff at the time of final development plan to come up with an opportunity to possibly shift any of the bus stop location at this site. And then finally, the proposed rezoning works with the current environmental features or natural features of the site. while preserving that tree canopy, especially those very large trees right along North Broadway, and then adding trees through street tree requirements along 12th Street, but also adding the buffering with the property perimeter screening requirements from an R4 zone down to an R1C. So they will be increasing the amount of tree canopy coverage at this site. This recommendation, as with all zone changes, is made subject to the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 21-00047, 12th Street edition, prior to the recommendation to the Urban County Council. With that, if you have any questions regarding the zone change at this time, I'd be happy to answer them before I hand it off to Mr. Martin for the development plan review and I come back up for the variance request. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the plan that is associated with this zone change that you see before you today, which is Major Development Plan 21-47. This is a preliminary development plan, which is normal with a zone change. You will see a final development plan on this property in the future should this zone change, of course, move forward and be approved. Now, you can... Oops. There we go. Let's see what I do. Hmm. I didn't realize I could do that. So here we have North Broadway and we have 12th Street. You can see the three independent buildings that contain a total of 16 units. As Hal demonstrated, these are three-story buildings. The balconies, as Hal stated, are very important. You can see them in this location because that is how they are meeting their required open space. They're set back off, 20 feet off, North Broadway. You cannot use your front yard as required open space. Setbacks serve a different function, air and light in relationship to the road and similar issues, whereas your required open space addresses the issue of private open space and that sort of activity. So, you know, you can cook out and sunbathe and let the dog play with the kids and kind of in your own space. And so that's an important distinction that sometimes people don't realize because you see there's a lot of green right there. And it's not that they can't go out there and utilize it. They certainly can. But, again, we try to protect the open space requirement and not allow double dipping. So that's why the balconies are so important. Now, the parking is off 12th Street in the rear. You can see the parking bays. They're proposing a parking space in the buildings. They are meeting their required parking. They're not over-parked at all. It's a small site, as you're aware. very almost square it's rectangular almost a perfect square and so again they're utilizing the space very efficiently with the parking and the layout again with the buildings this is the area of the variance that mr. Bailey is going to discuss with you they're requesting the variance from their side yard from what would be the requirement of 20 feet just like the front yard down to five which leaves a very narrow strip through there now if you fence that area under the regulations that actually does count towards your your required open space but again you can imagine a five feet strip five foot strip constrained by building a fence is not going to be very comfortable open space and very usable it counts if you approve the variance but still again that's the reason the balconies were an important issue. They did submit an exhibit per your staff's request demonstrating that square footage, demonstrating that open space. One of the conditions is that they dimension them. Staff always requests dimensions because we check the math. Again, with this, it's a relatively straightforward plan. Your subdivision committee had recommended approval with your revised conditions that we have submitted to you. Your staff is also recommending approval of this plan. And Mr. Bailey, if you have no questions for me, Mr. Bailey will be presenting the variance request to you next. But again, I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have about the development plan. Thank you. Could you address, I'm thinking about that balcony, and over those balconies they're stacked right there two of them yes they're probably pressure treated lumber right yes sir and in all likelihood the one below will never get used because it'll be a miserable place to be and so I'm really questioning you know the eligibility of that kind of condition to meet open space requirements. Yes, sir. And at this time, the regs acknowledge it as meeting the open space. And we would have to address a text amendment and look at that requirement to better address that open space. Because your point is well taken. We've had a lot of discussion over the years about what is usable open space. And we all, I'll draw an analogy to something we all are familiar with. We know it when we see it. We know what usable open space is when we see it. Now, over the years, we've had discussions about the fact that in a narrow space, I mean, somebody can throw a lawn chair out there. They can throw a little grill. Dogs can certainly go out there and do their business. So what we're searching for, Graham, and we've continued to look at this, and you have a text amendment being developed at this time to address open space and try to make sure we're really providing good, usable open space in our community for these developments. At this time, that meets the regs. I mean, I