Can you please do come home, come on home Jubilation, she loves me again I fall on the floor and I love me Jubilation, she loves me again I fall on the floor and I love me Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, play me some mountain music Like grandma and grandpa used to play Then I'll float on down the river To Cajun Hideaway Rift away like Tom Sawyer Ride a ralph with old Huck Finn Take a nap like Rip and Winkle, they're streaming again Oh, play me some mountain music like Grandma and Grandpa used to play And I'll float on down the river to cage and hide away I swim across the river Just to prove that I'm a man Spend the day being lazy Just be nature's friend I'm a long tall hickory, bending over skinning cats Thank you. All right, then, Mr. Chair, if you'd like to take it away. Yes. Good afternoon, everyone. Recording in progress. Right. Good to see everyone. Today is Thursday, February 10, 2022. Welcome, everyone, to the Urban County Planning Commission Subdivision and Zoning Items Meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. First up on the agenda, we do not have any approval of minutes. But before we get to postponements or withdrawals, I'd like to ask the Commission for an approval for performance bonds and letterbook credits, which is on page six of the agenda. So moved. Second. Thank you. We have a motion by Mr. Bell, seconded by Mr. Poe. Any further discussion to that motion? And all in favor, please raise your hand and hold it for about three seconds and we can get the count that we delay here. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Next on the agenda item is item three, postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chair, we have Mr. Richard Murphy. We'll bring him in now. Okay. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy, you've been promoted to a panelist. You can start your video and unmute yourself to address the planning commission. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm Richard Murphy. On the bottom of page four, item E, PLN, MJDB 2173, Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 10, and Kingston Hall, Unit 2, Lots 14 through 18. I represent the developer on that. We are redoing that plan, so we're requesting a one-month postponement. Okay, Mr. Murphy, and that's for the March 10th meeting? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Any commission member have any questions for Mr. Murphy? Is there anyone that's in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this particular application? Please do so by raising your hand. We see none. Okay, thank you. So bring us back to the commission for a motion for a one-month postponement to the March 10, 2022 meeting. The floor is open. You ready for a motion? Yes. Okay, I move to postpone PLN MJDP 21-73 for one month to March 10th. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? I second. Second. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Sir, Mr. Kaley is also on screen already. And Mr. Kaley, you may unmute. Good afternoon. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. On the page three, top of that, it's item B, major development 21-50. This is Ramsey Sullivan property, lot four. We requested one month postponement to the March 10th meeting. There's one or two items yet to work out with staff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Any questions for Mr. Kaley? Any commission members? Not seeing any. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? Please raise your hand via Zoom. Sure, we are seeing none. Okay, we'll close that portion out and bring it back to the commission for a motion. Mr. DeMovilland. I move for a motion to postpone PLN and JDP 2150 Ramsey Sullivan property to March 10th. Thank you. Okay. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. K. Next, sir, we have Mr. Greg Smorstot. Mr. Smorstot, if you would like to start your video, you may address the Planning Commission. Good afternoon. Greg Smorstot with Banks Engineering. I'd like to direct your attention to page three, item C. That's PLN MJDP 21-67 Newtown Springs Unit 1, Lot 2 amended. Still have a couple things we're working on. I was able to have a meeting with a couple of the different parties that we needed to yesterday, but unfortunately that didn't allow us to get you a plan in time for today, so we'd like to request a one-month postponement. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant, for the commission members? I'm seeing any. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? Please do so by raising your hand via Zoom. Sir, we are seeing none. Okay, thank you. The floor is open for a motion for a one-month postponement to the March 10th meeting. Mr. Poe? I would like to move to postpone PLNMJDP 2167 Newtown Springs, unit 1, lot 2, amended for one month to March 10th. Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Markstead. All in favor, please raise your hand. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Mr. Bell's hand is right. Okay. No. Okay. All right. I don't know why it does that, but it does. No problem. No problem. Is there anyone else that would like to have any questions? any postponements or withdrawals. Sir, we are seeing the Okay. All right. So back to our agenda. This is on page 2. On a record flat, PLN, FRP 21-56, Don Diggers' property. Do you have a waiver request? Yes, sir. as well as some advice conditions. For us, a pretty yellow piece of paper. I don't have a yellow shirt. But it goes. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, The first item on your agenda is, as your chairman stated, a final record plan 21-56 for the Don Jacobs property. Oh, share screen. And up to this one. Thank you. All right. All right. There we go. There we go. This is a amended final record plat out on Regency Road as it curls down through here back in the middle of all this developed area. We've got old Don Jacobs here and here all in the front up on Nicholasville Road. And here we have the New Circle Road ramp in this location. There is a building that you can see located here. There's a building on this part as well. This is an interesting proposal with this particular plat in that they are proposing to plat blocks six and seven that you can see here as part of block A. for the Don Jacobs property final record plat. What's interesting about this is that these were created by deed and never actually platted. That happens, but it's kind of an interesting situation, and in this case when they decided to do this they realized that they had to bring this in and amend the plat and in essence subdivide what is one piece. Six and seven is currently deeded as one piece of property. You can see the line where they're proposing to subdivide them together. They total about 1.7 acres. There's parking on this area. You can see that's been delineated very well on this color up that these are parking lots, parking areas on this particular property, that's how they are utilized. Now, in reviewing this, we have pretty standard conditions. You can see on your revised staff recommendation that we have on record flats, including engineering, traffic, landscape examiner, urban forester, utility and street light easements as necessary, and they needed to note this property shall be developed in accordance with the approved final development plan, and that is important. There is a final development plan that governs this property. Now, they've got a couple other little cleanup conditions they need to address, including the setback. They have setbacks off all their frontages. It so happens New Circle Road is their frontage in this particular case. You can see they've added setbacks off of Regency Road. And then under the legend, the surveyor references his monuments, which he has set at Article 5 of the subregs, require that that location be denoted on the plat. That's generally at your intersections, corners, that sort of thing. Basically, here's where I set my pen. Again, a cleanup condition. We have two issues that we brought to you today. One is the waiver request, and the other is the access and the necessary binding for access to these properties. The waiver request is for sanitary sewer. Now, as I stated, these are parking lots. Secondly, they're governed by a final development plan. So nothing can change, nothing can happen on these parking lots. can't be a building constructed until an amended final development plan is submitted, reviewed, and approved by the planning commission. Now, at this location right here by lot four and lot six, there's a manhole. Lot six has no problem obviously accessing that manhole with a lateral as necessary should they need to ever sewer lot six. However, lot seven, the sewer line is located a lot further up here on lot two and comes across lot two. So it's a much bigger challenge. They're either going to have to go there or across adjoining lot six to access the sewer. And because of the length involved that could very likely require that they extend a public sewer, set a manhole to provide for a lateral then to connect. They requested the waiver for hardship. Again, lot seven is a parking lot. It cannot be developed until a amended final development plan is And at that time, they could, off that development plan, construct the necessary sanitary sewer to lot seven. So your staff has reviewed that, along with engineering, and we are recommending approval to the waiver subject to the conditions in your waiver report. And then the second aspect that's interesting with these properties is the access. Ah, there's a sewer right there. I meant to show you that. You can see it. There's the sewer line. Those are manholes. There's the manhole that will serve this lot. You can see how easy that is to access the sewer line. Here we have a photograph to show you the parking lots and how the property functions, particularly in terms of access. They are proposing access through this parking lot, through this entrance into lot 6. You can see landscaping and physical barriers exist between lot 6 and 7. Now, lot 7 has several access points. You can get there through this location, back through where you see this truck, between the buildings, through the parking lot in this location. And then there's access right here as well into this parking lot. Now, you're required to have a finding when an access easement is the sole means of access to a lot. and this is particularly well established here that that is necessary on lot six and access easement now they have proposed a reciprocal parking and access note as well as an agreement and that's fine we do that in essence by approving the easement along with the reciprocal parking and access note, they're creating kind of a blanket easement in this circumstance to govern access and reciprocal parking and access. So in reviewing this, staff is recommending that you do approve the finding for these access easements. And I would like to just give you a little example. Generally, in these commercial areas where you have a parking lot, access is easy. Everybody can move throughout the parking lot. I looked up two examples. Bayette Mall, for instance, has no access easements. It functions under the development plan, cross-access. It's covered with easements, but not in access easements. Kerfland Mall, again, states they have a reciprocal parking and access agreement, and they also cite a private agreement and give the recording information on that agreement. Both of those are ways to accomplish this. In recent years, the Planning Commission has found itself in some disputes with access and access easements. And that's one reason we want to make sure that there's a finding today and it's specified how this access is going to work with reciprocal parking and access on the respective lots. lot six is lot four seven and lot two will have to function that way and again that is clarity for the owners and any future owners of this property as to how that will and should function with that as i stated staff is recommending that you do approve the finding as well as the waiver and the final record plat and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff Stop chair. Oh, I'm up here now. I got it. You all are messing with moving the stop chair around. Any questions for staff? Not seeing any. Okay. Thank you. If the applicant would like to be heard on this case, please digitally raise your hand now. Mr. Rowland, you've been promoted. You can now start your video and unmute yourself to address the planning committee. hello uh this is gary rothman with cam surveying and uh i i'm don't really have any anything to add tom i think covered it perfectly um we're in agreement with the uh conditions that have that are on the agenda with the exception of maybe condition number nine and there may be an updated version that i don't have but on this particular one it said to add lot three to the plant. The way they're doing the access now, I don't think that there's any reason to add lot three to the plant. The other conditions, I think we're fine with. Gary, we do have a revised condition, and that's been changed to denote setback along New Circle Road. Okay. Then we would have no problem with that. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Anybody might have? Thank you, Mr. Rowe. Commission members, do we have any questions from Mr. Rowland at this moment? I'm not seeing any. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? Please do so by raising your hand via Zoom. We'll bring it back to the commission for a vote. Motion. We have two motions. They'll take the waiver separately. I'd like to move to approve the waiver for PLN FRP 2156, Don Jacobs Property Block A Lot 6 and 7 amended. And the approval of the waiver is regarding sanitary sewer and would be subject to the conditions in the waiver report as well as access easements regard and reciprocal parking agreements for lots six four or seven and two. I have a motion by Mr. Cole. We have a second. Second by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor please raise your hand. I think Mr. Nicker was paused. Oh, there you go. Motion passes unanimously. I see you, Bruce. It paused on me. Okay. Also, the waiver. He put it together. He put it together. Typically, we do it separately. I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. moving on mr roland motion passes thank you good to see you too thank you thank you okay so uh phase two development plans pln mjdp 21-39 and we do have uh revised staff recommendations we do we uh we have several revised conditions today uh that resulted from the uh subdivision committee not being able to meet last Thursday to the weather emergency. There we go. Yes, so this is a major development plan, 21-39, LFUCG Mill Creek subdivision unit 3 and Jonestown. I know this plan was seen by the committees it's been postponed for a while it is located out on Armstrong Mill which is to my right of the screen there's an access driveway as you can see into the property this is the old church site there was a church set in here for many many years there's a cell tower that sits back in here I know you see it If you've ever driven out there, it's a large cell tower. And you can see that this property is tremendously impacted by the floodplain that comes through this property. As you can see here, there's a tremendous amount of floodplain on the property as the property here, the hill, drops down to the creek. Now, they are proposing 96 dwelling units in these four buildings, along with the associated parking. as you can see in this bigger layout. Now, again, the issue that faces this project is particularly the floodplain, as I mentioned. Now, with that, and let me go back, and again, I'll just state that we have our standard conditions, our sign-offs on a development plan. Again, we are requiring them to provide a rendering, demonstrating compliance with the Moken Family design standards, and then several discussion items. I'll touch on the easiest one first, which is item 14. We had a discussion about this a few days ago and again this morning. They are showing some improvements off of their property on the Condo Association property in this location. They have a private agreement and an easement, recorded easement agreement, to do these improvements on the condo property. According to the applicant, they sought to buy the property. The condo association would not sell. However, they do have this existing easement that will allow them to construct these improvements, improve the access as well as provide a sidewalk, pedestrian access into the property. The floodplain item, item 15, discuss status and