Okay, good afternoon everyone. It's now 1.30, December 8th. I'd like to call this meeting to order. On the agenda item, commission members, we have the approval of minutes. This is the October 13th, 2022 minutes. The floor is open for an approval of those minutes. Okay. Mr. Worth? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the October 13th, 20, 22 minutes as submitted. Thank you. Do we have a second? Okay. Thank you. We have a second. Any further discussions to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Next up, we're going to skip a little bit in the agenda item. As we normally do, we have the letters of credits and performance bonds, but we have two letters of credits and performance bonds. We have two dates. One is for November 10th, and the other is for the December 8th. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of calling bonds for November the 8th and the- November 10th. November 10th. December 8th. December 8th. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Okay. Second by Ms. Sparksdale. Okay. Please vote via Granicus. All right. Motion passes. Agenda item 3, postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter. I'm with Vision Engineering. I've got one withdrawal and two postponements. So first with the withdrawal on page two of your agenda at the bottom, PLN MJSUB-22 for Margaret C. Kamek property. I'd like to withdraw that. Okay. Commission, have any questions? The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Ken. Mr. Chairman, I move for withdrawal of PLNMJSUB 22-4. Okay, we have a motion. Second. Second by Mr. DeMovilland. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. Okay, now if you turn in your agenda to page 7, item H at the bottom, PLNMJDP 22-62, Hoover, Ford, Philpott, Evangelistic Association, property, the fountains at Palomar. We request a one-week postponement. postponement. We made some changes to the plan and staff has reviewed those, but they're currently being reviewed by the applicant and we're waiting to hear if they're good with the changes and then we'll move forward. And we're certain we can do that next week. Okay. Thank you. So we have a request for a one week postponement and that's the December 15th meeting. Mr. Pol? Move to postpone PLN MJDP 2262 until December 15th. Second. Thank you. We have a second by Mr. DeMovillin. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, and then if you turn in the agenda to page 8, item I, PLN MJDP 22-63 63 Shriners Hospital Masonic Temple Association of Lexington. We would also like a one week postponement on that. We have some discussion items. We still need to work out with the staff to get resolved, but we can feel confident we can have that done for next week's hearing as well. Okay. Okay. We have a request for a one week postponement for the applicant. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one week postponement to the December the 15th meeting for PLNMJDP 2263. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Barksdale. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission. I'm Steve Baker, I'm with Midwest Engineering. And here to request a one week postponement for project that's located in your agenda on page six item F. It's a Crestwood Montessori school, Redwood Co-op school is what it's known as today. So we submitted some changes, the Board of Adjustments will be hearing this project on Monday. And we'd like a one-week postponement so the staff can have a chance to review our changes. Okay. So we've got a request for one-week postponement. Next week it's going to be busy. It's going to be, but it is now. No. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for a one-week postponement of PLNMJDP 2258 Crestwood Montessori, as requested by the applicant. Thank you. Ms. Worth. Second. We have a second. Any further discussion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Any? It's your turn. I'm sorry. Yeah. I'm Sean for the project 920 Oritaz Road. Yeah. We need more time because there are new parking requirements. Yeah. What page is that? Page four? Yeah, page four. Page four, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, page four. Item B. Item D. Ban 1804. Yes, triple stars, prop dollars. Got it. The address is 920 or Tots Road. Yeah. And this is a one-month postponement? Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Yep. That will be January 12th. Me. Okay. Floor is open for a one-month postponement. Yes, Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move to postpone PLS. PLNMJDP 18-4 until our January 12th? Yes, 2023. 2023. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Staff? Good afternoon, Chairman Forrester. We do have a number of items that appear on today's consent agenda, and so we'll review these and see if anyone in the audience, any of the representatives, or any Planning Commission members wish to have any items removed from the consent agenda. The first item on the consent agenda appears on your regular agenda on page two, and it's a final record plat that's been recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. PLN FRP 22-37 for the Elam properties. And this property is located at 5201 Mount Horeb Pike. Is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard this afternoon? Okay, seeing none. Yes, ma'am. Well, I'm Jennifer Elam, and I thought Rory, the survey from the surveyors office, was going to be here to speak on my behalf. Yes, he is. He is. He's here. Oh, there we are. Okay, so at this point, we're just asking if there's anyone who wishes to have it presented in full. Okay. So no. Thank you. The next item on the consent agenda is a final development plan for re-approval. and that appears on page 4, item 3A of your agenda, PLN MJDP 16-37 for the Hash and Hounsel property, located at 1411 Greendale Road. Is there anyone who wishes to have this item heard? Okay. Next item is on page 5, item 3D, PLN MJDP 21-45 for the Richardson property. Is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard? Okay. The next item is on page 6, item 3E, PLN MJDP 22-34 for Valley Park, also known as Derudy Street Apartments, for property located at 850 Derudy Street. Is there anyone who wishes to have this item heard today? Okay, none for that. And then two more on the back side of your consent agenda are development plans also recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. The first one appears on page 7, item 3G of your agenda, PLN MJDP 22-61 for RML citation, also known as Hillemeyer Interest Limited, lot 2. This is an amended final development plan for property at 2670 Sandersville Road. Is anyone for that one today? And then the last item appears on page 9. It's item 3K, PLN and JDP 22-67, Ethington and Ethington for lot 3. Also an amended final development plan for property located at 4235 Harrodsburg Road. So anyone that wishes to have this item heard today? I didn't see Mr. Forrester, anyone, Chairman Forrester, anyone that wished to have any of these items heard. However, we do need to have an affidavit of a signposting for the Richardson property if Mr. Barlow is present. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Do you have an affidavit regarding a signposting? Then we'll have to postpone your item. Because there needs to be a sign posted on the property. Okay. So that item, which is under Section 2, page 5, item 3D, will need to be removed from the consent agenda. So we postpone that? So are we postponing that one? We can get to that after. Oh, okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. unless the commission um wants to remove any of these from the consent agenda you can take action on all of them collectively except for the richardson property not seeing any thank you okay zach's got it okay go i'll go is that go mr chairman um i move to approve all of the items on the consent agenda with the exception of the PLN MJDP 2145 Richardson property. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Now is this the time for us to? Yes. So let's reconsider PLN MJDP 21-45. This is a re-approval request for the Richardson property. However, there does need to be a sign posted on the property, and postponing one week is actually not enough time for the sign to be posted. So the staff would suggest it be postponed until the January 12th Planning Commission meeting. Okay. All right. Thank you. So we've got the request. The floor is open for that motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to... I move to postpone the re-approval of PLNMJDP 2145 until the 112-23 meeting. Thank you. Second? Do we have a second? I'm sorry. We have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please vote Villagranicus. Okay, motion passes. All right, so let's put us on the agenda now. Pace 2, PLN, FRP 22-39, Tallon Estates. And we do have a waiver here in your packets. This is FYI, staff. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, yes, the first item is on page two of your agenda. It is a final record plat, 22-39 for the Talon Estates. As you all are aware, being an agricultural final record plat is why it comes before this body. This is the Talon winery property out off Tates Creek Road. You all had a preliminary subdivision plan with the zone change on this property a short time ago where they rezoned this front area to AB and the rear part remains AR and they have subdivided this into 10 acre lots, a little over that, most of them, in the AB portion. And then these four lots in the rear are 40-acre lots, again, that meet your AR minimum required lot size. Now, you all may be aware of the property. There's an existing road that comes in that serves the winery, which is in this area. These are existing water features on the property. There is actually FEMA designated floodplain back in this area along this creek on the property as well. When the plan came in as a preliminary subdivision plan, they were granted a waiver on the road. So there's a slight change in the cross section of the road that was approved by this body. In addition to that, there was a finding done on the access easements that are going to serve these rear lots. And I know we had a lot of discussion about that and who will maintain it and who can access them. And that not only was addressed on the preliminary plan, it will be addressed on this final record plan as well on the maintenance requirements. And again, it was made very clear the concern about who would be responsible and who could utilize those access easements. And again, that was dealt with on your preliminary plan, and it will be, again, carried over. In fact, there are notes in this area addressing that issue on the final record plan. An interesting situation that came up during the zone change on the primary plan was the frontage required on an agricultural lot. Now, the way the Reds read are very interesting. In an urban area, in an urban zone, the frontage off a cul-de-sac is based on the building line. And again, that is to accommodate cul-de-sacs and accommodate frontage when cul-de-sacs are deemed necessary in a development. In the rural area, that is not the case. Right away, pardon me, the setback is measured right off of the right away. It's not measured off the building line in terms of the setback. So this was identified to the applicant at the time of the preliminary plan that they would have to address this, and that's why they're before you today. Because, again, the road, it is proposed to call the sack. One of the issues facing them, I've already mentioned, in order to build a full street and loop it around on this property, would have impacts, large impacts on the use of the property. It would have impacts on the winery and its use. It would have to deal with the existing water features. This is a large pond. And it would also have to deal with crossing a FEMA floodplain. There were just various issues on the property that resulted in their proposal to cul-de-sac the street. And it does reflect the use of the property as a winery, which is an agricultural use, and allows them to create these lots in conformance with your ordinance and your subdivision regulations. So they are requesting this waiver on the lot frontage on these lots off the cul-de-sac. It will be necessary that they provide compliant 350 feet of frontage at that building line is one of the recommendations of your staff on this particular waiver. And with that, your staff is recommending approval of the waiver. Happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Martin, can you refresh my memory on how we settled this access easement? Do all parties have access by that road? No, sir, Mr. Penn. That's exactly how it was resolved is that they don't. It will be solely for the property that requires the access easement. So the other properties can't have access to that road? That is correct. That's how it stands? Yes, sir. That is how it stands. So that one property, excuse me, Chairman, that one property is responsible for that road? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The one property that is served by the access easement will have to maintain it. In essence, what you're looking at is a long driveway for that property. And it'll be... Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for staff right now? See you, Dean. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Mr. Kaley. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Rory Kaley with the EA Partners. We agree with Tom's assessment and are agreeable to the 10 conditions and request your approval. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. I don't see any hands raised. Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission. for any further questions. Oh, I'm sorry, Frank, you're right. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item? Please do so by coming up to the podium. Not seeing any? Okay. We'll bring it back to the commission for further questions or a motion. Mr. Pol? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the waiver for PLN FRP 2239 Talon Estates. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pol. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Barksdale. Any further discussion to that motion? I'm not seeing any. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, Mr. Kaley, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, let's put us on page three of the agenda. What happened? No, he approved it with the waiver. Okay. Yeah. You voted on it. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Agenda item. We're on page three. Agenda Item B, PLNMJSUB 22-5, Woodford Court Subdivision. And we also have revised staff recommendations here. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, We are moving to page three to a major subdivision plan, 22-05 Woodward Court Subdivision. And as your chairman informed you, we have revised conditions for you on this nice, beautiful orange paper, hence the orange tie. This is a piece of property that actually, this is an amended plan on this piece of property. It is, I'm on now. I don't know how we got there. Here we go. This is the Woodward Court subdivision. Now, this is an interesting piece of property. And I mean that in every sense of the word. First of all, it's located back off Woodward Lane, which runs off Liberty Road. Here, we have Wilderness Road, which stubs into this property as well. Wilderness Road, as you know, comes off of Liberty Road close to the New Circle Road intersection. People would be surprised how old that subdivision is. It's been out there for many, many years prior to merger. So, again, it's an older part of our community, and Wilderness Road is stubbed standard. Woodward Lane has also been there for quite a few years, and Woodward Lane is interesting and that Woodward Lane, the front end is public, the back end in these areas is actually private and privately maintained or required to be privately maintained by the residents back in that area of Woodward Lane. It is accessed from Cherry Bark in this subdivision here, again, which is accessed off of Liberty Road, and it stubs in right here. This plan will extend Cherry Bark to a cul-de-sac. We have single family lots being proposed in this area. They are then proposing an access easement that you can see here that will serve attached dwelling units in these areas that are highlighted in the orange today. They are going to all be attached units. And again, this is an access easement. They're proposing some parking off of that access easement. They modified it to meet your new Article 16 requirements on a parking lot to serve attached dwelling units. These are three existing lots with homes on them. And interesting enough, one aspect is that this is not easy to see from some of the information, but they're actually floaters. This property kind of encompasses these lots. There is an access easement. It's like a driveway. It's been there for many, many years. It serves those lots and has for many, many years now. This is a Columbia Gas easement area facility in this location with access proposed in this location off of the new access easement they're going to build. You can see these dash lines here and here. There's also an easement not depicted on this plan that comes through the detention and down this way and impacts the fuel lots here that they're going to have to denote, and they're going to have to resolve any conflicts that result from that easement. Again, there's a lot of easements on this property. As I said, it's an interesting piece of property. It's been there for many, many years. The previous plan that was approved had all single-family homes and a public street network had been approved. For whatever reason, that plan was unable to move forward, and we have a new developer, and this is their proposal. The access to Woodward Lane at this location will be gated. It is proposed that this wilderness road be gated as well. And I will share with you that our fire emergency response people are concerned about gates. They prefer not to have them. They like their connections, and you know your staff, we like our connections as well. One of the issues, this has remained this way and this gated, is that back when this plan came through and got rezoned on the previous plan and got developed, there was a lot of neighborhood input and an awful lot of neighborhood concerns about traffic on these substandard roads. They are seriously substandard. both Woodward and Wilderness. So again, this plan is consistent with the previous plan and is proposing gated emergency access. This, as I said, is a proposed access easement, and that is the reason that you have a finding with this plan as well today, because it is necessary that the Planning Commission make a finding that an access easement is appropriate in these circumstances in lieu of a public street or a private street. And again, the primary justification for that is the impact of the Columbia facility, this large facility, the impact on the property and the need to deal with it and get around it and develop this part of the property. But you can see there's cul-de-sacs here. The only access into here, if you don't use the substandard Woodward Lane, which was not something staff encouraged, nor did those residents favor that whatsoever. So in order to access this, they are building a public street off Cherry Bark, and to get able to develop their attached units, they are proposing the access easement. With that, staff has reviewed this plan, and we are recommending approval of the plan, as well as we're recommending approval of the finding to you today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Yes. Mr. Mikulov? Yeah, did staff look at how long of a route it would take someone who lives on Danby Woods Circle to reach Wilderness Road at the end if it is not connected? Or how long it takes to reach that street now? So you see you have that checkerberry coming out there, right? Mm-hmm. If that access is gated, it will take just over 2.2 miles to drive to their neighbor's house. You mean using cherry bark and not wilderness? Is that your question? Well, with wilderness being gated. Pardon? With wilderness being gated. Yes. I understand that that's a narrower road because it was built during a different era under different specifications. But with the rest of the lack of connectivity in that area, basically it would take over two miles to drive to your neighbor's house. I'm not sure if I follow which neighbor, which are you? You mean coming in on Cherry Bark? Checkerberry, pardon me, Checkerberry. Yeah, from Checkerberry. Yes, yes, you're correct. It's an issue, and it was an issue originally, and it was an issue with the residents on Wilderness Road. So you feel that level of connectivity, that not making that connection is acceptable? In this circumstance, we favor connections. We promote connections. And the only reason it's not acceptable is because that's a narrow road? It's a substandard road, and the residents spoke strongly against it in the past, and that concern was honored. And so we're continuing that with this plan. And I would say this as well, because with that discussion, the most direct route is Woodward. That is the most direct route. But it's gated as well. And that issue goes back, again, to the neighborhood, neighborhood concerns. And unfortunately, a previous owner of this property abused the property. He dumped a lot of trash and construction materials on it and that sort of thing and had a lot of trucks coming up Woodward Lane. And staff had a lot of conversations originally with the residents on Woodward Lane. but we are always concerned about connections, yes. And so could you go over a little bit the choices there on that connection? So right now a gate is proposed. An emergency access gate, yes, so that public safety concerns are met. Not travel time for residents. That's a choice they're going to have to make if they choose to live back here. that's a choice. But in terms of public safety, there's a gate that emergency vehicles use both there and both on Woodward Lane. So we feel that public safety is being met, if not public convenience. and the and that was I mean that's you're essentially what I was going for there with the gate is there are multiple ways that we have blocked not vehicular access, but allowed for emergency access, such as bollards or other types of connections that allow for easier pedestrian handicap sort of bicycle access rather than gates. Was that discussed? There are no pedestrian facilities on Wilderness Road, so we did not discuss providing any. Woodward, again, substandard. You're going to put people in the right of way. It's also a dead-end street with very low traffic. Are you suggesting that people do not walk on streets with no sidewalks that are dead-end with very low traffic? They tend to be very neighborhood-oriented there, yes. Yes. So I guess no one would walk their dogs or anything like that? They may. I mean, they're probably used to the circumstances. It is an interesting area. It is a much older area. And as you know, they pose challenges. And this site is a challenging site. It is. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Rob. Any more questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Tom. All right. Applicant, Mr. Cayley. Mr. Chairman, Members of Planning Commission, Rory Cayley, VA Partners. We are in agreement with the 11 new conditions. Request your approval. It's 12, isn't it? What do you got on the back? It's 12. Oh, wait a minute. It's 12. I got excited. That way. I mean, necessary remediation measures. There's one on the back. Okay. Okay. I'm good with 12, yes. Mr. Kaley, you okay with the 12 conditions? Yes. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. I'm not seeing any. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. Okay. All right. So we'll bring it back to the commission for any questions or a motion. Mr. Bell. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN MJ-SUB-2205 Woodward Court Subdivision with the 12 revised conditions. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Well, I had a comment for the committee here. Let me see if we get a second first. Yeah, that's fine. Okay, then I'll open it up for discussion. I'll second. Okay, so we have a second by Mr. Penn. Any further discussion? Well, I put this in on Google Maps, and if that is gated, that route basically from one neighbor to another walking would be over two miles. And there is two churches on that wilderness road in addition to potentially future neighbors. I think that this does need a pedestrian connection, even though there's no sidewalks on Wilderness Trace. because I do think that, especially if that's a dead end and it's no vehicular traffic, that we would not be serving residents and the city well to not allow a bicycle or pedestrian connection and require that they walk over two miles to their neighbor's house. And so I'm in favor of the development plan, but I do think that we need to change that from a gate to at least a bollard sort of access restriction where pedestrian and bicycles can get through. So if I guess other people in this discussion phase want to chime in, I'd be willing to amend the motion to ask that if other people sort of think similarly. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Mr. Penn. This piece of property has been the subject of a lot of discussion, and it's a challenging piece to say the least not counting the gas situation it's there. Sutter Fitch Committee has seen this on several occasions and I don't have any problem with what Mr. Mickler is trying to do. It's just the fact that I mean it's fine with me if he wants to put that in there. I second the original motion. When I made the motion I'd like to hear from the chief if we could please. Captain Lango, thank you for the promotion, though. I would like to echo Mr. Mickler's concern about access, and that was a discussion point. They only have one access point talking about the subdivision Shady Hills, which exceeds our threshold of the NFPA 1141. So they should have two access points for Shady Hills to begin with. That's why we were wanting a second access point or discussed it. We do understand that those wilderness and woodward are substandard roads, but we're for open access as far as vehicular and emergency. The gates, if it is gated, I'd like to look at the design for the bollards. maybe you come up with some kind of gate access where there's a path or something on the side. The bollards, I think they'd be problematic to remove in a short notice, I guess. The gate would be easier, but I guess that's all I got, Les, if you all wouldn't ask me any questions. Any questions? Yes, Ms. Wirth. Robin, are you proposing that all the gates be handled that way or a particular gate? I mean, my preference, to be honest, would be with the captain here to have it open. But if other members on the committee agreed with staff to have it closed, I think the suggestion of, you know, making sure there's a path for pedestrian and bicycles through so that there is a way that there's continued access for sort of foot traffic to their neighbors would be sort of a second choice. I guess I'm flexible on that. I mean, my first choice would be what the captain just said, to have it open access. But at the very least, I want to make sure we're not, or I would not be comfortable voting for a plan that requires a 2.2 mile walk to your neighbor's house when there's a road right there. Thank you. Mr. Bill. Could we hear some comment from Rory? Have you any comments? Considering this has been one of your easier projects. Not yet. Hold on, Mr. Kelly. Oh, sorry. Because we got a motion and we got a second. So we need to finish that up before we need to see if that motion carries on. If it does, then Mr. Kelly will be sitting down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if in this discussion phase other people thought similarly, I could do a motion to amend and then we could have a vote and it wouldn't require that I vote against it. We've done it before. yeah we just don't want to open it back up to oh yeah sure so do you want to make an amendment we got a motion with a second well he may have i'd like to make an amendment to um um would you want a second the walking path or would you like it completely I'd like an amendment to have a pedestrian path next to the gate, the two gates. Okay, so we got amended motion. Second to the amendment. Okay, and we have a second. Are you okay with that legal? We're good. Do we need a second? Or do we need a second? You need a second. No, no, do we need a second from staff to. All right, now hold on. Larry, can I ask a question while we're waiting? Captain, are these gates, proposed gates that emergency can get through if need be? I'm sorry, were you asking? The gates that are currently proposed, can emergency get through those if need be? I actually had a discussion with Rory beforehand and said we need to work on the width and the access points. I don't think they meet the turn-in radius the way this layout is for this access easement. A ladder truck wouldn't be able to turn in there. So they need to do some work, in my opinion, and prove it. So it works. That's what I was going to do. That's a bit too late now. Okay. All right, we got an amended motion, seconded by Ms. Worth. any further discussions of that motion we got to do the amendment first Bruce question should we include in the amendment provision that the configuration of the roadway be adequate for fire protection equipment The captain just said that the turning radius would likely be a problem for the ladder truck. That's the problem. That is subject to traffic engineering's review. Access is. Okay. You okay with that? I'm fine. Thank you. All right. So we're going to take this motion. Do we need to vote via Granicus here? Or are we going to do it by raising hands? You're going to vote the motion or the amendment? Yes, to the amendment. Yeah. Yes. Okay. It's not ready yet. Okay, we all can vote via Granicus as it comes available. We can't make you second the original amendment. We still have to go back and vote on this. Ms. Worth. The last time we did it, we had to do the amendment first. I don't know. That's why I'm confused. So we have to move amendment first. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. We're going to vote now. Grant is coming up. So we're voting on the amendment or the motion? You're voting on the amendment. And I think they just got it changed on Grant. Yes. Okay. And we don't have to vote on the original one anymore. If I second the original motion, can I vote for the amendment? Okay. Okay, motion passes, and with one nay vote for the amendment. And we need to come back and vote on the original motion that we have. So now the motion would include 13 conditions. 13 conditions, and Mr. Bell made the motion, and Mr. Penn seconded that motion. 13. With 13 conditions. So we're agreed to the 13th. But we got to vote on that. That's the 13th condition. Yes. We can vote via Granticus as it comes available. Okay. The original motion passes unanimously, Mr. Kelly. Thank you. That's pretty much just a pedestrian component to the gates. Did I get that right? That's what we all just agreed to? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. And that included the finding. Correct, staff? We included the finding with that? Yes. Okay. Okay. All right. Yep. All right. I don't think we included the finding. I don't know. Okay, okay. We'll move on. All right. We'll put us on page five of the agenda. PLN MJDP 21-9, Kingston Hall. If I'm right. Yep, and we have revised staff recommendations and an EAMP compliance report to go with this application. So where's page room? Page 5. Okay. Sorry, I got it. It's on. The applicant just walked out of the room. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, at the top of page 5 of your agenda is Major Development Plan 21-9 Kingston Hall. We have also revised conditions for you on this lavender purple handout as well as a compliance report in the form of a memorandum should be in your packet. Now. Lasers working, but nothing else wants to work. All right, here we go. We are located out off in the, pardon me, the Kingston Hall area. It's an ED zoned area between Newtown Pike and Russell Cave Road. Here's your Russell Cave frontage. Newtown Pike is to the west in this location. Here we have I-75, the interstate, that forms this boundary of the property. This is an amended plan, and originally this plan was approved, and it's been re-approved actually several times, just showed the layout and the lighting of this property along with Providence Parkway, which is an AMP required and exactable collector street to serve this ED development, along with the local street system and the various lotting pattern that was proposed by the developer. This plan got a little more interesting in that they've added this flex space in this location. This is 450,000 square feet of flex space in these six structures. These are tractor-trailer and similar area between the buildings to allow access to the buildings. They show some parking on the perimeter. This is detention. This development previously was right here. It was approved by this body at this location. Subsequently, as you all know, there was a conditional use discussion, and that's something on the soccer fields in this area. They have moved this now to the east. It changed the status of the plan a little bit because of that, and that's why it has to have an EAMP compliance. But again, it is 450,000 square feet, just like it was at this location. The layout is similar and slightly larger, a little more acreage on this particular site at this. And again, here's Russell Cave, Providence Parkway as it connects. This is a revised plan. The conditions are pretty basic development plan conditions with a few cleanup conditions. One of the most important aspects of this is, of course, Providence Parkway. And over the last few years, when we've received plans and amendments, we've talked about that with both the developer and with the Planning Commission. The timing of the completion of Providence Parkway. When it was over here, that was an issue. We wanted to know what was the developer's time frame. When were they going to address this? The proc way is required, and it's necessary to serve this development, particularly at full build-out. That's one of the issues on this plan. And again, when it was right here, it was a discussion item, but now they've moved it all the way to the eastern boundary where it does adjoin Russell Cave Road. So again, in order to serve this, they're going to have to build Providence Parkway. We've had discussions and we're talking with the developer, and we're going to elaborate, we're going to talk about this on the other Kingston plan, because here later in your agenda we're going to be talking about a Kingston plan right here. And the issues are the same. Providence Parkway and when do you connect it and what improvements should be done to Russell Cave Road. At this time with these plans and the discussion is the applicant is proposing not, they're proposing to build it because they have to build it to get their frontage, but not connect it at this time. Nor at this time do they want to do the improvements to Russell Cave Road. They want to do that at a later date. That date, what they are proposing, is when this area in the center of the property develops. Which, when this develops, we have a proposal in this area, nothing's happened. But in essence, when this happens, and they're still going to have to bring in, we're getting closer and closer to total build-out. The developer's concerns, and staff understands their concerns, is in essence, with this development and the one you're going to see with these two lots being fully developed. And they want to basically train the industrial traffic and the tractor trailers to use Providence Parkway back to Newtown Pike and then be dispersed to the interstate or wherever they need to go up Newtown Pike. In essence, discouraging them now from utilizing Russell Cave at this time. And that's the discussion and what staff is willing to resolve with them. Russell Cave Road will need to be improved. As you all are aware, that's always a discussion at great length. To what extent do we improve these roads? Well, this is inside the urban service boundary. This is an industrial development across the road. That's in the urban service boundary, and that is eligible for development. We've not seen anything on it. So Russell Cave Road is going to need to be improved. And staff generally supports urban improvements. You got additional right of way, you got to build additional lanes, you have to build turn lanes and you need a pedestrian facility. Staff has been discussing a multi-use trail to connect up. As you know, it does run along Providence Parkway and out to Newtown. And we want to tie it back in and bring it down this way where it will ultimately allow people to tie into citation once it's completed to Russell K Road. So we're talking about that. Those are the nature of those discussions that need to be resolved with the connection and with the improvements to Russell K Road. The other issue that has some impact on this plan is complying with the new parking requirements. It's going to take a little bit of redesign. We're not concerned with numbers, as you know, but we are concerned with layout and there's a much higher tree canopy requirement. So these sites are gonna have a lot more trees on them, which as you all know is a good thing. It's gonna help mitigate the heat island effect and it's gonna be more attractive development, et cetera. So they are going to have to address that. Now in terms of the EMP compliance, even though they moved this to here, that hasn't really changed EMP and appliance. It's still the same land use, complies with the recommended land use in the expansionary master plan. Providence Parkway, that infrastructure is required under the expansionary master plan. They're going to build it. Again, it's just a matter of timing when this body, along with the developers, determines that it's appropriate to connect to Russell Cave Road. The other infrastructure that's in place, the sanitary sewer, is in place. We've built that nice big new station out there, pump station, has been completed. So other than that, the infrastructure is not an issue, nor has any of the community design elements really changed. This is still the same relationship that existed here, still exists here with the surrounding properties and with the topography. So your staff is recommending approval of the plan to you as well as the finding that it does comply with the expansion area master plan. And I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? We got two? Okay. Rob? I had one. With the shifting to the right of this project, I see on the development plan there's a reserved future right-of-way along Russell Cave Road. Yes. Is that wide enough to accommodate the expansion that you're talking about and the multi-use trail? It should be, yes. And that is a method that is under discussion, that relationship. where the trail will be relative to any new improvements and expansion of the road and that separation. That's part of the discussion we're having with them. But you feel that that's adequate space? At this time, yes. Yeah. Thanks. Mr. Penn? Mr. Martin, it's not a surprise to anybody that that bridge that goes over the interstate to Tulane Bridge There's about a 30-foot buildup on both sides to get to the top of the interstate bridge. When they do any improvements on Russell Cave down the south part of the property, you'll still be able to put a trail through there? Well, that's part of the discussion. Actually, they think they may have to put a pedestrian bridge parallel to that one for that very reason until that overpass is addressed. And there have been discussions in the past that the state and the federal agencies were looking at that, but were not aware of any time frame on that. As you know, that was part of the discussion with the affordable housing on this side of the interstate. Exactly. Because of that crest. Yes, sir. It's a huge crest. It is, yes, sir. And that's an older overpass and narrow, and that was a concern and still remains a concern. It's outside of our control. Okay, thank you. Mr. Diggs. Mr. Diggs. Sorry. Mr. Martin. Oh, you're first, sorry. Yeah, we're just going in line. You next. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Martin, this may have been addressed in the committee, but since this property adjoins two properties in the AR zone, have there been any conditions or restrictions set on lighting or any other items that could potentially affect the neighboring agricultural properties? Not on this particular facility, no. There's a very large setback that's required relative to that boundary. But we've not actually addressed lighting. Would that come on a subsequent plan? No, this would be the plan. To address lighting? Yes, sir. So they can build off this plan, so yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. Yes, Mr. Martin. I guess commenting on the previous conversation, When we are talking about they making improvements to the overpass of 75, who is they? Federal and state agencies that control that, yes. That's what I thought. We've heard talk that as part of the improvements to the interstate, they want to address that overpass. Well, they is a good source. Yeah, they being the feds, yeah. That's good. They've got the money. Hence the golden rule. Yeah. Okay, any other questions for staff? I'm not seeing any. Applicant, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Anderson Communities and Dennis Anderson is with us today in the second row and Rory Kaley is our designer. We're in general agreement, had a couple things we wanted to talk about. We want to thank the staff. We had a very good meeting, I think it was Friday, with Tracy Wade and David Filiotrue, the new person from traffic engineering, about all these issues along Russell Cave. And we, as Mr. Martin mentioned to you, our plan is to train the people working here to use Newtown Pike so that we do not make that connection to Russell Cave until we're somewhere down the road with this so that the people working here and the truck drivers are trained to go that way mentally to come and go to this property. We understand that after the connection is made, obviously there will be some traffic on Russell Cave, but by making them go to Newtown Pike first and establish that habit, we will be reducing the traffic on Russell Cave by some degree. I can't tell you what degree, but I know we'll be reducing it by establishing that. As far as what's done along Russell Cave, I think ultimately we're at the mercy of the State Highway Department since this is a state roadway. So we'll have to work all that out with the state, obviously in consultation with the local people here as well. On the note 12, your new note 12, which is resolve timing of Providence Place Parkway construction to Russell Cave Road, and we're assuming that includes the improvements that will be made along Russell Cave. And the note 15 is the only other one we have, revised to comply with the new parking requirements. This is a 2021 plan which was filed prior to the amendment to the parking regulations. And the law is that we're judged by the ordinance that was in effect when it was filed. So we think we would request note 15 to be removed or at least changed or revised to comply with the parking regulations in effect when this was filed. So that's the only other change we have with that on that. And other than that, we'd request your approval. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Okay, yes, go ahead. Mr. Murphy, again, considering you directly join several properties in the AR, would you be willing to work with staff on some lighting conditioning? Well, I do point out that Mr. Anderson owns the property to the north, so he is adjoining his own property here and obviously we'll work things out. We do meet the setback requirement. The setback is the thing that governs lighting and all that sort of thing. I think we plan on doing lighting that is not going to be directed to the north on that. And Dennis says he can get along with himself, but won't be a problem, which is correct along here. So I don't think there's a need for that condition for this plan. Mr. Nick. I do have a question for Mr. Murphy. Ms. Wade pointed out to me that the vacant lots will be coming back to you with final development plans. So you will be, all the other lots you'll see final development plans on. This is a final development plan for this area. All right, Mr. Murphy, I've got a question for you about the staff's recommendation number 15. What you are saying is that where it says revised parking to comply with newly adopted requirements, you're saying by law that you comply with the requirements at the time of filing, is that correct? Yes. Okay, we'll ask our attorney if that's correct. I think that's a good point. That's generally the rule we follow. It's the regulations at the time of filing. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any further questions for the applicant? Mr. Martin, are you coming back up? Is he coming back up? That's where I was going. I want to clarify a couple of things. One, the condition for the timing of Providence Raid construction to Russell Cave doesn't necessarily include the improvements to Russell Cave. It was more just when is Providence going to be completed in timing, and obviously the frontage is required. There's one other item I'm going to address because it's come up several times recently, and Mr. Murphy knows this. This isn't just, Russell C. Brody aren't just subject to the state. They are subject to the state, but they're also subject to the land subdivision regulations along the frontage of this property, as well as, because it's a development plan, they're subject to this body's requirements as well. So it's not just, District 7 is not just the only player in this game. And I want to make that clear, and I'm only saying that because that actually came up on another plan recently where it's presented as if, hey, this is a done deal because we've talked to District 7. So, and that's really more so I want the Planning Commission to understand that. Mr. Martin, there's a question. You go ahead, Mr. Bill. And what would you like to do with number 15? I believe that Mr. Martin. Murphy's point is well taken, that when they filed this plan, it was different conditions. Would you like to remove or comply? Yes, sir. You can do that. Which one? Oh, I'm sorry. That's number 15. Remove or comply? 15. Yeah. 15. Number 15. I think you can just change it to say to comply with the parking requirements in articles 16 and 18, and that would be the articles at the time of filing instead of the newly adopted ones. which there's no issue on this plan with that, really. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bell. That was my question. Any further questions from the commission at this time? Okay. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak? Yes, ma'am. We have two. Thank you for this opportunity. i had submitted comments already that was for 00069 which is the other kingston hall property but i would i did was not aware this was also tractor trailer warehouse type things so i'm going to go ahead and make my statement now yes i will my name is patty drouse and i live at 608 Allen Court in Joyland. This permit, which is for 11 and 12, so I don't know the numbers on this others, it wasn't on the map, this permit is showing 116 loading docks for diesel tractor trailers and a total of 423 tractor trailer parking places. I assume drivers will idle their engines and they will sleep there if they're on an overnight trip. I am an RN, formerly in critical care and have a particular interest in particulate matter sources of 2.5 micrometers. This fine particulate matter, PM2.5, poses a great risk to health as the particles can get deep into the lungs and even into the bloodstream, leading to serious health conditions like asthma, heart and lung disease, stroke, and even possibly dementia. The young and the elderly are especially vulnerable. These conditions result in increased emergency room visits, hospital admissions, and premature death. Diesel emissions are a source of PM 2.5. I have lived in Joyland since 1980. The interstate traffic wasn't what it is today. The volume is greatly increased. Now Joyland is exposed to increased amounts of PM 2.5 from I-6475 Interstate, as well as from the Peterbilt truck business on Parris Pike North Broadway. Joyland neighborhood and the Jim and Katie Broadus residence on Russell Cave, as well as the Cummins property, the veterinarian there, are all already exposed to these sources. And I believe all those properties are supposed to be developed at some point down the road. An analogy, when a stream is polluted, do we say, oh, it's already polluted, so it's okay to dump more pollutants in there? No, and this is the exact same issue. Because we already have the pollution in that area, is it still not okay to put more into our neighborhood? But you are wanting to add a point source of PM 2.5 to our neighborhood. And we do not even know what these factories will be that are at least on 11 and 12, there are some sort of factories. What will they be? What kind of admissions will they emit? Companies prey on marginalized communities like Joyland, black, Latinx, low-income, and elderly. It appears that no consideration has been given to the health impacts for this neighborhood. Are we to be the sacrifice zone for Lexington? This is an environmental injustice affecting marginalized folks. Do you want this facility near your home, in Chevy Chase, Garden Springs, Harrods Hill, Glen Eagles, or Palomar Trace? I am requesting there be a condition that the factories not emit anything smelly or toxic. I am requesting there be an environmental impact assessment to evaluate the cumulative impact for air toxics and particulate matter for Joyland and the Broadus property. And I am requesting this project be relocated to the Newtown Pike side of the property where there are no residents or Coldstream Research Park or Nandino Boulevard. Please protect the children and everyone in Joyland. Thank you. Thank you. And these comments apply, like I say, to 6-9 and 09. Thank you. And staff would add that we received several letters concerning these plans, and they should be in your packet. Okay, thank you. Is there one for the other? For 6-9? Yes, I don't need it right this minute. I just wanted to thank you. Good afternoon, Planning Commission. My name is Catherine Perkins. I live at 258 Swigert Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky. And I believe I live on one of the most eclectic streets in all of Lexington, Fayette County, and certainly one of the last of its kind within the urban service boundary. Swigert is a combination of single-family homes on nice-sized lots and farms. We do not have or want sewer sidewalks, especially sidewalks that are too narrow for people to walk side by side. We just don't want that. And it's my goal to live on Swigert until I am no longer alive. I hope I'm not run over by a semi. I'm speaking as a representative for Joyland Neighborhood Association's Board of Directors, and we are concerned about how this development plan and the other one on the docket for today, 0069, 2200069, put forth by Anderson Communities concerning Providence Place once completed as proposed, will affect our daily quality of life, our property values, our health, and the health of the surrounding area. We know that the aquifer for Georgetown that supplies Georgetown its water runs underneath our homes and underneath the property that is being developed as Providence Place. To what extent, I don't think anybody really knows. I don't know how much mapping has been done of the underground water or the caves. We have an active cave in our neighborhood that goes underground. Water goes underground. We've been under the consent decree for water quality. So these are issues that we know also extend across Russell Cave Road, typically by going underground. Russell Cave has also been subject to flooding from the interstate north almost to Faulkner Avenue many, many times. I don't know if this has been taken into consideration with the amount of, you know, if you're going to put something along Russell Cave or when you widen it, how that will mitigate flooding. If it will change it, increase it, whatever. So these are big concerns that we have for this property. And also when you add additional paving and rooftops, could potentially add even more pollutants into the water source and more flooding as well. The board of directors feel this plan as well as future plans for this property need additional scrutiny and conditions when it comes to environmental studies and sign off for. To our knowledge, I don't think anybody has required mapping of the underground water or the cave systems. I don't know about the sinkholes. We know that our neighborhood is rife with sinkholes and also with springs that come up out of the ground. Water shoots up. I think Mr. Penn mentioned a few of those on this property that he might have played in when he was a lad. I also know that the property that Mr. Anderson owns to the north of this property that is ag had some serious flooding issues many, many moons ago. That might be why the track on that property, on the ag property, was built so high above ground. I was told by people that worked on that property that they couldn't even mow it for the amount of water for four or five months throughout the spring and summer. We feel this development must be conditioned more heavily with a substantially larger than what is required by our ordinances of berm and tree planting so that Russell Cave, the site from Russell Cave, will be protected and maintain the beauty of the corridor that we have. And that a much more substantial berm might possibly protect us from the sights and sounds that these massive warehouses will emit. I think that's all I want to say. I'm sorry. I didn't expect this one to be. I thought it was up for postponement. I might be a day late and a dollar short. I am more than a dollar short. I'm just saying. The other thing we're worried about, as well as my neighbor, my street itself, is that when Providence Parkway is completed, I don't care how well you train semi-drivers or any traffic, it is going to go on to Russell Cave Road. But it's not only going to go just to Russell Cave Road. It will cut through Joyland Neighborhoods Association area. And Swigert Avenue will become a thoroughfare. And that will definitely ruin our quality of life and our property values. as well as going through other parts of our neighborhood. We also hope that somehow this board, this commission, between staff and you can find a way to condition this development and all future plans relating to this property from using Faulkner Avenue, from using Kingston as a thoroughfare to cut through over to Parris Pike. They're going to want to access the interstate. If it's backed up on Newtown, they're going to get over to Parris Pike. So I don't know what this board or planning, this commissioner planning can do to condition that legally. but I think just riding on the wave of Mr. Murphy and the developers training drivers to go west isn't going to work when that road opens up to go east. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Murphy? Just a couple points I wanted to point out in response that the Faulkner Lane is going to intersect somewhere up here. It will not be a direct intersection here, and I think it's been planned that way for many years for that purpose. So there is no opposite connection here. are as i understand there are sinkholes on the other side of russell cave we've studied this property a lot there are no sinkholes on this property on the west side of russell cave there is a potential spring down here which we've identified on the plan you'll hear at the end of your meeting today about how that spring is going to be handled there are none in this area up here. As you all know, this property's been planned for this type of development. ED allows manufacturing, assembly, logistics, that sort of thing for over 25 years. We understand concerns about air pollution and that sort of thing. We have the people coming in here and the trucks have to meet the requirements of the federal EPA, the state EPA. I don't follow this real closely, but I think I read a few days ago that the federal EPA's next big target was diesel trucks to be looking at. But we are governed by, they are governed by federal and state regulations. Again, we feel we've complied with the regulations required for our development plan. We'd ask for your approval with the changes you noted to note 15. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Staff? Do you want to? Just very quickly, for the Planning Commission's education and other education as necessary, As Dick said, this is legal use, as you're all aware, on the property. It's a legal use. Secondly, this plan, as all plans that are in the Royal Springs Aquifer, are reviewed by that committee. It's a requirement. And their recommendations are incorporated to deal with runoff and the impact on the Royal Springs Aquifer, which has been mapped. There is some dispute among the hydrologists how accurate that is because it's difficult to map an aquifer and it's extremely expensive. I'm on the committee. We've talked about that recently, trying to get a better map for the aquifer. But it has been mapped and that's what we use when we regulate these things. In addition, our staff, your staff, the Planning Commission, we're very, very conscientious, and we use conditional zoning in the aquifer to help address the runoff issues, which I can tell you that's the big issue for the Royal Springs Aquifer. It's runoff, it's spillage, it's things that will work its way into the aquifer. So, again, as to flooding, well, the problem's upstream. That's where the problem originates. The neighborhoods are upstream. They were built under old, old standards. We are currently, I say we, the government, the citizens of Lexington, have and are spending a large amount of money in this area to address stormwater and flooding concerns and have been for several years now. So we're attempting to address a lot of those issues that impact the neighborhood. I just wanted to clarify a few things for you. Thank you, Tom. Commission, do you have any further discussions, questions? Mr. Penn? Larry, I do. Yeah, go ahead. I would implore this body, in the past we have made significant conditions and studies on lighting when it affects a neighboring residential property. We've looked at different types of lighting for parking lots. I think considering the frontage of the boundary on not just one but two AR pieces of property, I think we should look at some sort of lighting condition. I guess my comment to that is, I agree we do need to figure out how to address lighting broadly. I'm just a little concerned about doing it in a spot basis. But I do think it's something that needs to be addressed in our policy. Is it that the point of a development plan is a case by case basis rather than for example, a ZODA? I agree, but I don't have the information available to make a decision. no study I've got nothing to look at so I'm making a decision based off this development plan here. Yes, Mr. Worth. We also heard a request for a more extensive buffering of that property in the upper right hand corner whether it's with a burb whether it's additional berm additional trees or whatever and I think as a group we're still struggling with what constitutes an adequate buffer when we put neighborhoods in agricultural areas up against something like this. So I'm thinking not only air quality, I'm wondering what the noise level will be. And whether, I don't know about the environmental assessment. We don't have an engineer who signs off on air quality as far as I know, do we? We skipped that one here. I'm glad we don't live in Louisville. I'm glad we live here. But I think we need to consider more extensive buffering on the plan up there where it's heading into the neighborhood. Okay, thank you. Larry, looking at this, I assume the staff's reviewed it all and the buffering there is what falls under the ordinance, especially with regard to zone to zone buffering. So I'm perfectly fine with it. Thank you. All right, Mr. Penn, I think it's no more questions, is it open? Well, before I make the motion, I'd like to remind the people from Joellen that the reason this piece of property was brought in is to fix your sewer problems in Joellen and also behind Brown Station High School. This property would not have been brought in on the north side of the interstate. To do that to fix the sewer problem. So we have to consider that as the reason why we're dealing with this right now. You ready for a motion? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 21.9 with the change in number 15 to comply, adopted requirements of the Article 16 and 18, including number 17. There's 17 conditions. Do you want the compliance statement with it? Can we do a compliance statement together, or do we need to do that separate? Together? Let's go ahead and do it together. It's my opinion we should do those separately. Okay. Yeah, there's a... Well, we can do that. Yeah, we can do that. That's fine. That's fine. That's why we asking now. All right. Okay. So move for approval with the 17 conditions change in number 15 as read. Okay. We have a motion, a second by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion to that motion? Not seeing any. Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. That motion passes. Now the compliance report. Mr. Chairman, I move to accept the compliance report for the previous motion. Okay. Seconded by Mr. Bell. Give us a little time so we can vote via Granicus as it becomes available. Okay, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. You're welcome. All righty, so that will put us on page 9, PLNMJDP 22-65, Givens Property. We have revised staff recommendations on the green sheet, and we also have a waiver with this request as well. Good afternoon. As the Chair mentioned, we do have revised conditions on the green sheet today. So this plan is PLN MJDP 22-5 Gibbons property. This is a preliminary subdivision plan depicting 12 lots and a final development plan to show proposed development on lot 1. So lot 1 is the one you see in the color up here. Sorry to interrupt. Can we get Granicus moved forward? Just like us. Thank you. We can go on into the. Okay. All right, so this property is located at 2210 Georgetown Road. It's at the southeast of the intersection of Citation and Georgetown. So we've got Citation here and Georgetown Road here. Directly to the south we have Rude and Riddle Hospital. You can see their access point here. There's an undeveloped property across the street that has B6P zoning. And then to the east here along Remington Way is a single-family detached neighborhood. This property is about 25 acres, and the plan is showing 12 lots. And lot 1 is, again, our focus today. That portion of the lot is about 13 acres and will contain about 70,000 square feet of retail space, including a grocery store and two smaller retail structures, and they're proposing 350 parking spaces here. They are showing two regional detention basins, one on lot two, a long citation up here, and then another just to the east of the grocery store down here. They are showing pedestrian walkways and sidewalks throughout the lot, four of lot one that allow pedestrian access from the rights of way and throughout the property. So those are in green on the plan here and with crosswalks and things like that throughout. So access was initially a pretty significant concern for this plan. It shows a proposed signalized access from Citation Boulevard to Remington Way here that the applicant plans to install. They're showing two access points from Remington into the shopping center. and then a three-quarter access from Georgetown Road here. And this is the access point that was of particular concern and does require a waiver, which Mr. Martin has a report for. Let's see. So that intersection does require a waiver, given its close proximity both to the intersection of Citation and Georgetown here, as well as its close proximity to Rood and Riddle's access here. The applicant has indicated that they will install the traffic signal at Citation Access, as well as road improvements to Georgetown and a bus stop along Georgetown, which you can see here. So you'll see on your revised conditions that number 16 is to resolve the timing of those road improvements and installation of the traffic signal and bus stop. Staff would recommend that these improvements be completed in the earliest phases of the project. So we just want to resolve that issue and hear from the applicant about what the timing is for that. So staff is recommending approval of this. The subdivision committee did also recommend approval. And I will entertain any questions that you have. Any questions? Thank you. Tom? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, as Autumn stated, there's a waiver associated with this plan. There we go. So again, this proposed access point is the subject of the waiver off of Georgetown Road into this property. The issue is the spacing requirements from this intersection with citation, and then as well as the Rood-Riddle driveway. And a lot of times applicants forget this, and that's understandable. They're thinking about street spacing and their relationship to the streets and the street intersections, but the regs actually reference any access, any access point. So in this particular situation, this access point is about 732 feet or so from this intersection. It defaults under our regs to 1,400 feet when you follow the formula without any traffic study and that sort of thing that creates an actual count, which you can then apply to the formula. Staff had a little bit of concern about Rood and Riddle, and then as we discussed it and thought about it, we realized that's actually a low-volume use. Again, there's horses and trailers coming and going, and that is a concern. And in fact, access is always a concern on a busy road and on arterials. And we had a lot of discussion. And recently, staff sat down with traffic engineering to discuss it as well and fully understand their take on this particular waiver. And again, the waiver is on the distance. And so what we talked about was the nature of the access point. And as you all know, and we've done this quite often in situations like this, we recommend right in, right outs. And then we require median controls so that they will work correctly. And one aspect of that is, is unfortunately a lot of times the median controls that go in for right in, right outs don't work well. People engage in bad behavior. They drive around them. They do U-turns. And that is a dangerous movement in and of itself. And we all see it. Again, we see it all too often. But they do. In this particular situation with this relationship, and this is unfortunately a relatively dangerous intersection. There's a high number of accidents apparently here, probably due to the high speeds on Georgetown because the traffic counts are not as high as they are in some of our other materials. And then of course we have a lot of industrial land uses and you do have a lot of tractor trailers and truck traffic coming and going in this area. But we felt that the applicant made a very important point about this additional access point into this development. And that is, if you come in off Remington Way and they have two access points into their development, If you come into Remington Way, I mean off of Remington Way, the problem is the historical development in the area. Originally, there was intended to be additional connections from this residential neighborhood. It got cut off. So they're isolated. This is the only access into here for this. So the only access without this point would be this intersection with Citation. And staff agreed that that could be problematic for a large. large, this is a large scale, 25 acres commercial development. Now, they're only proposing just over 70,000 right now. It appears to be a grocery store. We think that's a grocery store and that's a little liquor store. It's got to be separate, have a separate entrance. And that is probably spec retail. And we're not going to speculate on who that is that's coming in right there. But, again, this concern was one that staff agreed with, that being the only access to a large commercial development as well as a residential neighborhood. So, in looking at this access point, and they moved it up. That was beneficial to this relationship with Rood and Riddle. It also allows for better circulation within the development. And in essence, they're providing what will function as a service road, which will serve the outlots when they develop. Again, that's a positive. What's most interesting about this is it's what they call a three quarters. It's going to allow right in, right out, and left in. No left out. Left outs are your biggest problem, the biggest cause of collisions and accidents. Left-ins aren't great. I'm not going to tell you that our fellow staff members were just tremendously delighted about this, but this was a learning experience for me and I enjoyed that. This modified three quarter design actually is better way to address this type of access when you don't have good median controls. And we're talking about medians, big things that really can control movements. And we don't have that here. Now the applicant in their discussion with district seven along with traffic engineering has agreed to a large number of improvements. And that's what Autumn was referencing. They're gonna put in a bus stop, a pullover and a bus stop. There's currently one further down in this area. They're gonna add a new one. They're going to add at District Seven's request, another turn lane off Georgetown on the Citation. So there'll be dual lifts. They are going to provide some lane improvements and a traffic signal at this location. Now, it is staff's opinion that when you have these types of infrastructure improvements and things that are deemed necessary because of this development, that they do them now, not later. That's the purpose of the recommendation, resolve the timing. Staff's going to make it very clear. We believe that when they come in and start developing this facility and developing this site, then they need to do the improvements at that time. With that, staff reviewed the waiver, and we are recommending approval to the Planning Commission Day for this waiver, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about that for staff. All right, Mr. Penn has a question. Mr. Martin, how far is it from the entrance or exit to Root and Riddle to the entrance to this? It's 300 and some feet now. It was less than that on the original one, and staff was concerned. There is a dedicated left turn lane, and you may be aware of that, Mr. Ben. There is. There's no doubt about it. Right. That comes down through here. So they are going to use that dedicated left turn lane to also access their property. And there will be median controls on that three-quarter. Now, they're going to have to design that in compliance with District 7 and traffic engineering's concerns to make sure it does function. My question to you is a concern about bringing horses in and out of there with a trailer behind you, either coming left, coming in there, coming right. If that traffic backs up or if you come out of there and have to get over two lanes, that's a problem. And a lot of people that come to Rood and Riddle aren't just driving their car. There's a reason they're there. So I don't want to say that 340 feet is plenty of room because it's really not if you get in that kind of situation. So if traffic has looked at this and they've taken considerations what Root and Riddle, what their business is, then I kind of can go with it. But it seems mighty tight for me for somebody that serves as horse and trailers. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn, your point's well taken. And I don't mind sharing with you that your planning staff was very concerned about all this. We were. We kicked this thing around and agonized and thought about it because we have, you all know this, we have worked diligently to protect access on our arterials and particularly Georgetown. But again, the nature of this large commercial development is what swayed us that an additional access point would be necessary. The design is all important, Mr. Penn, I believe. I don't doubt the need for the exit. My concern is how close it is to Root & Riddles. Well, yes, sir. And that's their only access, Root & Riddles. Yes, sir. It is. Yes, Mr. Mickler. So for those of the people coming up Georgetown from Lexington proper, They make a write-in. They do their grocery shopping. And then they are supposed to go left on Remington, left on Citation, and then left on Georgetown? Not with this design. Oh, pardon me. I'm sorry. You're right. Yes, they will be. Yeah, there's no left out onto Georgetown. That is correct. They will go out and use a controlled lighted intersection on citation as well as Georgetown. They'll make two left turns at lights. Yes, sir. Or play chicken and just drive a U-turn right there. I'm not going to state out loud which one I would probably do. Well, we know drivers engage in poor behavior. Okay, anybody else want to tell on their sales? Come on Robin, you got to do better. All right, thank you Mr. Mark. I'm not seeing any other questions, thank you sir. Okay, applicant. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Brad Boaz with CMW Architects and Engineers, and I'm here with Brandon Gross. And we appreciate the effort the staff went into working with us to try to make this work. As Tom and Autumn said, we took the Root and Riddle entrance into great consideration, moving that entrance around following the recommendations of the traffic study to allow for proper right turn lane into the development as to not impact the route and rental entrance. In addition to not allowing a left out so that somebody wouldn't pull in front of a truck and a trailer exiting heading north. I do have a question about our note 15 addition of lot to that kind of takes it out of the approval. In working with water quality, the retention basin that's illustrated there at the north side of the site is necessary for us to develop that. We don't have plans at the moment to put any development in between the detention basin and the parking lot. I just want to make sure that that infrastructure would be allowed to be developed as part of this approval. and any building development would come with a future development plan. So just to clarify, both a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan both permit construction and permits to be pulled from those. So if lot two, where there's no development shown except for the basin, we would consider that part of the preliminary subdivision plan for your infrastructure. And then when development is planned for that lot, you would submit a revised final development plan. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. So you've addressed my concern. And then the issue of resolving when the improvements to the right-of-ways will take place. The developer wants those improvements in place prior to opening the grocery store to ensure that traffic movement is as safe as possible and into and out of the development. So that is not a concern at all. And I'll take any questions. Any questions for the applicant? I see it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. Okay. Not seeing any, so we'll bring it back to the commission for any further questions. If none, the floor is open for a motion. Do you want this with it? That's fine. She said she wanted to do that. We can do that together. Okay. Yeah. I don't know if somebody else will do it. You want to do that? You got it, Mr. Nickel? All right, I'll make a motion unless there's any other questions. Does not look like it. I would like to make a motion for approval of PLNMJDP 22-0065 Givens property. The approval includes the 17 staff recommendations we have on our green sheet. And the waiver. And the waiver, findings for petition for waiver of land subdivision regulations. Both of those in this motion. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? I'll second. Second. Now, Mr. Penn, any further discussion? Seeing none, now please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, and put us back, still on page nine. At the bottom, item I, PLN, MJDP 22-69, Kingston Hall. Staff. We ready to go? Yes, sir. Hello. Good to see you. It's me again. We have moved down to the bottom of page 9. And, of course, it's continued on to page 10. And this is the major development plan amendment out on Kingston Hall, once again, that I mentioned with the previous presentation. And there we are. And I think it's good that you saw the previous plan, which was the overall lotting. Oh, it's not moving for you guys? I was having the same problem. But, again, here's the interstate. Russell Cave Road, here's Providence Parkway. We looked at the flex space in this location. Now you can see here what they call cross dock development here. They've done the exact same thing here that they did up here. It was over here, but it was only one facility. That's a significant difference. They've now moved it to the east, and they've added a second facility. That's not a bad thing. The demand is there. This is ED land. Again, this is illegal ED use. Apparently, these people, they call, I believe, the logistics something, they too are flex-based. They lease to a lot of different people depending on their needs, a lot of different functions, a lot of different activities take place in these facilities. They're large. They're large. This is lot 11, is 37 and a half acres, and lot 12 is 47 acres in this location. The facilities themselves are 502,840 square feet. And those of you on the subdivision committee may recall, again, you can see the parking that they're proposing for the employees and visitors and others. and then there's a lot of parking. And staff was curious about that as well because, again, that is a tractor-trailer parking that demonstrates a lot of usage. And they assured the committee and staff, they determined this to be their need. So these are areas of detention that you can see. There is a spring in this location, which will have to be addressed and mitigated as necessary. And it may require some modifications. There's a little bit of a wetlands area that was identified in that area as well. So again, they're fronting on Providence. This facility will have access off Providence. Here's the local street with access off the local street to the second facility that they are now proposing. And here we have the cemetery. This plan was held up, as the other was for a while, until we got a cemetery study done. They have completed that study and identified the cemetery. This is its location. It will be protected. And they've added a proposed access easement into that cemetery to allow the family access to the grave sites. This plan does have, is revised and does have new conditions. They are a tremendous number of conditions relative to a development plan. That's standard. Virtually every agency will be reviewing and signing off, has reviewed, and will sign off on this plan. They were required to withdraw the previous plan. That was the one over here. We're not going to have two plans for the same facility floating around. So we told them, you got to withdraw this one before you get this one. They have officially requested that withdrawal today with staff. So that's been done. They're going to have to certify the previous plan first. It's a timing thing. They're going to certify this one and then come in and certify this one. Now, they are going to have to address their parking issues on this plan. It was not filed. This is a brand-new plan. This is an amendment. They're going to have to meet the new parking requirements, and that's a bit of a challenge. But, again, these are large sites. And even though they're large facilities, they're going to have to address that. Again, access and improvements to Russell Cave Road. You've heard that discussion. We're willing to resolve that with them. We're willing to time it to additional build out on the Kingston Hall property. We've had that discussion. We're willing to work with them on that. The same would be true with the Russell Cave improvements. By the way, there is already, and it was required when this property first came in, a landscape buffer along Russell Cave Road. There's also a 50-foot setback off Russell Cave Road to help, again, it helps address that relationship. And that was all done when this property was originally brought in years ago. That was done. So, again, we've issued just a memo for the AMP because even though they moved everything to the east and they doubled the size of the facility, it is a legal recommended land use in the ED zone in the AMP. So, the land use component hasn't changed. The infrastructure, as I stated before, they will be building Providence Parkway, and the sewer infrastructure exists. So, again, it's consistent with the recommended and required infrastructure element, the MP. And the relationship that exists with the topography, the development, was consistent with the previous site. So the community design element, again, we have, the staff has reviewed this, and we find and recommend that you find that this plan does comply with the AMP. This is one of your simpler areas, frankly, for the AMP. There's less infrastructure. It's ED land. It's easier, frankly, to comply with AMP in these particular developments. So with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Again, we are recommending approval of the plan as well as the finding on the AMP. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Finn? Looking at this, when you get down toward the south end of the property, 50-foot setback won't clear the 30-foot height. Do you measure that from the edge of the road or from the center of the road? That 50-foot setback is from the right-of-way. It's from the right-of-way? Yes, sir. Well, it's going to be mighty tight because it's not only a 50-foot setback, but it's 30-foot vertical right there. Yes, sir. And the spring and the wetland, they are aware of this. There are some challenges in that corner. There certainly are. Well, there will be a correction once they get on the ground. Any other questions? Yeah, I've got one. Yes. This is a question just because it's kind of new. We spoke sort of in depth when we looked at the new parking requirements regarding normal lots for automobiles. Are there any design requirement changes to the parking for semis, or does that? It's considered vehicular use area, and we'll speak to the canopy requirements and perimeter screening. So that increases the perimeter screening and canopy requirements, but it doesn't change the flow or the design of the semi parking? Not with that particular semi parking. Thank you. I asked that same question myself when we were talking about it. The staff was looking at it. I said, now wait a minute. Is that because, you know, we have the islands requirement? I wanted to be sure we got it right. Tom, you're talking about a building that's covering 10 acres. Yes, sir. You're talking about two of them. And when you talk about the size of those types of facilities, and then you put the parking around them for semis, that's a huge structure. Yes, sir. It's 50 feet tall, by the way. How many? It'll be 50 feet in height. Well, I'm not trying to do cubic. Yes, sir. They're large. If you think that this is, this almost looks like 11 pounds of flour in a 5-pound sack. And I know that's 40 acres and 47 acres and 36 acres, but that's also 10 acres under roof on each one of them. and perhaps the applicant can address that in some greater detail. I understand that, but I just wanted to feel sure that the staff understood what they were looking at. Yeah, we're impressed by the facilities, and of course, again, being ED development, and apparently this developer brings in a lot of different businesses. So we're hopeful that we'll see some job creation out here. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yes. That's interesting that you said you... Tom, you're talking about job creation based on the size of the building. So they've met your requirements to do that, correct? Well, it's the use, Bruce, the ultimate use. And apparently, these developers market to various users. Oh. Multiple users. Yes, there are multiple users. That means, okay, thank you. All right. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. applicant against Rory Keeley the partners I'm here with Richard Murphy we are in agreement with staffs revised conditions we'd like little clarification or to point out that your conditions 13, 16, and 21 all discuss the Russell Cave Road improvements. And on the previous Kingston Hall plan we looked at, which has to be certified before this one, I just want to make sure that everyone's agreeable that those three conditions will all be met through the decisions from the previous plan. Yes, and Rory, as you know, the Department of Highway, you denote that. they're going to approve it when you pull a permit. Yes, neither of these buildings are trying to get on, have any access directly to Russell Cave. That would be part of the province place and the other plan. Right. And again, you just left the cross section off on Russell Cave Road. It's on the other one. It's not on this one. Okay. Any questions from Mr. Cayley? Okay. Thank you. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on this particular application? Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, planning commissioners. My name is Catherine Perkins. I live at 258 Swigert Avenue. in Joyland Neighborhood Association purview. I am secretary of the Joyland Neighborhood Association currently, and I'm also a Parris Pike Corridor commissioner. I want to thank you for your continued volunteer with this commission. I appreciate it. I wouldn't do it myself. I'm representing the Joyland Neighborhood Association's Board of Directors. And I know I spoke in the previous plan, development plan, and I want to reiterate that we are very concerned with the looks of this, with the potential for increased flooding west of it and any other hazardous effects that it could potentially have. We know that there are many things that our city puts before them that they have to comply with once completed. But these are massive structures along with the other development on this property that will be essentially paving a lot of good soil and pushing more water to run off, toxic water potentially from diesel trucks going into the ground. And water that goes into the ground does seep into other underground waterways waterways and potentially cause other hazards. We feel that this plan must be more heavily conditioned, especially with the berm or the setback. We know that the city LFUCG planning staff makes them comply with what the ordinances require. I believe that it is in your power to increase that setback by a substantial amount. I don't know how much leeway you get in doing that, but I think the farther this is set back from Russell Cave Road, the better. And that I think that the applicants should be required to, once these monstrosities are completed, to be plant mature, sizable trees. and a lot of them. This borderline is one of the most scenic roads, corridors coming out of Lexington. One of the things that you have heard, Mr. Martin, hey, that's your name? Okay, I forget things. Talks about is the EAMP and how this is in compliance with the EAMP. Well, I would like to address the EAMP as well. Faulkner Avenue, which used to be called Swigert, in the EAMP is designated as a rural scenic road to be protected by increased traffic. This city's planning staff has assured us that none of the development plans that they have approved in the surrounding area will affect the traffic on Faulkner Avenue, aka Swigert, but that is not so. It already has. And again, I'm asking you on behalf of the Joyland Neighborhood Association Board of Directors to somehow garner more protection for Faulkner Avenue when Providence Place Parkway is completed. And it will be completed, as we all know, regardless of what happens to Russell Cave Road. Okay. And light pollution. Mr. Davis has brought up a very good concern that I don't think was adequately addressed with the last plan for this property, but this will directly affect the entire area if it's lit all to, you know, whatever it can, is allowed by law. And we think that you should put some condition on their lighting, either in the way of making them plant bigger and larger trees, since this is going to be how many feet high? 50 feet with lights that are 100? I don't know. Okay. So let them plant a forest between Russell Cave and these. That's what I'm asking you to put a condition on there to increase the berm that you've recommended. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. Did I forget anything? I forget it. Sorry. My name is Patty Drouse and I live at 608 Allen Court in Joyland where I've lived for over 40 years. I just want to state that the previous comments that I made for the 09 application are also applicable for this property. And I have serious concerns about emissions from this property use. I'm requesting that there be a condition that the factory not emit anything smelly or toxic. I know there are federal regulations, but we all know that companies do emit fumes that don't, that I guess somehow escape those regulations or don't hit the trigger. So if that could be a condition, it would be good. I am requesting there be an environmental impact assessment to evaluate the cumulative impact for air toxics and particulate matter for Joyland and the Broadus property. Because we have multiple sources of particulate matter, this will be an addition. And I'm requesting this project be relocated to the other side of the property, to the western side of it, Newtown Pike. I know I've come late to this party. I don't know how in the world our neighborhood has missed all this planning, but we sure have. And there are no buildings up yet. There's still time to relocate to the Newtown Pike side or go to Coldstream Research Park or Nandino Boulevard. Again, please protect the children and everyone else in Joyland. Thank you. And thank you for this opportunity. Thank you, Patty. Mr. Murphy, you want to say anything? I'm not going to repeat everything I said on the previous plan, but I would like it to apply to this one. I want to be mindful of your time. This property is right up against the interstate highway on the southern part of the property. As Mr. Martin mentioned on the last one, we do have to go in front of the Royal Spring Aquifer Committee, which is very protective about the watershed here. We've been before them a number of times, and they do have special requirements for trapping any contaminants and that sort of thing on this property, which we will go through. And again, we are subject to federal and state air quality. The users will be subject to federal and state air quality requirements as well. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we bring it to the commission. Any questions? Of course, Mr. Murphy. Done. Yeah, we just opened up for questions. Ms. Murphy wants to go first. Sure. Yes. I just want to ask Mr. Martin to repeat. Earlier you said this part of the property has additional buffering, larger setback, more landscaping. Is that right from the one we looked at earlier? The entire boundary along Russell Cave Road has a designated landscape buffer. That goes back to the original approval. Thank you. Mr. Nichol. I just wanted to clarify or get a point of reference. When you say the original approval, is that what we were talking about, the adoption of the ED zone 25 years ago? When this land was originally rezoned ED. Okay. There were a lot of various things done in conditions, and that was one of the conditions, was a landscape buffer. So that was a decision that was made two decades ago? Yes, sir. To protect Russell Cave? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. we were mindful of that relationship yeah i want to ask mr murphy when the engineers signed off on this they were aware of the size of these two buildings and to handle the runoff yes absolutely and i do want to say too crosstalk is an organization out of Louisville Lee Wilburn and Scott Moser are here today from Crosstoc they are experienced in doing this type of building they have built a large factory building in Lexington but throughout the Midwest they have done a number of developments like this so this is not their first time doing this they have a lot of experience doing exactly this type of development Mr. Martin, could you address the, Mr. Murphy said that the federal and state requirements would regulate air quality issues. Could you describe the process by which that happens? I guess what I'm wondering is how much burden is there on the Planning Commission to foresee issues that could be prevented rather than have a situation in which they're reacted to? Well, Graham, that's a good question. And legal may have to weigh in on what kind of authority we actually have over these uses. But I mean, these facilities do go through state and federal licensing and review. Now, what's involved there, I'm not personally familiar with. The applicant may know more about what they have to go through to get permits. And I'm sure a lot of that's based on what they're doing and what type of operation and what's going on in that facility. We, I think, locally lack a lot of authority to address certain things, except through zoning where we separate I2 uses, I1 uses, and noxious uses. I think that's probably the greatest extent of our authority, unless legal knows of something more when it comes to air quality. I think Tom's correct. We don't have a lot of regulations about air quality. Just like there's, I'm not going to go through and listen, but there's a number of other things that you all talk about, but we don't have regulation authority over them because either the state or the federal government does. And so, you know, our engineers have to look at it, our water quality people have to look at it and all those things. But I think when you get into what's allowed to be diesel fuel emissions and those type of things, that's sort of out of our purview. So have you ever seen a case in which the reviewing authorities have, for example, limited numbers of vehicles and the amount of time that they're left idling in a particular facility? I personally have not. I do know of a circumstance locally, you may be aware of what, with the incinerator on Old Frankford Pike and that issue that came up under state review. And it was not a legal use. And so we were able to step in and add our weight behind those concerns because it was not a legal use on the property. But it was state purview in terms of the air impact of that incinerator that that company had installed. Any further questions? Okay. Close this portion out and bring it back to the commission. Floor is open. Somebody else needs to do this. Yeah, you don't need to. I can't do this. I can't do it. I can't do it. Right here. I see it. Yeah. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of PLNN JDP 2269, Kings Hall with the 21 conditions. Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granticus. Motion passes unanimously. I move that this is in compliance of the EAMP for PLNMJDP 2269 Kings Hall, as stated on the memorandum. Thank you. We got a motion. Seconded by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing any vote via Granicus when it comes available. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Cayley. All righty, so that put us on page 10, PLNMJDP 22-70, Clark property. We have revised staff recommendations, EAMP compliance reports, and findings for access easements for the commission. Good afternoon. We're on the last development plan. As you said, this is for Clark Property Unit 4, amended. This property is located off of Polo Club Boulevard. We have Blackford Parkway that runs through here, which will connect up over to Blackford subdivision. This property here had come in originally with all single-family detached dwellings. Now they're coming in with a revision to change some of the single-family into townhomes along the northwest part of the property, and then also over here in this section to put in townhomes. You can see we have our standard typical conditions. We had a couple cleanup conditions. Number 15, delete note because it's a duplicate. We would like to see typical townhome layouts for all townhome units. whoops, sorry some of these, they have two townhomes proposed down here but some of these townhomes have rear garages they have a detached garage, they have a single garage and a two car garage so we'd like to make sure we have all the layouts for all of those we have condition number 17, it says resolve access to the greenway and the detached single-family homes. We have an access, they have a proposed for us to come in and access from the single-family up here and down to Blackford Parkway and then another connection over here to the trail system. One of the condition number 12 is to denote access to the Deerhaven Park and Brighton Trail to the Division of Parks and Rec and Green Space Planner. This is the Deerhaven Park, Brighton Deerhaven Park here, and the trail is along here. At this time, they have two lots that are adjacent to Blackford Parkway that you have to go through to get to the park, and we want to be able to resolve that with the Green Space Planner and the Division of Parks. As you stated, we have two findings for the access easement and also for the expansion area. As you can see, we prepared the findings for the access easement along here. They have townhomes that are facing the green space with driveways to the rear. They have front-facing garages onto the access easement. They have townhomes facing Blackford Parkway and then with access to the parkway and then they have access easement behind these townhomes as they face to the parkway. With that, we believe that the access easement does not create any hazard. It does not cause any problems with public health and safety. And we agree that it's met the requirements that can