would point out that a simple design change would solve the problem, right? If you offset the balconies, put one to the left and one to the right, you then have two open balconies that genuinely take advantage of the sky. And there will be a final development plan, and I would hope that any applicant that comes to this body would avail themselves of your experience and expertise. I see any other questions. Al, you're up on the variance. Thank you, Tom. Thank you very much. Tom mentioned a bit about the variance. This is a variance request to reduce the side street side yard from 20 feet to 5 feet for the portion of the properties that are along 12th Street. So just jumping back to the development plan, this is the area that we are talking about. While there is a bit of conversation, and this is the older plan, I brought this up to make a point with some of this. Part of their variance request within the requested letter is really focused on the area along the building. However, the request is really made for the whole of the frontage along this area, specifically for the parking as well. Within the Side Street Side Yard, there is not meant to be parking except for behind that building line. It goes back to some of the questions that we had during our zoning committee and some of the recommendations that were made and made by the zoning committee for transitioning. Staff, with review of this, the Planning Commission has a unique role during the zone change to actually take over a responsibility that is not typically your responsibility, and that is the granting of variances or conditional uses. In this time, since this is a public hearing, you are able to act like the Board of Adjustment. And in these kind of cases, it really is very helpful to have a very diverse staff and a staff that is very confident in the review of these types of applications. For any type of zone change, there is a needed requirement of talking about how this zone change, or this variance request, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, while also not essentially changing the character of the area. When staff reviewed the applicant's request, their focus really was along some of the character that has been established up and down North Broadway. One of the aspects of the 20-foot side yard setback for a street is really trying to mimic the characteristics of what you would see not only on the primary road, but also along the secondary road or 12th Street in this case. within the applicant's supplemental information for the variant's request, they do talk quite a bit of trying to match the character of an infill and redevelopment area. While this is somewhat strange in the fact that it is directly opposing the infill and redevelopment area, located here and north, it is not located on this southern portion down to Loudoun. It's one of these kind of strange bump outs that was representative of our city in the 1930s. However, it is incumbent on the applicant to describe how they are trying to meet or transition from different areas into an established character. The applicant does go through several of the buildings that have slightly closer setbacks within this area. However, staff was pulled to the fact that the vast majority of the setbacks, either front yard or side yard, for those properties along here were generally anywhere between 10 and 25 to 30 feet, unless they are bordering another driveway, as you can see located right here. So the area has some variability in their setbacks, but it is typically a larger setback. However, with this zone change, the applicant is slightly changing the context. They are seeking to move their buildings up to that 20-foot R4 line, and staff was really interested in how to transition from a higher-intensity corridor into the lower-intensity single-family neighborhood, or primarily single-family neighborhood. The BOA has done a significant amount of research and has recommended various different kind of setbacks that work within these kinds of areas. and in staff's review of previous applications as well as the applicant's submission, the staff is recommending a lesser variance, recommending instead of a reduction of the side street side yard from 20 feet to 5 feet, a reduction of 20 feet to 10 feet. This is actually in line with the 50 percent extension rule within the side yard setback associated with projections for structures located along these areas. Furthermore, when reviewing the applicant's submission, we did have a concern about the proposed fence line located along this portion of the property as well as this portion of the property. With any six-foot fence or hedge, it needs to be stepped off of the public right-of-way three feet. This area essentially would make it a two-foot side yard for open space and then three feet on the other side as for the shy zone or the area that you kind of move away from when you are next to a taller type structure or some sort of imposing hedge. with a 10-foot kind of setback in that area. Staff believes that that provides a little bit of distance from the building, but also provides more usable open space in that location. However, staff is recommending that there not be a six-foot fence or hedge along this portion of the property here, largely to remove some sort of canyoning effect or pushing people closer over to the public right-of-way. Staff is recommending with the lesser variants that therefore along this frontage of 12th Street, a condition of the variants be that there be a hedge, a planted hedge along that that would be no taller than four feet. That would bring that down in line with what you might see on a front