timing of the clomer. They, the applicant's engineer, have been in discussion with the Division of Engineering, considerable discussions to talk about this floodplain and the need for the clomer. and the timing of that clomer. Timing is everything in this situation to allow them to proceed forward and construct. If you look at the floodplain and you'll find the limits of the actual floodplain is this line that runs through here. It's not just the pretty green, but it's up through in here. You can see it impacts the parking. It impacts the clubhouse and the swimming pool as well as their access. It's existing, but it actually is in the floodplain. That was a serious discussion early on in the review of this plan to make sure that emergency vehicles could drive through there during the 100-year event, which it was determined they can do that. But the timing of the clomer is important because you can see the impact, again, from the floodplain. And then there's a 25-foot building setback off of that floodplain. Now, that impacts the accessory building, which is the clubhouse. The clubhouse actually is a special use in the floodplain. If approved by engineering, it would require them to build it, floodproof it, elevate it. A tremendous amount of work, but they could get permission to do that. But that's predicated on them not changing the floodplain. The parking is actually a special use permit as well in the floodplain. Again, predicated on them not altering or changing the grade of the floodplain. They show covered parking. That's not allowed in the floodplain. And it would also not be allowed without a waiver of the 25-foot setback, which addresses accessory structures and principal buildings. And again, that 25-foot setback, where it ultimately ends up based on the change that they proposed through the CLOMER modifying the floodplain, can impact the clubhouse as well. The pool is not allowed. Pools are not allowed in the floodplain. So again, to have the pool, to have that amenity, they need to file a calmer, show how they're going to adjust the floodplain, the work they're going to do. There's a retaining wall that you can see in this location. And again, that obviously points to the slope, the drop in the slope, and the need to grade and stabilize and work in this area. And again, so there is going to be modification of the floodplain. They have been working with engineering, as I said, for quite some time to address the timing of that, to allow them to work and allow this project to move forward. It is our understanding, and they can certainly elaborate on that, that they are close to working out a note that will go on this development plan that will address Article 19 and address the timing of the clonal. So with that, we can move to the timing of the easement dedication for the Greenway Trail. And they show a Greenway Trail through here, approximately in this area, that is going to be in the floodplain adjacent to the creek. It is part of a major extension of our trail system. this morning there was actually some finalization of a agreed upon note to address the timing of the dedication of this green reed trail i keep wanting to say twail my inner bugs bunny is coming out but we have agreed along with legal and the applicant to a note that will resolve the timing of that trail the creation of the easement for that trail. On this special edition of Lexington Now, navigating through the perils of central Kentucky winter weather. I'm Neal Noah and welcome to Lexington Now for the week of February 7th, 2022. This winter in Kentucky has seen just about every type of weather Mother Nature can throw at us. Local experts talk about how these events are handled. Our message is very simple. In an ice storm, if you can stay home and stay off the roads, we ask that you please do that. Ice can be dangerous. The frigid temperatures that are forecast will keep it around for several days. Our city is prepared with salt, chainsaws, knuckle booms, generators, warming centers, and more. and we're ready to scrape off ice and snow when we can, pick up limbs, and help our residents. We want you all to stay safe. We have been working very closely with our LFUCG partners and our partners in the utilities, so we are confident that we're prepared for whatever the weather throws at us, but there's a lot of things that individuals can do to kind of help keep themselves safe. this is the time to check your smoke and carbon monoxide alarms please make sure that you have those functioning we rely on on each other to get through these tough times sometimes so please check on your neighbors and and as we mentioned make sure that you have fuel and supplies and that all of your devices are charged specifically as we look at an ice event we we can expect limbs and power lines to be affected so never touch a downed power line if there is a power line down and it's creating a hazard please contact 9-1-1 and as our partner with KU stated make sure to follow those outages and report those outages so we can keep track of those icy conditions do tend to lead to more slips and falls and obviously traffic collisions as well. And one of the big things when we do have power outages, we see people from time to time bring portable generators and or grills inside. That is a very, very bad idea. Those generate carbon monoxide. That is a deadly situation. So please be mindful of that. And if you are without power and need trail easement, that's the agreed upon language. And And we would just ask that that be a part of the plan that you all would approve today. And the staff and I are in agreement that that be incorporated on the plan. Okay. The vote changed slightly from what I heard earlier this morning. He threw in five records. Okay. Which either mechanism will work. Mr. Simpson, in the records, it's not that we have an agreement here. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. And I would add, Mr. Chairman, that when the motion is made, they could change these discuss items to resolve. To resolve. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Simpson or Mr. Cady from the commission members? Not seeing any. Is there anyone out there via Zoom that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? please do so by raising your hand via zoom. I see an A. Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission. Ms. Barstead? Okay. She said no. You on mute? Still on mute. I'm sorry. I got lost. Fine. You're fine. So we bring this part back to the commission for any further questions. or the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Demolver. I make a motion, Mr. Chair, to approve PLN and JDP 2139, LFUCG, Mill Creek, Subdivision, Unit 3 in Jonestown. With the 16 items changing 14, 15, and 16 to resolve and including the agreed upon language that Mr. Simpson just read. Thank you. We have a motion. We have a second to that motion. Second by Mr. Nickel. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Simpson, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. put us on stage four PLNMJDP-20-73 Liberty Road Service Center waiver requirements no exactly okay that's fine Mr. Chairman members of the commission This is Major Development Plan 20-73, Liberty Road Service Center. This is a plan that was previously approved in December 2020, subject to the conditions you can see on your agenda, and subsequently was approved as a continued discussion item on March 11, 2021, one, again, subject to the original conditions, and adding one condition, again, 15, which you can see on your agenda. Now, this has been... Do you want to share the... Do you want to remind them what the plan showed, or... Yeah, I mean, this thing popped up right here, so... Yeah, you don't. You haven't shared a screen, though. Oh, okay. You might have to go back and... It might be the next... Yeah. Yeah, I think it might be the next slide. Oh, yeah. Yes. Right. So here's the plan. And this is on Liberty Road here. This is on the north side of Liberty Road as you're headed in towards town in this direction or towards Winchester Road, I should say, with New Surfer Road out here, not too far from the Parkette. that this is an area where they are proposing to develop it into these many warehouse shops of special trade that you can see, along with parking access off of Liberty Road and the parking as it comes back in here into the property, along with additional parking here. the issue that has arisen during the course of certification of this plan is this detention basin in this area and you can see the da Vinci's here it even extends across the property line a little bit there is interesting enough a lot of little detention bases in this area as this property's redeveloped and the attempt has been to address stormwater issues and that sort of thing historically there have been drainage issues along this section of Liberty Road. So this is an older detention basin and there has been some difficulty in working out the appropriate level of fixing, rehabbing, addressing the problems with this basin. There are issues with this basin and in addition to that a previous owner was a demolition contractor apparently among other professions and dumped a lot of material out here so that that's been that has aggravated this situation and apparently there is old demolition material all in the area it is difficult even to access some of the bases according to what staff has been told now initially the applicants engineers were hoping to bring this plan back to you and ask you for relief from the stormwater man well that's what they've done well that's what they've done that's right that's true that's what they've done we understand that that uh and they will have to explain that to you obviously that that is not uh they don't believe that is necessary and staff would just tell you we don't believe that you have the authority we think it's very clear that storm on your storm water manuals as referenced throughout your zoning and subdivision regulations clearly state that the urban county engineer is the final arbitrator of the standards and grant relief uh when he uh the urban when the urban county engineering forces these standards. We do believe that the applicant has made some progress on addressing the issues with engineering. And again, we're going to have to let them address that with you. And this plan is again before you and can be granted an extension at this time since it expires next month. But with that, I'd be happy to turn it over to the commission for any questions you may have for staff. And again, I know that the applicant's attorney is going to explain their perspective on this issue. The letter that we received is also on the Google Drive and Tom has it for the presentation as well. Oops. Got to go back. Yes. So they asked for a continued discussion specifically about the basin. Right. Thank you. Nothing else. So the basin is what's on the table for discussion today. And back to the stop share. There we go. I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for a second. Any questions for Tom? And I would add that Hillard Newman with the Division of Engineering is here as well if you need to hear from the Division of Engineering about some of the issues with this space. Ms. Worth? I would like to hear what Engineering's division's take is on this proposal right now. Ms. Donna, can you bring Hillard Newman in as a panelist? It's worth you want to hear him first or before the applicant or after? Maybe it would be good to hear it after the applicant. So if he can hear the applicant respond. Okay, thank you. That was my thoughts as well. I just wanted to make sure that you're okay with that. It doesn't seem that we have any questions for staff. So we'll move forward to... and the director director burton's also the applicant well vision engineering was our apple yes oh go yeah mr simpson mr simpson you still on mute Sorry about that. Greetings again. I'm here. Vision Engineering is also here. This is a revised plan with some additional provisions regarding the detention basin. and we're only requesting that the planning commission approve this plan subject to engineering's ultimate approval. We have added some provisions relative to protective features around the basin, also some screening provisions, and we are working on a best management practices plan which addresses the ongoing maintenance of this basin by the property owner which we believe will satisfactory address you know some pertinent issues associated with this but these are matters which we have to take up with the division of engineering they clearly need to pass on on these suggestions and recommendations and proposals first before this project goes any further and so So all we're asking for today is a re-approval subject to engineering, reviewing what we have to say. That's the limitation of our request right now. Ms. Wade. Well, that's already a condition of approval that the Planning Commission has put forth. So at this point, if there isn't a change to the plan, the only thing that our staff saw was a note that was added that was about the basin. So typically the Division of Engineering would provide the notes to the applicant that needed to be on the plan. At this point, we wouldn't want the commission to agree to that note unless it was consistent with what the Division of Engineering was approving. So we would. I agree with that. We do show the fence around the base and that's not been shown before. There may be some provisions about landscaping that's shown as well. I'm not sure about that. But those are changes. The note is obviously proposed. It's not meant to be adopted right now. It's meant to be reviewed by the Division of Engineering. Those are discussions. All of those would be associated with the Division of Engineering to sign off. So at this point, the staff would not recommend a... We would recommend extending your approval subject to the same conditions. That's fine. We can do that. Because it hasn't expired yet. So then we don't need to hear from the Division of Engineering. That's fine. Tracy, that's fine. We can do it that way. Okay. unless we want to okay all right i'll ask miss work and commission members uh with that being said as a commission do we want to hear from division of engineering i'm okay with uh i'd like some indication of what period of time we're proposing for extending is that like Is that longer? An extension is always for another year. Okay. Okay. I guess I'm okay with extending. I don't know if there's anyone from the public that may want to talk that could change that feeling. Before we got there, Mr. Modeling, I want to check with commission members first. Is this kind of hard on the breast? Any other commission members? Any further statements, comments? Okay. Is there anyone in the public that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? Please do so by raising your hand if you assume. Not seeing any? Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission. Floor is open for further discussion and a word of motion. Mr. DeMovlin? You're on mute, sir. Sorry about that. I move to extend PLNMJDP 2073 Liberty Road Service Center as originally approved for one year. Okay. We have a motion. Second. I'm in the word. Any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Thank you all. Thank you. So we'll put on page 5, CLNMJDP-22-1, Jericho, Inc. And we have revised staff recommendations for this application. We do, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is one of those plans that would have gone to the subdivision committee, but because they did not meet, we do have revised conditions for you. Let's see if I can get this right. Oh, oops. yeah all right thank you this is an amended final development plan uh 22-1 for jericho inc as you all are aware we're down to one jerry's now there's only one left uh we still anyway go jericho so this is uh as you can see this is located out on richmond road in this location yorkshire boulevard along with blazer parkway this particular amendment you can see from the colored area that down the color up is that they are proposing to expand the parking lot Approximately 49 spaces in this location, kicking it out into the front here along Richmond Road. When this plan was filed and reviewed, staff reviewed it and pointed out that they needed to be cognizant of a lot of the conflicts in the field along the Richmond Road frontage. It is just a parking lot. It can be adjusted as necessary. It's easy to deal with certain things, but there are a lot of easements in the front. There's large easements. There's a large gas easement, for instance, along Richmond Road. There is the Richmond Road Ordinance, which requires landscaping and other things that, again, to beautify the corridor. There are plans coming down the road to do major improvements for Richmond Road. And at the time, they also needed to show this access point, which was inadvertently left off the original plan into the property. But just because there was a lot happening up there and a lot of potential conflicts, the technical committee initially recommended postponement. Well, they submitted this revised plan, and your staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions, the 10 conditions that you see on your staff. And again, just to give you an example of some of the things that are going on, you can see resolve or document verified compliance with note 18. Well, there's a pedestrian facility that's required in the area. There's a trail. Again, there's a lot happening in this area that needs to be accommodated in this space. So they're going to need to work around those and make sure they're not conflicting with those. They need to resolve their compliance with Richmond Road landscape ordinance. It's a very specific ordinance, specifies types of trees, spacing, that sort of thing. So as you expand and you get into this area, there's potential for some of that to be altered. They're going to have to bring it into compliance or maintain compliance. So again, they need reserve compliance with Richmond Road landscape ordinance. And the same is true with note 17, another note that, again, addresses specific requirements along the Richmond Road frontage that they will need to indicate that they are meeting on this plan. Over the years, there's been a lot of things happening along the Richmond Road corridor, pedestrian facilities, trails, landscaping, that sort of thing. And when you throw a lot of easements into the mix, there is potential for conflicts. But with that, it's a relatively small parking lot expansion. And your staff is recommending approval and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm still looking at the plan. Okay. All right. Not seeing anything, Tom. African? Mr. Carter, you've been promoted to a panelist. You can start your video and unmute yourself to address the planning commission. All right. Good afternoon. Can you all hear me? Yes. Okay. First off, also we have Ben Hammock, who represents the owner. He's online, too, so if you need any questions from him, he is available. But we have reviewed the 10 conditions, and we're in agreement with those. And other than that, we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Commission members, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Not seeing anything, Mr. Carter? Okay. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? Please do so by raising your hand via Zoom. See anything as well? We'll bring it back to the commission. Floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairman. I'll move for approval of PLNMJDP 22-1 Jericho 8-1-B and it's 10 items. Yes. I'll second. Seconded by Mr. Cole. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Thank you. All right. Let's keep us on page 5. PLNMJDP-22-2 Gibbs property. And we also have revised staff recommendations for this as well. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ladies and gentlemen my younger co-workers are nodding at me with approval how well I page through that to get you here. So we are on West Maxwell Street across from Rupp Arena parking lot, not far off Broadway. Spring Street, I believe, is up here in this location. and an alley, I believe, is in this location here on West Maxwell Street. This is a proposal to build nine townhouses in a B2B zone. And B2B is a very forgiving zone, allows a lot of things, including residential. As a part of that residential, however, it does require open space. and when it was initially submitted and this is a revised plan and why you have revised conditions they had not documented compliance with that open space that is required in addition there were some concerns about pedestrian access access because you can see again coming off west maxwell street into the site all the parking is in the uh in the interior and then in the units There are garages in the units, but this is the vehicular use area where there'll be car movement and turning movements and that sort of thing. The dumpster is located here at the rear of the property. And with this submitted or revised plan, they have delineated the ability for pedestrians to come through the site. The color up doesn't illustrate that quite as strongly as the regular plan does. but they have delineated pedestrian movement through their through their parking lot they've added balconies which was the original proposal the plan just did not did not demonstrate it when it was initially submitted but they they are added balconies to meet that requirement and then another concern and one that you've heard from staff quite a bit is activation along the frontage and they've added landscaping. You can see some green space areas as well as meeting your infill and redevelopment standards on a residential development that requires that orientation. And you can see they have added that as well. They're showing sidewalks into these units that will now front on West Maxwell Street. There's also some additional architectural articulation of these units that are required under 15-7 of the zoning ordinance. There are conditional zoning restrictions on this property that were placed there when it was initially rezoned quite a few years ago. We have a requirement that they denote that the plan shall comply with Article 15-7A of the zoning ordinance. And again, because that's not just the orientation and the access, there are some features required as to, and they have a choice, by the way, of some of the features they can use with windows, covered porches, that sort of thing. And then they need to denote there should be no access. You see this large vehicle use area, and I believe they're showing a fence, but fences, as you know, can be knocked down and moved and that sort of thing. But the same owner owns this property and it's a residential development. And there was some concern about potentially being cross movement on the properties. So we have added a condition that there shall be no access to 430 to this property from this property, unless an amended final development plan is approved and certified. And that would require them, in essence, to incorporate the two properties, which is a good way then to review the access between the two properties. So again, we added that condition that you can see as number 12 on your agenda. If you're wondering about these symbols on the plan, this is a sanitary sewer that is necessary to be brought into the property and allow these units then to have their individual laterals to serve to serve them so again your staff has reviewed this revised plan and we're recommending approval to you today happy to answer your questions you may have and I've got to stop sharing there we go any questions for staff You know it's not like I don't enjoy looking at the planning commission members. I just get caught up in looking at the plan. I don't want to get it. You got six people in here too. Okay, applicant. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, I'm Fred Eastridge with Thoroughbred Engineers. Thank you all for hearing our plan and our conditions. I'm at home kind of being shielded from people. But anyway, the owner is very excited about this job, and he is wanting to make this a very nice-looking and very livable site on West Maxwell. Him and his brother, him and his son-in-law, is going to do the project. They are, I've talked to them about the article about the street frontage along Maxwell Street. They're more than anxious to do anything. They want to make this a very high class, very nice looking development. So they will more, they're more than glad to do anything they need to do to bring this up to the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance and appeal to the neighborhood and the people. Access to 430, they have no desire to access 430. That is a lot that Ms. Childress owns, and they're not planning to access this from this site. This is going to be a standalone development on its own. So adding that note to the development plan is no trouble at all for us. We hope that we've answered most of the conditions and concerns that the staff has had. I haven't had an opportunity to talk to Tom about this thing since I've been indisposed for the week. But I'd like to ask that the Planning Commission please approve this plan so that we can move forward and try to do a nice development on this site. Thank you, Mr. E. If you have any questions, please ask. Thank you. Commission members, do we have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Poe? Am I correct in understanding that the two buildings to the west side of the proposal would be approximately adjacent to the two buildings at 430, the buildings on Spring Street? Sir, I need to look at that and see. Hold on for one moment. I'll bring up Google Earth and be able to answer your question, sir. Well, I think I can bring up Google Earth. I was getting ready to look in the file for an aerial. I got it here. I'm sorry. When you get somebody looking at you, staring at you, the computer wouldn't work or the something doesn't work. Well, Graham pulled it up on his phone. Graham, hold it up for a minute. You already know the answer. You know the answer to it. Yes. At first, I thought those might have been the buildings that were already there, but then I realized that because they appear to be almost exactly the same size as the proposed buildings. So I'm correct in assuming that those buildings on the west side of the property are new buildings and they would be more or less adjacent to the buildings that front on Spring Street. That is correct. Everything on this side is new construction, sir. So do we know how much space there is between the new buildings and those two buildings? It was probably at least six or eight feet. I can't read it. 2.6? 2.6? Or 2.5. Two feet six inches. Did you hear that, Graham? Yeah. Okay. Would you say I didn't hear? I'm sorry. The plan appears to indicate two and a half feet, Fred. From my building to the property line, correct, and then to the other building. So the other buildings would also probably have a two and a half foot. Right. Could be a slight offset. Okay, I just was unsure about what that was going to look like. I understand, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? We have anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item, please do so by raising your hand via Zoom. I'm seeing it. We'll bring it back to the commission. The floor is open. any questions or in motion. Okay, Mr. Poe. I move to approve the PLNMJDP 22 to Gibbs property 22 to Gibbs property at 424 West Maxwell Street development plan. With the conditions, 15 conditions recommended by staff. Thank you, Mr. We have a second. Now, Mr. DeMolden, any further discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Eastridge. Thank you all. I appreciate everything. Have a great day. You too. Next up, we're on the zoning items. Phase 6. This is PLNMAR 21-20. We also have one letter of support. Two letters. Is there two in there? It's front and back. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Two letters of support for the application. So I will hand this off to have. Thank you very much, sir. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. And Mr. Martin is giving me a thumbs up. This is PLNMAR 21-00020, CalGill Incorporated. This is a zone change for the property or a portion of the property located at 340 Legion Drive from a neighborhood business or a B1 zone to a high-rise apartment or the R5 zone for approximately 1.6 net and 1.7 gross acres. The applicant is seeking to situate this in the corridor place type and the medium-high density residential development type in the hopes of developing a four-story multifamily residential structure and the associated parking. The proposed structure is seeking to contain a total of 91 one-bedroom units with a total density of 57 dwelling units per net acre. Jumping into the site, we are located off of Legion Drive, which is a local street that connects between South Broadway, one of our major arterial roadways in our city, and Man-of-War Place, which acts almost as a collector street feeding in towards Waller Avenue. This area is particularly interesting as we are moving out of town in the fact that there is a host of different zoning, but there is a real transition as you move away from South Broadway towards Man of War Place. We'll jump a little more into the area just to look at that zoning. As you can see here, along South Broadway, it is primarily comprised of business zoning, the neighborhood business B1 zone, with a little bit of B3, or the highway service business zone, along South Broadway, and then along Waller Avenue. You can see that as we move back off of South Broadway, there is a shift from that commercial-type zoning to a residential-type zoning. Up along American and Burley Avenue. They're primarily single-family detached R1D zoning. As we move closer to Waller, we shift towards a higher-density residential zoning. In this case, it's the high-density apartment R4 zone. Just jumping to the aerial, you get a view of what the land use has been in this area. Again, getting at the single-family detached along Burley and American, and then shifting into a little bit more of the multifamily residential, and then a lot of that commercial opportunities located along South Broadway and Waller Avenue. One aspect of this aerial that I think is very important to point out is the fact that that yellow block indicates the area of rezoning. It actually indicates that we're going to be leaving a portion of the property as a neighborhood business or B1 zone, and the applicant is seeking to rezone the essentially easternmost portion to that R5 zone. The building that is on this site is being proposed to be removed, and the applicant is really focused on filling in this portion of the site here. The fact that the applicant is seeking to leave the B1 portion does play into the fact that they are also looking to obtain a traditional use permit for this site to keep the B1 portion as a standalone parking lot that would be utilized by the residential. We'll talk about that here shortly after we do the review of the zone change and then the development plan. Getting a view into the site itself, in the center photo you are looking into the area of the potential rezoning. This is what they are applying for for the R5 area and where they are seeking to develop their four-story structure. On the leftmost photo on the top, that is Legion Drive heading down into South Broadway. You can see the Lexington Clinic standing there. And then on the rightmost top photo heading up Legion Drive, moving towards Man of War Place. The street does have a fair amount of trees that are lining the extension of this, and the applicant is seeking to continue that with this development. On the bottom photo, you can actually see what is established currently. This is the business complex. It's more of a strip complex that extends across the entirety of the site. One aspect that was brought up by the applicant within their letter of justification and much of their materials is the area that slopes down for this site. As you can see, there is a bit of a great change from the top or the leftmost portion of the structure down to the rightmost portion of the structure. However, this area in which there is the most amount of slope is actually not the area that is being proposed for a rezoning. This is not the area that is going to be impacted the most by the construction of the multi-storied structure. Another look into the site with that top center photo, just looking into the parking that would be replaced by the proposed development. On the left side, we see the residential multi-family structure. It's hidden by a lot of those trees, but that is across the street on Legion Drive heading towards Man of War Place. You can actually see that building right here as we're looking down Legion Drive. And then on the right top photo is another multifamily residential structure that is on the same side of the street as this proposed development. And you can see that right here. With any zone change application, we are looking at the place builder for guidance and recommendations as how this would work. The applicant is seeking to apply this