yard fence or hedge line that would allow for the use of that portion of the property to be considered open space. So staff is recommending a lesser variance, the shift from a 20-foot side street side yard from 20 to 10 feet, indicating that granting the lesser variance should not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare, nor should it affect the character of the general vicinity. as the proposed project will transition from that higher intensity roadway to the established character of the residential development or neighborhood located to the east. This also plays to the shift in this location here, in which we would be suggesting it goes from a 10-foot setback, and then this, which is a 17-and-a-half-foot open space or green space going back in towards the neighborhood. There we go. The request is not a result of a willful violation of the zoning ordinance in this case, and the applicant is doing this during the time of the zone change, their first opportunity to request such a variance associated with this project. And then this recommendation is subject to the following conditions, that they receive their zone change to the R4 zone, that along the side street side yard, there shall be a planted contiguous hedge no taller than four feet. This still leaves space for their street tree requirement along that side. And then that the development plan shall be constructed in accordance with their final development plan or as amended by the Planning Commission. This allows for this body to change certain aspects of this should the applicant run into any problems going forward. And then all necessary permits are required to be achieved by the divisions of engineering, building inspection, and traffic engineering, as well as the division of planning. And then the action of the Planning Commission regarding this variance request be noted on the development plan. If you have any questions on the variance request, I'd be happy to answer them. Yes, Mr. Nickel. Yes, sir, Mr. Bailey. My question for your presentation makes a lot of sense to me because of the condition of Broadway Park and where the houses sit. That makes a lot of sense. But we're also looking at a vacant piece of property that we need to get as many housing units on as we can if we are going to approve a zone change for R4. Is there a way that the applicant can work with staff to come up with it? If it is an open space variance that they require, I would be interested in approving something like that or voting something along those lines. Or if it's a parking requirement that's being met, that's something that can be used as a variance as well. So if the applicant could work with staff, figure out how to get the same amount of unions, but respecting the property on the houses on Broadway Park, I would be for it. So if we approve your variance, what I'm saying is we approve your variance and they can't get the number of units that they request. I would recommend that they ask for variance for open space or for parking so that we can get the number of units we need on the lot. So with the open space variance request, that would be something that that could come from the Board of Adjustment at a later date. Unfortunately, for the parking variance request, since this is outside of the infill and redevelopment area, that request for a reduction in the parking is not available. That is available within the infill and redevelopment area, as well as some of those reductions. The applicant is within very close proximity to a transit stop as well, which would have been an option if they were in that infill and redevelopment area as well. Yes, sir. That is an opportunity for any developer that comes in. I believe that this applicant was seeking to provide a certain amount of parking spaces for this. And they are slightly over that requirement with the added parking underneath in the garages, correct? Or they're right on. So that would be something that the applicant would be able to look at if they wanted to add affordable housing options within this. I see a disconnect between our parking requirements and what the market demands. So a parking variance, if it's for everybody applicant, that a reduction in the request of parking meets their parking plan, I would be all for that. once again, the market decision that's made. And that is an option. And with any variance request that is granted here, the applicant does have the opportunity to seek to adjust their plan, but also to go back to the Board of Adjustment to ask for other relief following this determination. Any further questions? I'm not seeing any. Thank you, Hal. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon again. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here representing the applicant, although it's a typical LLC, applicant Broadway 12 LLC. Mr. Tuttle is the actual owner of the property, Mike Tuttle. He's here today. He owns the property. And Hal gave a very thorough report, as did Tom. and we're in 100% agreement with everything that they have submitted and said in connection with the application in terms of compliance with the comprehensive plan and even the variance except we're five feet apart. And I will tell you that five feet is actually very important because without the variance, if we didn't get any variance, we would lose three apartment units. one of the buildings would have to be made much smaller. And with the 10 foot that the staff is recommending, as opposed to the five feet that we're seeking, we would lose three bedrooms, which would make it less marketable for those units. So with the five foot variance, we're five feet apart from what the staff's recommending, in contrast with what we're recommending to have three equal stand-in buildings oriented toward North Broadway, of course, that have very marketable apartment rooms associated with them. It goes into the business model that's been formulated before we came today. And when all is said and done, we're five feet apart in terms of the variance that we seek. And I'll cover that in a little bit more detail in just a second. But first, I wanted to share with the commission that we did have an overall meeting with the neighborhood back in July, met for close to two hours, and listened to what the neighbors had to share about our proposal. I think it was a cross-section of concerns. One was that a proposed apartment community would devalue the single-family homes, Concerned, of course, about traffic. Concerned about parking on 12th Street. 12th Street is somewhat of a narrow street, and the neighbors that live there do park on both sides of 12th Street, which makes it a little bit more difficult to navigate. I explained to them, of course, that we're going to have required parking that meets all the requirements for a proposed apartment community on this small piece of ground, corner of 12th and North Broadway, and we would take care of our parking on site. Concern was expressed about stormwater runoff, and we have an underground storage vault to deal with stormwater on the property. Concern was expressed really both for and against two existing trees on North Broadway in front of the property that you see actually in the picture here. pin oak trees. The gentleman owns an auto repair business that's next door to us across from 12th Street, indicated that it made it difficult for a left-hand turn and he wanted the trees to be cut down. But another neighbor on the other side indicated that he much preferred that those trees remain. We will be supplementing the trees on the property both along North Broadway and 12th Street. There is also a large sycamore tree on the property. I've talked with Tim Query. Tim has been out on site to look at the sycamore tree. We would like to be able to save that tree if possible, but I'm not sure. We're going to be actually, we're going to be encroaching within the drip line, if you will, of the tree itself, whether it can be saved or not. Generally, residential developments benefit from trees, so we want to try to save it, but it may be something that's not possible to do once we get to the final development plan and construction drawing stage. We did disclose all these trees, though, when we filed the application. And then there was also a concern expressed about underground streams or just kind of a mixture of that and stormwater, I suppose. This property is located, like many are, in a large swath of area in Lexington known as the Royal Springs Aquifer. That being located within that area in Lexington does require the applicant prior to final development plan approval to have his project reviewed by a committee that deals with oversight located in Georgetown. It's kind of a mixture of Georgetown folks and Lexington folks because Georgetown gets its drinking water from the Royal Springs aquifer primarily. primarily residential development of this small size however has never been found to be a contributing deficit to that that aquifer simply because our stormwater is going to be directed into a stormwater pipe and we have sanitary sewers available we have looked to see if there's any underground streams on the property and have found none so with respect to its potential for development We meet all of the criteria, as their staff said, with respect to compliance with the comprehensive plan. And what we're proposing certainly fits within this committee's urgings, staff's urgings of increasing residential density along the corridor. We have 16 units that we're proposing. We're going to have six garages that will house some of the cars in these units. And the thing that I wanted to emphasize to the commission with respect to the variance, that this neighborhood, 12th Street, if you look at all of the streets between North Limestone and North Broadway, if you look at the entire context of the neighborhood, you have a number of non-residential buildings along North Broadway, as Hal has indicated, And you have the same on North Limestone at the other end of 12th Street. And, in fact, you have one property that's actually on 12th Street that's Zone B1, and there's another at the other end of 12th Street from where this development will be. At the opposite end of it is another auto repair facility at the corner of 12th Street and North Limestone. So in the context of the whole neighborhood, our request for variance for an additional five feet from what the staff is recommending in order to have a fully functional as planned apartment community with 16 units without compromising on their bedroom space, we believe is reasonable. Graham made a suggestion about the balconies, and those can be altered and offset to deal with that kind of situation. We can address that at the final development plan stage. But in terms of just the neighborhood itself, just to indicate where we are, we're facing North Broadway. The orientation of the building is toward North Broadway. We purposely had it designed to make it look as close to single-family orientation as we could, despite the fact that right across the street from the subject property is this auto repair garage. That's directly opposite. On the other side of this property is property zone professional office. It's a video servicing business next to our property, so we're bracketed on both sides by businesses. On down