as the corridor place type. When staff was looking at this, it was really one of those strange positions in which it could be one of two different options. In this case, since Legion Drive is just that local that connects between an arterial roadway and then over to Manowar Place, which connects down to another collector-level street. The applicant believed that this was more of that corridor feel. This also plays into the fact that they are keeping some of that commercial operation that would be drawing a little bit more from what is happening on South Broadway. The applicant is seeking to apply the medium to high-density residential development type. This development type is focused on multifamily residential. It is meant to provide a delineated street that provides a vertical space that leads you down into the street, allows for a fair amount of interaction between the development and the public right of way. We're also looking to make sure that we're obtaining some multimodal options within both the development and connections to establish multimodal options like our LexTrans services. And finally, the applicant is seeking the R5 zone, which is a recommended zone within this area. Across these three elements, the two elements, the corridor place type and the medium to high density residential development type, staff agreed that they could be appropriate at this location, provided that the applicant was able to meet the recommendations of the comprehensive plan, specifically the place builder criteria. Here we get just a quick view of the development plan that is being proposed for this site. This is particularly important as we move forward with some of staff's recommendations for this development and the zone change. You can see the westernmost portion of the site is being utilized as parking. and then the building is being primarily located or all the way located against that rightmost or the easternmost property line. The applicant is seeking to have a entryway facing the parking lot and an exit from a stairwell here along the frontage of the property. The applicant did supply a few renderings. I'll touch on two. The applicant does have a video that has been uploaded it to your Google Drive. That shows some of the movement through Legion Drive towards this development site. I recommend that if you have time as where I'm talking, but still listen to me, that you can go through that. Well, we gave it to LexTV to show. LexTV also has it to show, should you want to watch that as well. All right. So this is the rendering, one of the renderings that the applicant has supplied for this development. With any multifamily residential development that has come through with a zone change, the 2018 comprehensive plan increased a little bit of the scrutiny that we were looking to see with some of the new developments. This was largely to deal with some of the concerns that we've been hearing from our neighborhood groups, as well as the developers to provide greater information as to what staff is looking for and what the comprehensive plan is calling for with new multifamily development. That really falls into the multifamily design standards. While staff is very happy to see a development like this coming through, a multifamily that has a higher density and is looking to establish a four-story kind of opportunity within our community that is also targeted not only to college students, but to young professionals, there are still remaining concerns. And those remaining concerns really fall into a few different levels, but securely fall into that multifamily design standards and how the applicant is actually addressing them with this site. As you know, the development criteria and the multifamily design standards are actually distillations of the policies, goals, and objectives of the comprehensive plan. And to apply them to a site would actually show compliance or agreement with the comprehensive plan. So in staff's review of this application, we did recommend postponement previously. However, there are still some remaining concerns that staff has, and they do really fall into two separate categories. The first really focused on the activation of the front wall plane facing Legion Drive. A lot of our criteria or the standards within the multifamily design standards of Appendix A of the comprehensive plan get into making sure that new development, especially our multifamily, is activating the street frontage, seeking to minimize the blank wall faces and seeking to promote pedestrian safety and activity along our public right of ways. This is supported also with some of our development criteria that are not strictly associated with multifamily design standards. Building orientations are meant to maximize connections to the surrounding areas, creating a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Development should provide a pedestrian-oriented and activated ground level. These are really focused on that interaction of the subject development and that public right of way. This is further supported by the goals and objectives of the comprehensive way in the fact that new residential higher density developments are supposed to be respectful of the existing neighborhoods character in this case, the character of the area is really focused along fronting on that Legion way or Legion drive right of way. Property is meant to fit into the existing neighborhood and include activated entrances that improve pedestrian accessibility and neighborhood interaction, focused on that movement from the private development into that public space. And then the achievement of an effective and comprehensive transportation system that is making properties accessible to pedestrians, public transit, and commuters. With this development, what we are seeing here is somewhat of a problematic frontage. The applicant is seeking to put their primary entrance into the site facing the parking area. This is problematic on two separate levels. One, we're not seeing that activation of the front wall plane and that activation of the interaction between private and public. Two, it is also creating a situation of potential health and safety concerns. Should an individual be walking from South Broadway to this project, it would entice an individual to walk across the parking lot rather than to walk across the delineated sidewalks and take you right to the front of the building. Additionally, as represented by this rendering of the building, there are large blank faces that are associated with this structure. The front of this property is actually being utilized not as an entryway, but as an exit from the staircase. This produces a few different issues within the comprehensive plan, but also from a health, safety, and welfare perspective. The importance of activation and front-facing entries really falls into two separate things on this. The health and safety aspect, there is the eyes on the street perspective of increased social action or interaction and decreased potential safety issues. As you can see with one of our photos right here, it is all about that kind of that interaction between spaces, between people that really do help make spaces, streets, roadways a little bit safer. It makes it a little bit more comfortable and it also produces a fair amount of interaction. That's that's what we're really looking for. Activation interaction. And then going back to the statement that I made previously about safer and shorter access to public rights of way. With all of our new developments, one of the major aspects of this is really trying to cut down on putting people into conflict with more auto-centric developments. With this proposed development, it is really focused on the vast majority of the site being a parking area and a much smaller portion of the site being dedicated to that residential structure. Additionally, the site context for this area really is residential development that is focused on Legion Drive. As you can see with the two developments, the studios, as well as the across-the-way, almost townhouse-looking development, they're both multifamily. They both have entries and large-scale entryways off of Legion Drive into their development. Why do we push for street activation and access? It's really based around the best practices and some of the standards that are being developed from a nationwide perspective. Currently, the nationwide best practices really talks about minimum transparency, trying to gain greater amounts of interaction between a building and those occupants and the people outside. In this case, and for most best practices, there's a minimum of transparency of 25 percent for residential uses. Additionally, there is a push for usable pedestrian entryways provided every 50 feet along a right-of-way. So these are not just things that Lexington is seeking to incorporate, but it is a national best practice for new residential development. It's further discussed in the LEED Neighborhood Development Standards, and they match very similarly to the national best practices. Additionally, there is a little bit of a concern that we have from the Multifamily Design Standards in Appendix 1 regarding the open space and some of the views on that open space. In this case, the applicant is doing a bit of open space along that eastern boundary of the site. They have a very programmed outdoor open space along this portion of the site here. And then they are continuing that down to the other back portion of the site. And this falls into one concern in the fact that this is a fenced area with little to no surveillance or clear connection with the overall development. It's kind of tucked away in the rear. And then there is little engagement with the rest of the site for this open space. It is separated and kind of in a dark area of the entirety of the site. So with this, while staff sees this as a potential great development, there are recommended modifications that we are making regarding this development to try to make it in greater compliance and agreement with the comprehensive plan. Staff recommends that 40% of the proposed building wall plane be fronted on Legion Drive and shift the primary active or activity for the building to that Legion Drive entrance area. And then that main entryway be located on Legion Drive, and then 25% of the wall plane be transparent. Getting into the rear open space, staff is recommending that there is increased transparency at that rear area to allow for greater natural surveillance. Due to the fact that staff sees this as being able to reach agreement with the comprehensive plan with these modifications, staff is recommending approval with those modifications. With those modifications, staff sees that this project would encourage the expanded housing choices and offer additional housing options for that South Broadway corridor that's located within the downtown UK and other key activity centers of Lexington. Those key activity centers being the hospitals and other medical facilities that are located very close to this area. The proposed development would be able to accommodate the growing demand for housing in Lexington with that higher density residential, which would also be respectful of the existing neighborhoods character and intensity, which is along that Legion Drive frontage and transitioning into the more commercial development. The proposed development would enhance a well-designed neighborhood by playing into the activated entrances and improve the pedestrian accessibility. And then finally, the development would work to achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system for all individuals playing into the established public transportation and then also a pedestrian facility that is activated and interacted with. The staff is recommending because with these modifications, they would be meeting the site design building form and location development criteria, as well as the transportation criteria and the green space and environmental health development criteria. As with all zone changes, this is incumbent on the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 21-00065, which Ms. Wade will be happy to present here just in a second. um with that that is a review of the zoning application uh if you have any questions for myself or any of the other staff members we'd be happy to answer them now i'll see anything i'll turn it over to miss wade oh i think i just saw mr pole's hand raised oh Just real quick, I'm in complete agreement with your take on this. I'm a little bothered by the fact that the proposal as presented is vastly different from from what we would see should the staff suggestions be adopted. I agree that the staff suggestions would result in a far, far superior development. Is there a problem with approving zone change when the applicant's materials are so far from where you think they should be going and where I think they should be going? So, sir, the applicant and staff have discussed this several times, and many of their concerns regarding the situation of the building, it falls into two categories. They're concerned with the topography of the overall site, as well as the operations of the site itself. Those were the concerns that they had voiced to staff previously. It has been indicated to staff that they would like to have this discussion and have the planning commission decide how they should move forward, specifically looking for the planning commission to discuss their options and hear their argument and make a decision between maybe what staff has to say and what they have. We were a little bit hindered on this one in the fact that there were two opportunities to talk at a zoning committee meeting that did not come to fruition due to snow and then a rainy day. Thank you. Yes, sir. And I'll turn it over to Ms. Wade. So, as with most of our development plans, we have a preliminary development plan associated with that. with that so I'll share the screen. And our development plan is MJDP 21-65 for Candia Corporation and they are calling the Legion Drive Apartments. The applicant did provide a colored rendering for us so that always helps in in terms of seeing what's going on on the site. The applicant's proposing a multifamily residential building, and Hal mentioned the 1.6 acres of property proposed for rezoning. So that multifamily structure is depicted on their development plan to the southeast side property line. It's approximately, or will house approximately 91-bedroom dwelling units, four stories in height. In addition, there's 0.7 acres of the site that would remain in the B1 zone, as opposed to the 1.6 acres being rezoned to the R5. the residential building as well as open space to the rear that Mr. Bailey mentioned, and then some open space that's open to the common open space, I guess, to the front of the building along Legion Drive, as well as 80 parking spaces on the site. And then an additional 50 parking spaces are proposed in the B1, all of which are necessary to meet the requirements for the 91-bedroom apartment building. They have asked for a bicycle parking reduction as well, so that's what reduced the parking requirements down to 130 spaces. But you can see, although they left a B1 portion of the property for, we believe, for future development, at this point, they need all of the parking spaces depicted on this development plan for to meet the requirement for the proposed multifamily structure. Again, in terms of some orientation, I don't know how if you mentioned the particular uses, this is a on their development plan that they amended. There was already an approved car wash and it does enter from South Broadway and then the drive aisle comes along a shared property line. You circle back and then you enter the car wash heading back towards South Broadway and exit very, very close to the South Broadway right of way. And then there's an opportunity on their site to do some interior cleaning of your vehicle before you leave. This is in essence a one-way circulation for the entire car wash so it enters off south broadway and then their exit is partially on the subject property and that exit then comes along the north northern northwestern property line out to legion drive they are providing landscape buffering along that shared well the access easement and then also landscaping between the B1 and the R5 proposed for the site. Another use that I think Mr. Bailey mentioned, the RVs is just to the north here, and there are other commercial and mostly residential to the east and south of the site. Although the applicant submitted a revised development plan two days ago, there weren't