the street, actually across the street is Dillon Tax Service, a building that's been there many, many years, that's own professional office that's directly opposite this property. And then across the street from it is a single building apartment complex. And then going down back on our side of the street, you will see a series of houses that have been zoned B1. They're all business-owned, and they're all in and have businesses in them all the way down. In fact, from 12th Street all the way to New Circle Road, all of the buildings at Front North Broadway are businesses. So, again, we don't believe our five-foot setback in terms of the context of the neighborhood being primarily North Broadway is going to have an adverse impact on anyone, anyone, particularly when you consider the adverse impact on this project will be the loss of three bedrooms. This is a pharmacy across from the property, subject property. Then there's a construction business, Northland Shopping Center. A big segment two blocks down or one block down from our property is this large parking lot. Of course, it doesn't have any setbacks at all. And you've got Whitaker Park. And then this just indicates what I was talking about. This would be North Limestone, North Broadway. They're both bracketed in the urban core by non-residential units. So we believe if you look at the entire context of the neighborhood and what we're doing, we believe the variance is justified to keep these three bedrooms and keep the integrity of what we have developed intact. We talked with Hal before the meeting. And the staff has concerns about the fence. The fence can come down, and we can certainly live with a recommendation that the staff has made about the four-foot hedge. So, as I said, we are in agreement with everything the staff has said. We would just like an additional five feet to not compromise the integrity of what's been planned. This does add important residential density. We have addressed all the significant issues that go with this development. We're prepared to respond to any questions that you or any objector may have with respect to how we're going to deal with stormwater or anything else associated with our property. And with that, I'll close my presentation, be happy to respond to any questions or concerns that you all have. Any questions for the applicant? Ms. Wirth? Mr. Simpson, you mentioned the discussion with the neighborhood. you did not mention whether there was any discussion with them about the amount of the variance. Did they speak to that issue? You know, that wasn't something that we had wasn't on the books at the time to my knowledge. And so the variance issue was not raised at the neighborhood meeting. Thank you. Yes, Mr. DeMovelland. Yeah, Mr. Simpson, if things stay at the proposed 10 feet by staff and you lose the three units, is your client prepared to continue with the development, or is it a deal breaker? The question is, if the variance isn't approved to five feet, is he prepared to continue with the development? Mike, why don't you come up, and this is Mike Tuttle. He's also an architect, so he can answer your questions better than me. Hi, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I didn't start this. I'm not a developer. I'm a visionary, I guess. And hearing all this, I'm thinking, am I stupid to do this? It's like I'm building what I think and perceive as a fairly decent housing residential project. But I'm realistic, too, that when you put the pencil to it, I'm already not realizing and not being a developer, knowing it would take this much effort and expense to get where we are today. So when I knew that we were the Fayette County and the city were wanting to create higher density, I'm thinking, perfect. This is what I'm interested in. I've been out of town for about 30 years, but I'm from here. I drive around, I see the horse farms being gobbled up, and I'm going, I don't even recognize parts of it. So when we get down to this, the three bedrooms does make a difference. Financing is important. The setback, Mr. Pol, you're correct. It can be designed differently. Those balconies can be recessed into that big wall on 12th. The roofline can be altered to soften that Broadway 12th side. We can then maybe have a side entrance. We can create some variance and variety on that 12th street, but the setback is critical to the development of the project. Yes, Mr. Nickel. Yes, this is for Mr. Tuttle. Is the, what was the motivation to have three buildings that then need to be separated from each other, which then requires you to have a variance on 12th street and you're an architect. Yeah, it would be much less expensive to build just one building, pop it back, build it, put the units in, done. I thought I see it this being more marketable to multi-generational families that don't want to be in a larger building. They want a smaller building where they can put an elderly parent and a smaller unit on the ground floor. Siblings can live in that house or other family members. and so it becomes more intimate to be smaller versus one building. Okay, but if it were one building, you'd be able to achieve the approved development plan without a variance. Is that not correct? Yes. It is correct. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Polk? Quick question. The way you have the three buildings designed at this time, are there windows on the walls facing the adjacent buildings? I believe there are. I think there are. And are those windows critical to egress requirements? Critical to, I'm sorry. Egress requirements? I don't, Adam, are they? I don't know. I don't think those are. The reason I ask that is because one of the detriments of going to one large building there, as opposed to three could be that having the separation between the two separations between those three buildings would allow for light and air to be accessed because of those separations, right? So that's why I asked that question. We're not through with the final development plan. And so I envision these facades changing somewhat and becoming more interesting if the budget allows that. I just have another comment. I think you can get greater density than 16 units with the proposed 10-foot variance rather than a 20-foot variance. That's my comment on that. Well, higher density, from my perception, is a plus. I mean, isn't that what everybody wanted, higher density? Yes, what I'm saying is that I think that you can still achieve greater density, which provides more housing units on the existing property with the proposed approval of a 10-foot variance rather than just the five. I think there's – from looking at the development plan, I see that it is possible. There are other things that can be moved to help the site geometry, which are parking requirements, one, and two, open space requirements. My understanding is that the staff would like to only reduce the side yard to 10 feet because it provides for more continuity and walkability down 12th Street or Broadway Park or 12th Street. And also kind of respects that neighborhood. neighborhood so i think everybody here is for as many dwelling units as possible i think there's other asks that can be made other than a five feet of a variance on on 12th street that's my observation seems like most of the conversation is dealing with the design of the structure in terms of increasing the residential density or eliminating the setback and things of that nature. This is a preliminary development plan. We still have to come back for a final development plan. We will have to deal more specifically with the multifamily design guidelines. And as Mike said, we're certainly open to changes in configuration on that. But, you know, we're proposing three interesting buildings that don't exist in the area in terms of apartments. There's a block apartment across the street. And so is the look of that black apartment and its increase in density, is that more important than making a handsome, well-designed residential look on North Broadway that's complementary of the neighbors behind it in terms of that, and all you need is a five-foot, additional five feet from what the staff is recommending? All these things are balancing tests. And then, of course, you have to look at the applicant's economic justification. And as Mike has said, this has gotten a lot more expensive than he thought, even though it's a relatively small parcel of property. But for the 16 units with three separate buildings, with flexibility and even reorienting those as we go through the final development plan phase and interact with staff and this body, To me, the higher priority is in granting this variance and in granting this zone change to move along with higher density. We can increase density at the expense of how it looks. I think this is a good blend of looking sharp and complementary and increasing density without going to the extreme just to satisfy the density requirements is the way we're looking at it. And again, a lot of thought and economics have been looked in this in terms of the financing. Keeping the three bedrooms is very important to the success of this project to have, you know, a really major contribution to this area of Lexington, which on this property, there's been vacant. So we would ask for your approval as to the variance of five feet and the zone change. Any further questions? I'll sit down. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Do we have one in the audience that want to speak for this particular application? You can do so by stepping up to the podium, sir. My name is Jim McKeegan, and I wanted to add some information to the commission. I represented Cora Carrick when the lots were sold. This lot was the remaining land of their horse farm. I believe it was called Fairmont. There was a farm there that the Carrick's owned. One of the deciding reasons of the Carrick family selling to Mike is that he was a graduate of the School of Architecture here in Lexington. They were concerned about the urban service area being protected. So while they did want more density on North Broadway to protect farms, such as their wildwood farm and other properties they owned in the country. They were concerned that we needed more density, and I think that, number one, that's why the land has never been developed. It was a sentimental reason for them to keep the Fairlawn property vacant, just a small portion. And the reason they sold it to Mr. Tuttle was he was creative. They were also fond of some of the redevelopment projects in the 20s, such as Hampton Court and other things in Lexington that were somewhat unique, and they wanted North Broadway to look prettier. So that's all I wanted to add. Thank you. Thank you. I support this 100%. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hello. I'm Jennifer Bentley. I live at 146 12th Street. I'm literally a house away from all of this. I didn't know about the neighborhood meeting. I just heard about it in September. I do own my property. I've been there for 13 years. Roughly six years ago, I had a dog get killed running across the street. There's all kinds of traffic. I've even stressed that they need a light there. And so I'm worried about all the apartments coming and having more people, more traffic, more things like that. I have a daughter. I put a fence up around my yard just to protect her from traffic and stuff like that. But there's people that do park along that way where they want to have the entrance to the thing. And that's literally one house from me. And so I'm just worried about the traffic and all the other people around there. Really. And also, is it going to be subsidized housing? Is it going to lower my property value? you know, that's something I'm worried about. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, do you have anything to say from her questions? Do you have a rebuttal? Yeah. I had like two questions. I thought there was going to be somebody else. I'm sorry the lady didn't get noticed. I sent out probably a couple hundred invitations to everybody within 500 feet, and I always put in my letter on these neighborhood meetings that please invite anyone else that you know that might be interested in this proposed zone change who lives outside of this 500-foot notification area to invite them to attend the meeting because we want everybody to be informed. We use the 500 feet because that's the legal notification requirement. But of course, the meeting is open to anybody that finds out about it. We want to be responsive to all the questions. And obviously, we can't address each and every concern that people have. But when I listen to the discussion from some of the commission members about increasing more density than what we have on a property that's been vacant, and to come up with a design, at least the conceptual design, which could still be revised, how much more density could we add by putting it in a block building that's less attractive and less contributory architecturally to the neighborhood? That's all subjective, of course. I recognize that. But we finally have an applicant who meets the test of the legacy ownership to come up with a project that is going to have a top-shelf residential addition on North Broadway that has a mixture of uses. If you go down from 12th Street all the way to New Circle Road, Are you really going to notice five feet of difference? Or even if you come down 12th Street, is five foot difference in the side yard going to be such a striking, conspicuous observation that it's going to be troublesome? I suspect not. In my judgment, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinances, the subdivision regulations, you take all of those and it's a balancing of what works. What works and what does the applicant, it's his money, it's his risk, what does he want to do? And is he being flexible enough in terms of his design to listen to the staff, listen to the commission to make some changes? And the answer to all of those questions is yes. But we do need the five feet. That is a critical element of all of this in order not to compromise what's been planned. And I think if you consider the context of the entire, excuse me, comprehensive plan, and all its regulatory features that what we end up with, with the five-foot variance, is a major asset to this corridor and to this neighborhood that's bordered by commercial and higher residential units that's between the streets. And so I ask you to think about that. Mr. Tuttle has given this a lot of serious thought, and we'd ask for your approval on the variance in addition to the zone change. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Staff would just like to clarify a few things. With regard to the variance, staff is recommending a flexibility, that flexibility being bringing it down from 20 feet, which is the requirement that is stated within the zoning ordinance whenever an applicant is seeking to develop a project, down to 10 feet. And that 10 feet is really associated with a transition and the context not just of North Broadway, but of 12th Street, stepping that back, allowing for a shift from that higher intensity to the lower intensity single-family detached neighborhood. In terms of the loss of space, it is what we're talking about with the difference between a 10 and a 5 foot variance is approximately 840 square feet. That can be a lot sometimes when we're looking at some of these projects, but it's of staff's opinion that when we look at projects, it is not density that rules all. We are making sure that we are trying to have that density, but also make sure that there are proper transitions between different contexts or places. That is really the focus of what the 2018 Comprehensive Plan has established and what we are seeing with this application. The applicant has done a lot of work on this project, on this application. We commend them on that. However, when it is the staff's review of both the zone change, which staff is recommending approval, and then the variance, we do need to make sure that we are not just pushing density at all sake, but also making sure that there are appropriate transitions, appropriate space that is given, and make sure that we are trying to meet all of the elements of the comprehensive plan while also making decisions or recommendations that are in line with the comprehensive plan. with the other boards and this discerning body. So staff is recommending that the approval of the zone change while also keeping to that 10 foot side yard setback. There was a statement about maybe we can move an entrance to the side. That would actually not be a good move in the fact that in other areas of the zoning ordinance that would force them to meet the front yard setback. in the fact that this is now becoming a frontage for that property. So the applicant would have to require a variance from that element of the zoning ordinance, and that would be a requirement to go to the Board of Adjustment. And I will say, in