really any major changes to that. We're proposing at this point, consistent with what Mr. Bailey mentioned, some changes to the development plan prior to it being certified and then potentially future changes for the final development plan. The planning staff is recommending that if this plan is approved and be approved provided the urban county council rezones the property with our six standard conditions for sign-offs related to zone changes and then on page two some changes so in one of the issues that the staff brought up early on was where the stormwater detention might occur on the site and that has not specifically been delineated at this point. We understand that they will work with the Division of Engineering to accommodate any stormwater requirements and so we believe that can be addressed at the final development plan stage. So on our revised conditions for you today on the Google Drive condition 8 which is on page 2 would be to resolve stormwater detention at the time of a final development plan. Condition 9, 10, and 11 are a bit more detailed and nuanced for you today. Number 9 was originally discussed, the compliance with the multifamily design standards, which are, again, adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. We do think that those can be addressed at a final development plan stage. And typically, we do that through renderings and some site plan changes. In this case, the staff is recommending four specific changes being made at the time of the final development plan, and that would be including providing the primary building entrance oriented to Legion Drive, providing a minimum of 25% transparency or fenestration along the front wall plane. Again, I hope that would be along Legion Drive. To break up the building mass with facade articulation. on all sides by using either varying roof shapes, exterior wall setbacks, material color changes, or landscaping. And then lastly, to address the multifamily design standards to modify the open space at the rear of the site to allow for easy access and greater natural surveillance. And those I think are consistent with what Mr. Bailey mentioned in terms of the multifamily design standards that the staff believes are not being complied with at this point. Condition, new condition number 10, instead of discussing the building orientation, the staff believes that at this point on this development plan, the planning commission should require that the building be modified to allow for the orientation to Legion Drive. And I'm going to show you in a way for we believe that it can be accommodated. Instead of a singular linear building, the staff believes that this site could accommodate an L-shaped building and in that manner meet that condition to allow for the structure to be oriented more towards Legion Drive. At this point, the building is 238 or proposed to be 238 feet long, and we believe if 40% of that length were depicted along Legion Drive, that it would, in essence, provide that pedestrian orientation and activated ground level. And in addition, we feel that the office associated with the multifamily could also be located up along Legion Drive and in that way encourage more activation along the frontage as opposed to what's currently depicted as the center of the site away from the public right away. The last condition of the SAS recommendation would be provided that the Planning Commission approves the conditional use for a parking lot. And we do have a conditional use application that was applied for in association with this application. And that would be necessary to be adopted as part of or approved as part of this application in order for it to be consistent with the requested subject. I'm happy to answer any questions about the development plan at this time. Or any questions about anything else? Okay. Well, Hal's going to tell you a little bit about the conditional use and then we'll open it back up to the athletes. Yes, sir. Hey, Graham, did you raise your hand at the end? I'll wait until Hal's done. Sure. Okay. Okay. Thank you, sir. I'll go ahead and share the screen. So this is up there just to give a little bit of knowledge to our members of the zoning committee who had heard this in December. There was a variance request submitted with this application initially. However, with that variance request, staff worked with the applicant. They modified their application and withdrew this request. However, at the same time, did request a conditional use for a parking lot in a neighborhood business B1 zone. This is specifically for this portion of the site here that is not being rezoned. The applicant indicated that they were seeking to keep this as the B1 zone in an effort to utilize it to basically support the residential, but in hopes that there might be a modification of the zoning ordinance at some point in time in the future that would allow them to drop their parking to essentially one parking space per dwelling unit. When staff was reviewing their request, we saw that they did make a few modifications to the site, which means that the applicant would be having individuals come in off of Legion Drive and then entering into this standalone parking that would be supported. The applicant is providing a delineated path from that parking area to the structure, and they also would have access over to the right-of-way. They are closing down the previous access that would have been allowable to leave the site and entrance to enter Legion Way from this access easement, and they're replanting that position. So staff, within looking at this, saw that the parking lot should have no adverse influence on the existing or future development of the subject property or surrounding area. The proposed design of the parking lot meets the requirements of Article 16 and would possibly allow future development should there be a modification of the parking regulations. This recommendation of approval is made subject to the following conditions, including the Urban County Council approving the R5 zone change, the development be constructed in accordance with the approved final development plan or as amended by the Planning Commission. The B1 zone portion of the property shall not have direct access to Legion Drive. This is actually really tied to that residential component in the fact that the applicant is asking for this to be a standalone, but in support of the residential side of things. This is truly working together as it is now. should the applicant no longer need the B1 zone portion of the property for their required parking for the residential and they would go through a development plan to put some sort of business at that location this conditional use would not actually be pertinent anymore so they would be able to go forward with that and then furthermore that all necessary permits would be obtained by the division of planning traffic engineering engineering and building inspection and that the action of the Planning Commission be denoted on the development plan for the subject property. So that is a quick one on that one. And if you have any questions regarding the conditional use, I'm here to answer those questions. And then we have other members of staff that are here as well. Do you want to ask a question now? Yeah. So I understand staff recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Could someone briefly express the staff's recommendations regarding the zoning map amendment and the variance request? So the variance request has been withdrawn. So there's no longer a need for any action on that item. With the zone change, the staff sees a modification of the development plan as Ms. Wade presented it, as bringing this development into a greater agreement with the comprehensive plan. Staff sees that with those modifications, the applicant would be in agreement and therefore could recommend approval. So it is very much incumbent upon some of those modifications occurring. The building and some of the other aspects described with the activation of that street frontage and that tree. So, but for our purposes today, those changes have not been made, right? No, sir, they have not. And this is one of the aspects of the discussion that you will have to have with the applicant in whether they are willing or not willing to adjust their development plan or how they might do so. With all zone change applications, for an application to be forwarded along to the urban county council, the planning, the development plan or the preliminary development plan in this case needs to be signed within two weeks of the planning commission's action. If the applicant in this case was not willing to go forward with the development plan and meeting the requirements set out by the planning commission, the zone change would be null and void. Thank you. You're welcome. Any further questions for staff? I see anything at the moment. Advocate? Yes, sir. And then also, I'm sure Carson Bowman, should also want to come in and comment uh kevin warner okay good good afternoon uh can everybody hear me yes good okay thanks um i'm zach cato billings law firm we represent the applicant in this case um applicants represented by Carson Bauman, who's on the call, and our design professional is Kevin Warner at Carmen. He's also on here and can answer any questions you have. A lot of this stuff has been discussed kind of extensively. So what I want to do is kind of focus my comments on there is where I think the disagreement is on some of these and explain why our project looks the way that it does. So let me pull up some, pull up my screen here. You guys see a PowerPoint there? Yes. So this really has three components of this application. The zone change, the development plan, the conditional use permit, the sort of standards that you look at for each one of them are a little bit different. It's not all the same, but they all three obviously go together and fit together. So the zone change is the most, I guess, important part of this. It's kind of the thing that ties it all together. you're bound by statute from the General Assembly and Frankfurt tells you what standard is, what the standard is to approve a zone map amendment. And that is the primary one is whether or not the zone change is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. There's two other ways you can do it. This is the one that we think that we satisfy here. And I think we're, we can hopefully satisfy you all that by the end of my comments. The comprehensive plan is a, It's a guide. It gives the direction to the planning commission, to the council to make decisions. At the end of the day, every single part of the comp plan, it's not a checklist. It's not a set of minimums. If you don't do this, you can't do that. The comprehensive plan is a guiding force. You get your goals and objectives. You try to satisfy as many as you can looking at the particular project that's in front of you. And if there's substantial evidence supporting the application, it would be appropriate to approve the zone change. And I think we can go through that here today. So some of the goals and objectives that we think are satisfied here, just to summarize these at a high level, is under the growing successful neighborhoods theme, we're going to add new housing choices in this area. This applicant already owns two other developments that are kind of adjacent to the studios at Belmont and Belmont Run. And those have very high occupancy rates. They're basically full because there's a need for housing in this area, just like there is everywhere in Lexington. So we're going to add some housing choices. We're going to increase the intensity and density on this site from what it is today, which is a major goal and objective in the comprehensive plan is to do that within the urban service boundary so that we protect the farmlands outside the service boundary. And it goes to that. We're also going to be making major improvements when it comes to neighborhood connectivity and pedestrian connectivity. Because as of today, the pictures you've seen earlier, it's basically a strip of professional office space with parking lot in front and to the side. We're going to be adding pedestrian connections on the street, throughout the property, across the parking lot. It's near a Lex Tran stop that can be accessed. So there's going to be some major... upgrades and improvements from what's there today. Under theme D, this kind of fits in the same thing with pedestrian and allowing for bicycles, transit, rideshare, other types of opportunities for transportation. Staffs, I think, in agreement that the corridor is appropriate here, medium-high this zone would be appropriate for a property like this in the area, subject to the comments Mr. Bailey made earlier. As far as outreach in the neighborhood, you heard at the beginning from Mr. Forrester that there's been two letters of support submitted. That's what I had heard as well. um we've reached that we've talked to staff extensively about this both with myself involved and with just the applicant and the design team involved about multiple aspects of this project before and after filing and before filing the applicant also sent out some letters to the neighborhood people in the area saying hey here's what we're thinking about doing do you have any thoughts do you have any concerns you want to talk about it and have some discussions with people that live in this neighborhood. There's not a neighborhood association or a homeowners association here, so there's not really a single person to go talk to like there can be in some areas, but the applicant did talk to Jenny Daly, who lives in this area, and she submitted a letter of support, and we were also told that Walt Gaffield, who's also on the Fayette County neighborhood council had voiced his support as well. Although if he submitted a letter, I don't think I've seen it, but I was totally good. So the point being, there's been no objection from the community, from the neighborhood, from any of the commercial tenants or owners around that there's not been any objection from any of the community stakeholders, which is, in my experience unusual but great i'm not complaining um so again the context for the for the comprehensive plan what we're looking at is is sort of addressed in the comprehensive plan itself that we're looking it's supposed to be flexible but focused we're taking these big principles and kind of whining those down to some vague, not vague, but some more focused, but still open design concepts to have some sort of standardized plan for development, but without locking everything down into being exactly the same as every place else in town. um the what i come back to on this in law school they teach you the difference between may and must or should and shall or may and shall and it's no different here in the comprehensive plan the design standards repeatedly say applicants should do certain things um meaning should do them when it's feasible or should do them uh when it makes sense um and should try to do probably all of them or it's possible, but it doesn't say that they shall or they must or they have to. And in fact, it doesn't. The place builder goes on to say on page 261, is it a checklist? Arapica is required to meet every single criteria. The answer is no and no. Every site's different. The criteria are meant to catalyze conversation about how proposals, further with the policies and concepts throughout the plan. It's not a mandatory list to be met on all developments. So I say that to give you context for what looks like a lot of conditions on here, but these all relate to design of the site, to design of the building, and what it's going to look like. These don't really have anything to do with whether or not a corridor place type is appropriate, medium high res, medium high density residential is appropriate, or the R5 zone is appropriate, or even whether multifamily use is appropriate here. This is related to building design. So again, here should, should, should, should, should, should, not shall, not must. um all right i don't want to beat that horse to death so coming to the end of the zone change portion of this um coming into today the most recent staff report we got still recommended postponement so that was um um it was new information to me that the staff recommendation has changed i don't know that we have a formal recommendation from the subcommittee because of one I think was canceled due to not canceled but there wasn't a recommendation because there wasn't a quorum and then last week it was canceled due to implement weather so I'm not sure if there's a formal committee recommendation other than from technical review months ago but the recommendation that Mr. Bailey was talking about I think it's a staff recommendation You know, it's always good to hear approval. Although when I get into some of the discussion about the development plan, I'm going to have to, I'm just going to be frank, some of the conditions we simply can't agree to do. and I can get into why on some of those. Some of them we do agree with and some of them we don't. But as for the zone change, this zoning would increase housing options. It's an infill project on an existing developed site within the urban service boundary. So we're going to redevelop it, not expand service area. It's in a neighborhood that needs more housing that's convenient to UK to various health care clinics to have workers that can live where they work and vice versa. And we're making improvements to pedestrian access, particularly compared to what is there today. It'll be a major upgrade from what's there today. It's been that way since, I think, 1976. We're going to kind of modernize that site. So in summary, we think that the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan have been satisfied. about what we've proposed, what we want to do with the zoning, and we'll ask that the zone change is recommended for approval. With that, I want to talk about the preliminary development plan. There's some tension between what the comprehensive plan and place builders say about doing a zone change and what the zoning ordinance is about how it defines a preliminary development plan and what has to be on it. So when you do a zone change, you've really got to go above and beyond to show a lot more than what the zoning ordinance actually requires, which is to kind of give an early idea of what the concept is, understanding that at the final development plan stage, you're going to drill down a lot of these issues. um so the the point being that we're looking at the comprehensive plan and what and how this project fits in with that while at the same time understanding this is a this is still a preliminary plan it's still going to be back in front of you as a final development plan or as an amended plan at some point in the future no matter what so with the site considerations here uh some of these have been addressed, and I just kind of want to hit this at a high level, is you've got existing multifamily residential on three sides. You'll see down in sort of the middle of the screen the Imperial Studio Apartments. Then to the right of that, adjacent to this property, is Belmont Run, which the applicant owns. And then across Legion Drive in the upper right, You've got the studios at Belmont, which the applicant owns. The existing conditions today, there is unscreened parking to the front and side of the building on the site that is in front of you today for the application, as well as at Belmont Run and studios at Belmont. There is unscreened parking in existence in this neighborhood. And by the way, the development that's proposed is for 91 one-bedroom studio apartments geared towards young professionals and healthcare workers primarily. That is also kind of what you have at Belmont run and studios at Belmont. So part of the reason why all this parking is required is because to get the density on the site that it can hold and to achieve those goals under the comprehensive plan, it requires a lot of parking because the way the zoning ordinance is written right now. Hopefully in the future, that requirement will change and we can have all the parking done in a much smaller scale. but right now what's there is what's required because we that's what we have to do so you can also see these parking areas there's not really much screening of any of these parking areas and you've also got it as was addressed earlier the Arby's which is on South Broadway adjacent to our side with the drive-through the call box the engines the headlights kind of coming towards our property and then the car wash and this way kind of explained in detail how that works where they come off south broadway loop around and loop back around to through the blowers and the vacuum bays which extend all the way down on on that property to about right here there's some uncovered vacuum areas then there's like four parking spots two accessible spots and then some employee parking. But there's actually a vacuum of those blowers down here and vacuums all the way down to about right here. So there's some significant generation of noise in some of these areas. You can see going up Legion Drive, there was some pictures showed this earlier. This shows the slope of the effect it's had on the existing as it is today. This is a picture taken earlier this week showing what it looks like, how far above it is due to that slope. We've got studios at Belmont on the left with that large parking area. This is the building on our property further up. This is the rear of the property with some more side parking you can see down in the back of that property. And then if you continue up the top of Legion Drive, it dead ends at a lane drive. If you take a right there, your first right, you come to the parking for Belmont Run. This is what I was talking about where there's two perpendicular apartment buildings with some common parking in the middle. So this is what's, this is what that neighborhood looks like today and what it presumably is going to look like for the foreseeable future. So the plan that's in front of you is kind of consistent with what this neighborhood already has and what it looks like. It's been explained already why we want to keep this B1 remnant. Basically, it is, we have to have it for parking today because otherwise we can't get enough parking on the remainder of the site for what's required in the designing more than this. However, because it's a neighborhood business zone, the idea is to preserve a potential future infill opportunity that could serve this neighborhood, serve the people that live here and that work nearby, that it could be an appropriate place for a market, a small restaurant, a small retail operation of some kind, if the parking requirements are reduced. um if we don't preserve it now we got to go back and rezone it down the road um so this it seems to make more sense to preserve it for now uh since there's a way to do that that's not really very burdensome or confusing it kind of preserves the status quo there and if the parking requirements never change and this has to continue being used for parking it's just going to continue being used the parking. So either it's going to be like what's proposed, which this area, the property is already used for some parking, or eventually down the road, it might be redeveloped if that opportunity presents itself. So that is why we're presenting that. I'll point out that there is actually no longer an access proposed from Legion Drive on B1. All access would be through here. this was done when we changed from the variance request to to the conditional use we've now got green space open space additional landscape buffering added but there will be no connection here for the time for the time being until the use of this lot changes like Mr. Bailey was talking about earlier I just want to point that out that that we're not proposing a new access there currently this property has a professional office building on it it's about 70 percent vacant it's been underutilized for a while is my understanding the new building that we're proposing we would anticipate would have high occupancy which would help activate this property more and have more intense and more dense use. We've also are adding, like I said earlier, some amenities, some pedestrian connectivity, and some landscaping. So the yellow areas you see here is cut shaded in yellow. Along the street, that's existing sidewalk, but all the, on the property itself, all the additional yellow will be pedestrian connectivity on the site to connect it to the rear, to connect it to the rear amenity space. There's also access through the, to and through the building where people can access here, this entry point here, or there's ingress and egress proposed here. This is not just a one-way access. It will be controlled access for safety security reasons that tenants tell the applicant are important to them, particularly since healthcare and young professionals sometimes come and go. They're not coming at, you know, or leaving for work at eight in the morning and coming home at five thirty in the afternoon necessarily. They may have a night shift or work longer hours and they want controlled access, whether it's from the street or it's down here on the building. And then lastly, you can see here we're proposing a significant new landscaping, both along Legion, to give us some buffers and some screening from the parking. The edge, plus some additional plantings here to buffer from the B1 zone, should it ever get developed. And along the rear, which has got new trees plus some additional open space that right now is paved. And unless this gets redeveloped, will presumably continue to be paved for the foreseeable future. We have also added a plaza area here that connects down in this pedestrian area that could potentially have some rideshare pickup opportunities, social engagement opportunities a place for people to gather in addition to the more private areas of the rear of the property and along the back which can be used as a dog run you know a gathering place but people prefer more privacy in the rear so um with the staff report as as i've sort of stated we think we satisfy a number of the design concerns that they have um from the design standards themselves that apply through place builder the building orientation is an issue i'm going to come to in a minute but But I will tell you that the idea of either making an L-shaped building or turning the existing building to be parallel with Legion Drive has been assessed from the applicant's perspective extensively. Because staff communicated to us that they really wanted that done. We looked at that extensively. If we were to do that, it would take away any possibility of preserving that neighborhood business B1 parcel for future use. It would make this an entirely new or an entirely residential property. An L-shaped building would also have some loss of units as far as what they could build, what they've got with the type of development they want to do. There would be several units that may have to be lost. and um the uh excuse me so it is not ideal to have it in addition to the fact that there's the slope requirement the grade change the excuse me the slope and the grade change as I discussed earlier um presents some difficulties with how that is would be constructed and built and I'm to let Mr. Warner speak on that in a second when we get to that. This orientation also works with the existing landscape and slope and grade of the site. It won't require us to go grade everything off. It won't require us to drastically change what the site looks like from a topographical standpoint, we're adding significant pedestrian access across the site, within the site, to the street, and we are screening, and in some cases, depending on which way you're coming up, double screening parking from Legion Drive and from the adjacent properties, which is what their design standards say you should do if you can't place the parking completely behind your building. um so like i said these have been evaluated extensively and this is this is the development that the applicant settled on as far as the multi-family design standards um ingress and egress here with the plaza um enforcing and reinforcing this street frontage It is ingress and egress. It's not just egress only. The increased landscaping, the parking lot screening here, and the open space, the pedestrian access that's being added. All this is something that's not on this site at all today, really, other than a few trees, which will be upgrades. some of the ones we think just don't apply um the the the goal to have as many ground level entrances as possible um for certain types of developments particularly townhouses and some condos that makes sense however with the grade change along legion drive um which makes stepping down the properties for this type of apartment much more difficult um to build and And between that and the fact that our tenants of other developments and that we expect to utilize this development want controlled access, they want interior access, that's what they have told us repeatedly. We just don't think for the people that are most likely to rent these, they are going to want walkout ground level access necessarily for security reasons. And then at the final development plan stage, if we know this project's moving forward, windows, materials, facade, those issues would be more appropriate for a preliminary development plan. we it would we basically have to design the entire project to be able to tell you exactly what we're going to do before we could agree to anything in particular and and that's just too much that's too much for a for a preliminary development plan all right at this point I would like Mr. Warner to to address this exhibit you're looking at here Thank you, Mr. Cato. Can everybody hear me okay? Yes. So what you're looking at is an exhibit that we have prepared a more technical variety to kind of compare the proposed location of the building on the far right of your screen relative to a orientation that is parallel with Legion Drive. And I agree with staff, given if everything else was equal, that is the preferred thing to do, to place the building so that it is along the street and shields your parking lot from view. However, it shouldn't be done at the expense of every other consideration on site design. The green lines that you see indicate contour lines that would be required in order to fill the site, since it slopes from right to left, it actually slopes 16 feet along Legion Drive along our frontage. And so that right away is a 4% grade downhill from right to left. And just for reference, a 5% grade is the maximum slope for an ADA compatible route without handrails. so it's pushing the limits of what is an accessible site and so if this building was to be built parallel to the road it would require that the finished floor elevation of the building would be six feet above the street elevation and that's after we've cut down up at the upper end four feet below which there's an existing condition that way now when the office building was developed, they did cut down the site on the upper end, and they made a very nice flat area on the upper end that our building proposal actually takes advantage of, rather than trying to reconfigure the entire site. If you didn't reconfigure the entire site, you would end up with six feet of exposed foundation, or if you try to step it down, as staff has suggested, these are one-bedroom units that are only 18 feet wide each. And so stepping each one down, if you consider the interior corridor that we have for this building, it would be a continuous ramp landing, ramp landing for every single unit to get down the six feet in elevation from one end to the other. I'm sorry, 10 feet total. We're four feet below the street at the uphill end and six feet above Street downhill end under this scenario. So again that 250 foot long building pad at four percent is a 10 foot grade differential. So that is one reason why we really do not want to turn the building. Secondly the proximity to the car wash and we're showing some dimensions here for reference with our proposed building to the actual car wash building where the loud blowers and and brushes are spinning all the time it's 362 feet relative to 269 feet if you turn the building closer to the street and then also the rb's drive-through that mr cato mentioned earlier, the proximity of the point where the speaker, where you're making your order at the back of Arby's, is only about 50 feet from the property line. So it's a total of about 185 feet from that location to the end of the location of the building that staff has proposed, versus 360 feet from where the applicant has proposed it. The L-shaped building that was just shown today, first time we had seen it with the short L that staff proposed, that is a very inefficient floor plan for residential units because the inside of the L is dead space where you don't have windows for units. So you lose viability for getting the same number of units within the same square footage of a building on the upper floors. Of course, the lower floors, we have