previous applications and in our consultation with the representative of staff that works with the Board of Adjustment, this is in line with many of the decisions that have been made regarding side streets, side yards. If you have any questions for me about our response, I'd be happy to answer. Questions, sir? Yes, Mr. Polk. So procedurally, the applicant is requesting a variance to five feet. Can we approve a variance to 10 feet without the applicant requesting that variance? Yes, sir. Because it is a lesser variance, there is the ability for this discerning body to shift that backwards. That's part of the recommendation that's associated with the supplemental variance report. You would not be able to go further, adding more kind of space in that. But bringing it back a little bit is within the range of their request. Thank you. Thank you. I'll bring this back to the commission. It's a lot of discussion amongst each other. So, Mr. Nichol. Yes, I've got just a comment for our commission. I think the reason I was talking about density and the need for density is that the applicant said without a reduction of the setback to five feet, they were going to lose three units. My comment was, I think you can get more than 16 units as built right now. I think with some further effort, you can achieve your 16 units while protecting the 12th Street neighbors. Just to make that clarification, that's where my mind is on this. and I would also be willing to, if we do go with the staff's recommendation of a 10-foot variance, we are providing relief, and if they needed more relief in the future to help with the density, that would be per open space or parking requirements. I'm all aboard working in that way. I'm just concerned about protecting the neighbors on 12th Street because the more angry neighbors we have, it impedes the future development of these vacant sites for more dense units. So I feel like we've got to be careful. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Anyone? I agree with Mr. Nichols, and I would – I think the staff's call on the 10-foot variances shows a sensitivity to the area. I think that when you look – I spent some time, as we were discussing this, looking at Google Maps and looking at the surrounding neighborhoods, as was suggested. and I think that 10 feet is probably a generous variance and I agree that reworking the plan can solve any issues that are being brought up by this. You know, the assumption that it has to be three identical buildings maybe could be questioned. There are many things that could happen at this point. Thank you for your comments, Grant. And Mr. Nickel. Anyone else? Okay. Hearing none, the floor is open. We have three items to make a motion on. Zone change, variance, and also the laminary development plan. Mr. Pohl. I'll move to approve the zone change for Broadway 12th LLC, PLNMAR 2114. Okay, we have a motion. Seconded by Mr. DeMovlin. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. All right. Motion passes. preliminary plans next page 10. Let's see. We're looking at the variance request. You want to do the variance first? Okay. All right. Yes, go ahead. Sorry, Mr. Pope. Move to approve the revised staff recommendation regarding the variance request for PLNM JDP 2147, approving a reduction from 20 to 10 feet side yard setback. Thanks, sir. Excuse me, sir. Would you mention the conditions or the number of conditions that are within that staff report as well? Just noting the conditions per the approval. Oh, it should be on. We can't pull it up on the document here. So subject to the conditions. to the okay so amend my motion to for approval of the lesser variants to include conditions for the reasons cited by staff and with the five conditions recommended by staff. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Polk. We have a second by Mr. DeMovlin. Any further discussions to that motion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Thank you. All right. One more. he said 10 feet on your system there's a we can't pull it up right now Graham can you pass that to me not that sheet that's right so within the Granica system we load what's requested We're just not able to pull it up right now, so they have it. But we'll note the appropriate motion in the minutes. That motion passes. So I'm not sure what we're doing here. It's this one. Yeah. Okay. All right. So move to approve the 12th Street addition PLN MJDP 2147 with the 12 conditions recommended by staff. Okay. Seconded by Mr. DeMovlin. Any further discussions to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you. Commission items? First one. It was, it was, it was, How are you doing? Mr. Chair, you all are to be congratulating. You held a double meeting and still managed to finish in two hours. I wonder if the common element is the horsemen who aren't here, if that's what keeps these meetings going. Right. That's right. This is being recorded, right? Mr. Chair, I do want to remind you all that we have scheduled a work session for next Thursday, November 18th at 1.30. that will be in the Phoenix Building on the third floor. The only item on that agenda will be the discussion of the Sustainable Growth Task Force report, which you all started with a public hearing last month. You will not be taking any action at the work session. This will just be an opportunity for continued clarification, questions, anything like that, from the Commission to the consultants and the staff on that. So we'll see you all next Thursday. Phoenix Building, third floor at 1.30. Thank you. Our director was not here earlier when you made your tribute to our veterans. He is a veteran. Thank you. Thank you.