community space that's more flexible, but the upper floors, you would lose units by turning an L-shaped building, as they had shown us here earlier. As far as stormwater management, we've actually reduced with our development plan, we've reduced stormwater by 21% over what is there now, which eliminates the need for any sort of stormwater detention or water quality treatment. And so that is certainly an upgrade over what is there now. Earlier, there was some comment made about the rear open space maybe being unsafe or in a dark area of the site right back here. Thank you. That actually has a door directly off of the building on that end. It's directly accessible. It is also going to be a controlled fenced area. So as far as safety and people coming from outside into that area, it's not as dire as someone might think. It's also not going to be dark in that back area. It is a western facing location. I think that was all the comments that I had. Mr. Cato, if you'd like to continue. I know we're running late, running at the end of time, so let me just wrap up here. These are some of the renderings. Staff showed some earlier. These are updated a bit. To give an idea of what the grade, the screening, the new layout would look like with the sort of community space up here and the pedestrian connectivity in front of the building. All I'll say about this is that, like I said earlier, it's primarily going to be young professionals in health care that we would expect here just because of proximity to other things. So, in summary, there's a total of 100 different design criteria between design standards and multifamily that apply on this application. There's approximately 13 that we're still discussing with staff and kind of have some agreement on. But the majority of this, a lot of these things are not really disputed. It's a couple of things, primarily the building orientation, as you've heard. Everything kind of relates to that. And I've submitted some revised or some findings and a in advance of the hearing today that I hope you all have been able to look at. And then lastly, the conditional use, since there's a recommendation of approval on this. All I have to say is that we agree with that, except I'm asking for a little bit of relief on condition C about access to Legion Drive. I think what's written now on the staff report was a little more concrete in saying no access to Legion Drive than what Mr. Bailey said earlier. What I've got written here, I think, is consistent with what he said. No access from the B1 remnant as long as it's being used for parking to serve the R5. um so with a a slight tweak to clarify that which it sounds like i think we're in agreement on that when i heard him say um that's all i have to to add to the conditional use so sorry for going a minute or two over here but i appreciate your patience this is a project that this applicant's fired up about and spent a lot of time on and kevin's been tremendous in working on this staff has been helpful in talking to us. And I think they're excited about it, even though we can have a difference in opinion on some of the design stuff. But I hope you'll vote to recommend approval for the zone change, the development plan, and the conditional use permit so we can move forward. Happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Mr. K.O. and Mr. Warner. Before that, Hal, do you want to speak on, or is it the conditional use permit item C? Oh, we can get to that on our rebuttal, sir. You want to do it, but okay. Is there anyone here to speak? Yeah, I'm going to get that first. I just want to ask you that. Okay. Before we go to that portion, do we have any commission members who'd like to ask any further questions of the applicant? Mr. Polk? The proposal as drawn has a six-foot retaining wall at the corner of the building adjacent to Legion Drive. And that retaining wall runs all the way down the backside of the building. so I'm wondering how deep that retaining wall is as it approaches the far corner of the building at the rear. I'll defer to Kevin on that one. The wall does not actually extend the entirety of the back of the site. It goes about halfway down. The property does start to drop slightly as you go to the rear of the property. So the wall, the current wall that's there now, there was a photo earlier, I think you may have seen that it diminishes down to zero. So would it diminish to zero by the time it reaches the amenity location in the middle of the building? About the middle of the building is where it would go away, yes. you can see there and that wall's not quite as tall as what we propose it's it's uh i think four four to five feet now at the highest point just to flatten out the site a little better for the building we were making it a foot taller thank you uh yes mr bell yes mr cato um do you happen to know or anybody know the age of the adjoining properties um the studios of belmont the belmont run and the imperial studios apartments how old are those apartments would you happen to know that about i've got it pulled up so i can tell you in about 10 seconds. Thank you so much. Pending the PVA website cooperating with me at least. 1975 it looks like for Belmont Run which is a year before the building on our site was built which in 76 on our site and then across the street the studios at Belmont according to the PVA site was 1984. Okay. Thanks so very much. Yeah, Mr. Nickel. Yes, this question is for, I guess, Mr. Cato. It is common practice to build a building and then try to find additional locations where you can use the same plans with minor adjustments other than the site development plan. Is that the case we have with this existing, I mean, with the plan that you're proposing? And the reason I'm bringing that up is because in a quote, if I were to quote a state of emergency for affordable housing, we need to find locations where we can, don't have to go through the architecture and design process over and over and over again and can deliver housing units as quickly as possible. So the question is, is this plan, are these plans being reused from a different site? And if not, how long would it take to make adjustments to the plan to meet the recommendations of staff. So as to the, Kevin might be able to better say about how long he thinks it would take to retool this. I have an idea, but that's not what I would do. Carson, I think I know what the answer is, but do you want to speak to this? Sure. With this proposed plan, we are at a point where we could release for construction documents. We have our full unit layouts, site plan, or building plan, and we have bids for construction documents as well. And I think to the other question you asked about using this type of floor plan, this type of development in other places, I think was your question. Could the same stuff be used in other properties? if this works from getting it permitted from from a city perspective we're able to build it i think i think this is one that can be reused on a site that's the right size so to your point yeah there is there would be some efficiencies gained from that perspective yeah i mean what i think of what i was getting at is this the same building that has been built by the same ownership group or developer on downtown? That's the question. Yeah. Yes. Can you please describe that building? Tell me your occupancy, how quickly you leased it up, and give me your quick elevator pitch on that. Okay. It's a flexible building. It's got 119 studio apartments. This is very similar layout to those units. It's flexible leasing where we're an apartment building, but we can do shorter term leases, longer term leases. Our average lease there is above six months. So we are seeing longer term leases there. Our occupancy stays between 95 and 100 percent. As of today, you can see there it's at 96 percent. And that's the Studios 180, which is our downtown project. We leased it up a lot quicker than we expected to. we were only about 13 months when we reached 100% for the first time, and we've not dropped below 90% since. And some of that is just the nature of being flexible, and we don't have a certain time of year like you do at a lot of student properties where you have high vacancy at a certain point. This has really been a well-rounded building for us, and that's why we're eager to to kind of take what we learned there, improve upon it, and build it again in this location. Thank you. And that wasn't said to diminish the suggestions from our planning staff. It's just a comment on the practicality of the development of the project. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant before we move on to the citizens' components? You're not seeing any. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this particular application? You can do so by raising your hand via Zoom. we have a peter e brown mr brown mr brown mr brown you've been promoted to a panelist you can start your video and unmute yourself brown there you go can you hear me okay yes sir okay um first of all i want to say that i'm a former member of the um board of adjustment and so I want to thank all the planning commission members for their service. Then I want to say my office is located at 389 Elaine Drive, which is parallel to Legion Drive. If you are picking up a whistling noise, that's the car wash vacuum that is right outside my window here. I have a couple questions for the applicant or maybe staff. So I understand there's 91 units in the apartment complex. I'm guessing that's going to equal to about 182 cars. I'm wondering how many parking spots there are in the development. I'm sorry if that was mentioned in the presentation. I just didn't hear it. I'm sorry. Kevin, do you want to address that? It is at 130 parking spaces, sir. For the overall site, they have applied a few different reductions to get it down to that level. But the requirement is for 130. Okay. All right. Well, that's good. And across the street from me on a lane drive, I don't know if everyone's familiar with our neighborhood here, But there are two large four-story hotels that are going in. And so, excuse me, with this development we're talking about here and the development on the other side of a lane drive, I'm concerned about parking. My second question, the western part of the development that's getting the conditional use permit. It's my understanding from the presentation, this would be parking now, but could be developed with some kind of structure in the future. Am I understanding that correctly? Should the regulations change? Yes, it could be developed, but at this point in time, there are no regulations that have been changed for this area, so they are required to keep that portion for parking for this site. Okay, well, is there any way a recommendation could be added that would restrict future development so that it's always maintained as parking? I don't believe, sir, that that would be a recommendation that could be made to require something that is already being met by the ordinance. Mr. Chairman, Hal, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Mr. Chairman, this is public comment. I don't believe this is an appropriate line of questioning at this point in our hearing. Yes, sir. Okay, well, if I'm breaking the rules here, I apologize. We generally limit it to three minutes of public comment, but not necessarily question and answer. And many of the items, Mr. Brown, that you've brought up, we've discussed over the past hour and a half. Okay, I'm sorry if I didn't hear them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dibbs. Mr. Brown, do you have anything further besides that? No, that's it. Those are my two concerns, and I'm sorry if I didn't hear it during the presentation. Thank you. You're fine, sir. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak on behalf of this particular application? I'm not seeing any of it. Bring it back to staff. Do you want to go or do you want an applicant to go first? The applicant should be avert. He should. You're standing at the podium. Yes. Just ready for you. Okay. Mr. Cato? As far as rebuttal to the public comment, I don't really have anything to add. We're doing our parking on site. We don't anticipate, because of the amount we're providing, we'll just anticipate there be any spillover parking. I don't think that's been an issue with the applicants' other similar developments, so we don't anticipate that would be an issue here either. And I think the other stuff has already been addressed, so I don't have anything for the to say on that. Okay, thank you. Now, Al, you ready? Yes, sir, I am. So, in terms of the staff's recommendation today, staff had recommended postponement previously. It is staff's normal procedure to make a recommendation at the public hearing if they had been at a postponement recommendation previously. That's why we came to you with the recommendation that we came to you today with. The staff is supportive of the density, the housing type, the increased tree canopy, and many other of the aspects of this, but there is a real concern regarding agreement with the comprehensive plan and the health, safety, and aspect perspective of the orientation of this building. Specifically, to answer Mr. Nichols' question, there is a little bit of an issue with some of the discussion about the other units that have been constructed. The applicant does reference the flats located on 4th Street and the MLK project. Both of those structures are actually L-shaped structures. The applicant has also applied for another L-shaped structure associated with the flats at Blackburn and 4th Street. So the applicant has constructed multifamily housing with an L-shaped structure in other areas throughout town and has transferred those between sites. With the ADS or AD4 and AD5 regarding the fenestration of the structure of the windows, staff does have real concern about that. There are large portions of the structure that have no windows looking onto space. And in regards to dark spaces, staff sees dark spaces not as light and dark, day or night, but in terms of natural surveillance, in terms of making sure that there are eyes on space so that there is interaction between different areas. That's specifically focused on that rear portion of the site. The EPCAN did note the grade of the site. The land subdivision regulations get into grading at 15%. ADA is really at 5%. This is at less than 4% if an L-shaped structure were to be developed. The staff did have conversations with the applicant's representatives several times throughout this process. There was no depiction of an L-shape developed by staff, but there was a fair amount of conversation with the applicant previously. Staff is very supportive of density in our area. We just want to make sure that density is done in the appropriate way and the way that is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. These are really important developments to our community, and we would like to see them hold tight over the entirety of their use. On that, sir, that's all we have. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're going to bring us back to the commission. Any further questions the commission may have? First off, Mr. Poe. I'm in complete agreement with the staff's position on this. So I'm going to preface my comments by saying I'm not really sure how we should vote on this it seems to me that the applicant is not open to the staff's suggestions, which means that we probably should not approve this application. But I'd like the staff to reflect on that at the end of my comments, if they would. I think it's fine to reuse a building in an appropriate place. I think that if you look at this proposal, you've got a corner of the building sunken six feet into the ground. I think if you looked at other sites where they've used this plan, you've got flat sites and you don't have to sink it into the ground. To pretend that a fire stair entrance and exit is a significant egress, ingress for the building is somewhat insulting. it's very obvious that that's not a place where people will be coming and going much at all if at all it's certainly not a place where someone would see individuals on the street or people on the street would see individuals in the building on a regular basis and that's the whole point of the suggestion that buildings should have interactive qualities between the interior of the building and the street for public safety purposes, just for a humane environment. it. So it's clear to me, I mean, I've redesigned plans like this a million times. Turning a corner is not the end of the world. I mean, you can put closets in spaces like that. You can put all kinds of amenities, mechanical rooms. There's lots of things you can use those dead spaces for without sacrificing much at all. So bottom line, as you can tell, I'm a little hacked off. And the reason I am is that I think that it's really important that this city steps up. And we need cooperation. We have a comprehensive plan that's a really superb document. and we really need people to step up and respect what it says. Absolutely, you don't have to comply with everything. Absolutely, it's suggestions. But they're really good suggestions, and they really will make our city a better city, but not if we ignore them. So that's my position. And Hal, if you could answer my question at the beginning of my comments, I'd appreciate it. Yes, sir. So with staff's recommendation, it would be a condition on the development plan that the applicant become in more compliance with the comprehensive plan. Essentially, much of what Ms. Wade gave her presentation on, especially the findings that are associated with that development plan, would get the applicant into some sort of, or into greater agreement with the comprehensive plan, and then would allow them to go forward with their application. If the applicant were not wanting to move forward with that development plan, essentially what would happen is it would time out, the two weeks would go by, and the application would be considered disapproved or on board. If that is the direction that the planning commission would want to go. So it would be a... Should we approve and should other commission members be sympathetic to my feelings, we would want to approve with the condition that that the applicant is willing to move toward a development plan that's more consistent with staff recommendations or consistent with staff recommendations? Is that? If you wanted to give it greater flexibility, it would be more consistent with staff's recommendations or resolved condition, or it could be more prescriptive with meet staff's conditions as presented. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Ms. Worth? Are you on mute? is to unmute and sometimes I get them right and sometimes I don't. Okay I just want to clarify something that Mr. Cato said the shorter version of the L shape the applicant had not seen that before today's meeting is that correct? so there's been no that's correct there's been discussion about it i agree with mr bailett there's been discussion about an l-shaped building we have never um been presented with why don't you do it this way and for that matter the revised conditions we got with a bunch of percentages today about 40 this and 25 that we have never seen or discussed at all that i didn't know where those numbers came from until the presentation today. Okay. Well, I'm just, the one diagram we saw had a very long arm on Legion Drive. Another diagram we saw, which I understand you haven't seen, had a shorter arm on Legion Drive. And is that correct? You had not seen that. Okay. Correct. Thanks. yeah i just like to just give my input that uh yeah you know i'm i'm okay with the the zone change on the property to be developed as staff has presented as well as the b1 i'm fine with that i can see a time that maybe parking requirements might change and it would be a good thing for Lexington to have a different type of business on that lot. I don't know if the lack of agreement between staff and applicant has come because of the weather and not enough meetings to really hash this out and work it out, but I'm in support with the way staff has presented the zone change and the planning or the development plan for today. Thank you, Mr. Mullen. Ms. Barstow? You just had a question. Okay, so today we are looking at the zoning primarily. I mean, there's still, seems like there's still a lot of work to be done on the development plan. Am I getting it right? We're really looking at zoning at this point, or are we also approving the development plan as presented by whom? So the zone change and the development plan are tied together in our community. So we would be looking at this as the zone change application and then the preliminary development plan, which has some lesser requirements, but is still meant to represent what the applicant is seeking to do with the site. So you are looking at two actions that actually three in this case, with the zone change, the major development plan, and then the conditional use. Okay. Okay. So is the applicant willing to look at what the staff has presented? Did I lose? what i'm hearing on the point i was going to make a minute ago is that if we were um if this was approved today we basically have to redesign the entire property and get it um certified in two weeks i don't even know if that's going to be possible to do that so um that would require a significant amount of work to be done in two weeks to get done. So it may be, I don't know if it will be a test sentence to vote for approval with those conditions or not, but it would be extremely challenging to get those, to get that changed in that amount of time. Yeah, that also redesigned the board and you have to interrupt the type of thing. So this is, sorry, sir, it shouldn't be a bag and board if I can answer the question. So with a development plan, it wouldn't be a full-scale redevelopment of their site. It would be a modification of their development plan, and then they would probably make some modifications with their internal systems. The applicant did indicate that they are ready to build. While we want our applicants to be looking at things into the future, we really push for them to get to the preliminary development plan side of things before going to that next level. So it should be a focus on just modifying the front portion of the property from staff's perspective. So is it two weeks or is it not? It is a two-week turnover. The other option that they would have is to seek a continuance of this discussion to possibly amend their development plan. The large aspect of that is that we are at our time frame for this application. The planning commission has 90 days, and the staff couldn't push for a further continuation to try to move this. Thank you. Any further questions for staff? Commission members? Or the applicant? Ms. Burke? Do you have anything? Okay. No, I'm just trying to think. I thought you wanted to. Okay. I guess I would like to say, you know, there's a way to treat the comprehensive plan and the statement of objectives as if there are muds still. and i think what mr pole is proposing is that as a community we've got to work toward more than a mud sale compliance with those place builder criteria but i i think this is a tough one this is one of those balancing needs um and thinking through whether either uh ask for a continuance or make a proposal that requests greater compliance with staff recommendations seems to me one of those two would be a reasonable position to take. Mr. DeMoblin? Yeah, I just want clarification, Hal, and make sure I heard you right. Due to time elements, we can't push for a continuance on this, but the applicant could. you could push for a continuance of the discussion on this. It wouldn't be able to be a postponement of the application. It would be a continued discussion going forward if the applicant asked for it. If the applicant wanted a continuance, that would be able to occur. If not, then the Planning Commission does have to act at business. All right. Thank you. So are we allowed to ask the applicant if he is interested in a continuance? Bill, I was thinking the same thing. My question was going to be for Al. Does the applicant, did he know about that before? We had a similar discussion last week, it seems, you know, and we ended up moving the way we had to move. So staff, would you guide on whether or not we can ask that? I believe that you can ask the applicant if they would be agreeable to. applicant, would you be interested in a continuance? Mr. Kato. Frankly, this is not something we had discussed. This was not on our radar, so I don't know. I'm communicating with the client right now to see, because I just don't know. It didn't occur to us. This might be a possible outcome today. Well, as I believe I interpreted, it allows you to have a continuing conversation with staff to try to work out things. I'm prepared actually to make a motion to disapprove, unless just you know just based on what i've heard but i'd love for the staff to be able to work with the apkin i'm not trying to put pressure on you but based on what i've heard personally well if the choice is if the choice is motion to disapprove or continuous i i guess continuance but that's uh and i appreciate your spot um and it hadn't been voted on disapproval either. So, you know, that's what you're up against. But I'm just trying to have some communication between ourselves while we're all here and spent, you know, a couple hours listening to this. Yeah, Mr. Nichols. Oh, your hand was raised, Bruce. That's why I'm sorry. It's okay, bud. My bad. Hi, Mr. Bowman had his hand raised. He is also representative of the applicant team. Yes, we have evaluated this site extensively, and we haven't shared every iteration with staff. Internally, this is really the model we're looking at. If it comes to continuance or disapproval, we will continue to try to meet with staff and work through this. But at the end of the day, we have extensively done our research, know what it's going to cost to build this building and know what our internal return and general goals are with this building. We have met with staff many times. We've made very, in our opinion, significant changes to the landscaping, to the activation of that front corner. we've taken our operational experience from other projects from our 1800 units within the city and have tried to put that experience into this building well i know it's not probably exactly hitting every single goal in a comprehensive plan we do have a lot of respect for the comprehensive plan and would like excuse me and would like to see this moving forward So if it's down to continuance or disapproval, I guess our only choice would be continuance. But we feel like we beat this to death. We've run the numbers on every scenario we can possibly come up with using other L buildings, using everything. And that just doesn't reach the goals for this site. And if we can't come to some kind of agreement, knowing that we are really improving this site from many aspects of the comprehensive plan, then we'll just continue to beat it to death. But this we really have put a lot of background thought into this. Thank you for your comments. And with that, I'd like to close this portion out and bring it to the commission members. only as he stated Mr. Bell Well considering they hadn't really had a chance and I do respect really what you know the applicants and what y'all done the work because this didn't just this has been going on for some time and we appreciate you have to have a return for that question but at the same time it sounds as if you hadn't really had discussions with regards to the L shape that they presented today for, you know, full understanding of it. I'd love for y'all to have a chance to, to get together and discuss it. And if it, and then we'll go from there, you know, but I'm going to move for continuance on this project. If I need to say any other words with regard to that, so be it, but I'm going to move for continuance. Mr. Cato. You would actually need to ask for the continuance if that's the direction you want to take it. Carson, is that what you want to do? Yeah. Yeah. But then we'll ask for a continuance. Sir, you'll just need to ask for a continuance to a date service. when is the next um what are my options for a continuous date was so there's two weeks the zoning hearing uh is the 24th and uh then there would be the subdivision which would be a one month postponement or continuous continuous thank you February 24th or the 24th I have another zone change out of town so I can't do that so I guess I would have to ask for to the next subdivision to be March 10th so I move for continuance to March 10th we have a motion that is to fail for the continuance of this application until March 10th. We have a second to that motion. Second by Mr. Poe. Any further discussion? Seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes. We hope that you can work something out with staff. The staff will work something out with the application, too. Yes, sir. It's a hard one here, yes. Thank you. Thank you. So next up, no commission items? Staff items? Yes, sir. Ms. Wick, do you want to take that? The last couple things on the agenda there for staff items are we received improvement plans, progress reports, and those are made available to the planning commission. We received three in the last month, and so those should be available in the Google Drive. And really, in these three cases, their construction and their progress is continuing without any issues. So there was nothing really significant to report on this. Thank you. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. We do appreciate all the work you are doing. last meeting was a very challenging meeting, and you all have worked through some challenging issues this time, so we appreciate you and the applicants, particularly today, for the spirit of cooperation that we are pursuing, and we hope to bring a good outcome as a result of that, so thank you all for that. And then also to let you know that our next meeting with you, which will be via Zoom, just like this one, will be the Planning Commission work session for next Thursday, February 17th. We have several updates to talk about at that time, including some more information about the upcoming update for the comprehensive plan. So we hope to see all of you next Thursday, 1.30 by Zoom. Thank you. Chairman, may I make a... Yes, sir. You can go ahead. Thank you. Graham, I just, I really appreciate your words very much. I think we all do. You know, your insight, This isn't my profession, and yet I respect those who do know so very well. And so thank you so much for speaking. I wish I'd prefaced my remarks by thanking the developer for taking the risks that they take and doing the hard work that I know they do. But, yeah, I appreciate that. Well, and I hope, you know, this is hard. And last week was hard, as Mr. Duncan said. And I hope, you know, but underlying, we're trying to make a great city. And, you know, it's, and I hope the staff, you know, I know they take the balance of that in their decision making and such. But anyway, that's what we're really trying to do. And these things become precedents and such. The reason I asked about how those properties were nearby was because those are dated. Those are no longer relevant properties. And so whatever this next property is going to be a relevant property in that community. And that's the reason I think underlying, it's important to set that precedence within that area. And so that's where I was coming from. And so your insight is very well appreciated, though. Thanks. Just one more thought that I didn't bring up, but staff also mentioned varied facade treatments. And so if you think about what they are proposing, being a precedent for further development along that street or anywhere, Do we really want those sort of monolithic, undifferentiated masses? We should probably get back on track. Thank you. Thank you. We should have some good news here from this way. Well, we had to wait until the end of the hearing you just held to announce that we don't have any items for February 24th. So that means because Mr. Cato didn't postpone to Lynn or continue to Lynn, we can ask the Planning Commission to cancel the February 24th zoning meeting. As long as Mr. Bell is paying lunch for everybody on February 24th. I would do that in a heartbeat. He needs to make a motion. You need to make that motion? I move that motion to postpone the 24th. To cancel. Cancel. Sorry. Cancel. Cancel. Okay. We have two seconds by Ms. Barksdale and Mr. Cole. All in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. You're welcome. Most gracious. Thanks, everyone. Enjoy your weekend. Thank you for your time. Zach, I didn't get a chance to tell you thank you either. I was tending to family business but thank you for stepping up yes sir I'm happy to do it yeah glad you are right I'm feeling guilty about my mud seal comment I think we got a lot of work to do to get people to buy into the place builder criteria so you guys have advocated for it I appreciate that have a good weekend and I guess go Bengals huh yeah Thank you very much.