move forwards with this finding. And I'm going to let Tom talk about the expansion area master plan. So is there any other comments or questions? Thank you. I know just when you thought you wouldn't have to listen to me again today, this is my last presentation. to you. And I know Mr. Penn is thinking bad pennies. You know, they keep popping up. So, the AMP compliance for the Blackford property. As Cheryl mentioned, you can see the single family homes here. This is a 72 acre site roughly on the Blackford property. And it originally was all single family detached. The street system is basically consistent, the local street system. And again, they've added about nine acres of townhouses. So from a EMP compliance land use, yes, it's consistent with EMP, the single family, and adding townhouses is adding a new element of housing, which again is consistent with EMP because now we've got a variety of housing in this area where prior to, you know, it was dominated by single-family detached dwellings. In terms of infrastructure, and you all, I know when we talk about the EMP, and you all hear this a lot, this is Blackford Parkway, and this is the last section. I believe they're already started on the front area through here, but this section of Blackford will be completed through this and hook up to the existing Blackford Parkway and go all the way out to Manowar and complete the collector street that will serve all that residential area. Another, and speaking of the infrastructure, the sewers are all in place, the trunk lines. There's no issues with A&P compliance for that particular aspect of the infrastructure. The community design element, the orientation to the greenways and the park are important. That relationship still exists, as it did on the original plan and on this one. You can see the greenway in this area. And, of course, this is Deerhaven Park right here. Now, you hear staff talk a lot about EMP compliance. You hear us talk about these greenways and how important they were to the EMP. I thought I'd show you a big picture. We sometimes are remiss in reminding you all of the big picture. So here's the property right here. That's what we're talking about. Blackford Parkway will come off of Polo Club, come around, and as I said, it flows through the residential property and ends up connecting with Manowar, a vital part of the AMP infrastructure, road infrastructure. And here's our greenways for the entire area. And there they go off towards Winchester Road and that way. All this system of greenways, which are so integral to the AMP, to the stormwater management, and to tying these neighborhoods together and access to them and trails. That's always been an integral aspect of the AMP. And again, so very important to the development of these areas. So that brings us back. And Cheryl had mentioned the access points, the park access point to the greenway again, because I showed you that picture how they tie everything together. One issue that's important that we want to stress is this relationship right through here to the park. This is a little bit of proposed HOA property that serves little function other than to actually isolate the park potentially. And we've got right-of-way right here, again, in terms of EMP compliance, we want to ensure connections to the park, connections to the greenway. So we believe that needs to be resolved. We think there is a way to do that to ensure a nice, good connection into Deerhaven Park. And with that, and with the review, staff does find that the plan does comply with the AEMP. I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Two questions. Mr. Nickel and Mr. Penn. Go ahead. I got a subdivision question for you, Mr. Martin. On the single family residential, there's approximately 50 lots that could theoretically face the greenway. Is that still a possibility with our, they could front the greenway? Is that still a possibility with the subdivision regulations, just as a question? Because you built all this nice space? I think a lot of things like that are very possible, depending on how creative the developer gets and how they want to orient things and how they want to address that relationship. And that's on the decision of the developer, homeowner gets to make that decision. Well, and as you know, this plan's been around a long time, and the townhouses are probably the most significant change. So they've been holding on to this vision of this property for quite a few years now. It would be interesting. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Penn? Hey, Rob. Tom, I'm a little hesitant to ask this because I don't know the answer, but if we're going to do this large development on access easement? Not the entire one. Let me be very clear. Yeah, show me where the access easement is. Right here for the townhouses. that's a reflection of their desire to orient to the greenway and also meet our parking new parking requirements so that that's required a little flexibility and this will be built no doubt to public standards i would anticipate mr penn and that's certainly a condition that could be placed on the on that finding i would certainly encourage that to happen because an access with that many townhomes or whatever they are, if it's not built to public standards, there's an awful lot of down the road, a lot of problems with that. Yes, sir. And as you know, staff often recommends that, and that is certainly a very legitimate condition to place on that finding. Thank you. Mr. Mickley. We've been talking in our meetings a lot about increasing street frontage along our parks. I believe we even adopt, I believe the Planning Commission before I was on it even adopted a requirement of frontage on public parks. That corner on Deerhaven Park, if from all practical purposes looks like it is primarily bordered by houses and not street, is that regulation not applying to this development? Are they getting around it by that thin strip of HOA? I mean, explain what's going on there. The previous plan actually had this section up against the right-of-way. The HOA lot is the new little wrinkle, which, frankly, staff doesn't think is necessary. And it should be right-of-way. This does reflect the previous approvals and the previous layout on the plan. so they are they can't achieve right away along that part but it can you remind me what percentage we're trying is it 60% yeah Tom so the regulation that the planning commission approved or recommended for approval to the council went to council they approved it but they approved it with an effective date of February 2023 so the applicant filed this ahead of that deadline. I think probably to avoid those regulations. So this sort of plan where along the park we have backyard, backyard, backyard, backyard, backyard is enabled because they're ahead of the schedule of the infected date. I believe it is 60%. Is that what we remember? Everybody's shaking their head in the back. 60%. Mr. Nick. But my understanding is they have the option to front the green space if that were something that the houses themselves could be cited to front the greenway if desired by the homeowners developer whoever the end user is and again that's part of the rationale for the access easement is to allow those townhouses to front on the greenway so we're previously we'd encourage it now february we're going to require a little bit well it'll be the park the public parks will require frontage yeah that's what we need right direction yeah yeah good question okay okay any further questions for staff thank you all right applicant thank you very much it's dick murphy and rory kayley again on this one and appreciate your consideration of this we are in agreement with the staff recommendations with with one exception which i need to discuss with you i want to point out a couple things on this though this is we had a very good meeting Monday out at the parks department Rory and I went out and talked to Michelle Kaziniak and mr. Brian Roach who were parks planners and with Demetria from the division of environmental services and Valerie Friedman your green space planner in the Division of Planning. We went over what we were doing with them and of course this is Deerhaven Park. I want to emphasize this this area is not the main entrance to Deerhaven Park. Deerhaven Park's main entrance is off of Deerhaven Lane down off the road here and Walnut Grove Lane is where the entrance to it is. This portion of Deerhaven Park is a mountain bike facility which is allowed to grow up in sort of a natural state and also right about where my laser is pointing there is a cell tower which has been approved by the urban county government on it on the parks property so there's a lot of development on the park here but we went over this property here we pointed out the this row townhouses we are facing the greenway and we're asking for the access easement because the access easement let us back these onto the access easement and face down to the greenway we discussed with parks about whether this would be a publicly owned greenway or a privately owned greenway we discussed maintenance on this the park said that there was never going to be a trail in here because of the steep slopes on this property. There's a, from this point to this point, just from the center here down to the backyard of this house, it's about a 12-foot drop from the house lot down into the ravine there. So they said there's never going to be a trail on this property because of the steepness of the terrain on this piece. It is going to be part of the stormwater. As you know, these greenways are used to help absorb and clean stormwater. What we agreed upon is that this would be owned by the Homeowners Association but subject to a conservation easement which is allowed under your ordinance where we would set forth the rules of who does what and what we can do on the greenway and we agreed that it would be the Homeowners Association that would maintain it but there would be rules in a conservation agreement with the parks department that for instance homeowners association can remove invasive species they cannot remove others there'll be guidelines on how you take care of the trees how you prune them and that sort of thing on there so there'd be a set of rules about what has to be done and the parks was fine with that because they don't have to maintain it and our homeowners association is fine with that too because our homeowners association takes a lot of pride in maintaining this area and they are very careful about it. The other issue that came up was these two little lots down here. These are on the other side of Blackford Parkway and they back up to the park, which is the mountain bike course there. The concern was expressed that nobody wanted the private developer to prevent pedestrian and bicycle access from Blackford Parkway into the park, which we totally agree with on that. We do not. So we proposed also that these be homeowner association lots as they were designated homeowner association lots on the last certified development plan. We had them homeowner association lots. But again, we would either do an easement or an agreement with the parks department saying number one we can't stop members from the of the public from walking over this parcel to get to the park in other words you know they were afraid that we'd say only homeowners association members can walk across this strip and getting in the park we said no that's not our concern we want we're fine with general public members walking over or taking their bicycles over and getting the park we did say we wanted it limited to pedestrians and bicycles and park said that was fine that was their goal too pedestrian and bicycle access at this point the automobile access is down where the parking lot is down at the uh deer haven lane and walnut grove lane down there so we we proposed that this be a homeowners association lot with an agreement that that there would be access through here for the general public to get in and out of the park. Now, what difference does this make? It doesn't make a whole lot of difference because whether it's publicly owned or privately owned, everybody has agreed that the public can go across this parcel and get into the park. But it makes a difference to us and it makes a difference to our homeowners association. We want this to be owned by the homeowners association because, and I've argued against the way developers usually say, developers usually say, turn this over, let the city maintain it. We're saying keep it. Our homeowners association wants to maintain it because they do. Because if this is publicly owned, these two lots, the grass is going to get cut three times a year if we're lucky. If our homeowner association has it, they're going to get out there, they're going to be cutting it every week. That's the way they are. They're doing that. So we want this to be homeowner's association lot, and the reason is we want the homeowner's association to maintain it. Now, it was brought up to me, I talked to this Freedman this morning, and this afternoon, this was brought up last night, this new issue, and said well if the homeowners association wants to maintain it they some homeowners association cut the grass and the medians of roads and I'm sure the city would let you do it I'm sure that too but as a lawyer I'm concerned about liability issues if I want there to be at least an insurance policy that the homeowners association carries so if somebody of the homeowners association is injured mowing the lawn there's something somebody something you they can collect from for an injury. I've got a homeowners association cutting the median of Polo Club Boulevard, which unfortunately they do because they don't think the city cuts it frequently enough. They go out and cut it themselves. Well, if there's an injury, the city's insurance companies say, well, we didn't ask you to cut it. Homeowners association insurance companies say, it's not on homeowners association property. I want it to be owned by the homeowners association so at least there's some coverage by the homeowners association insurance policy to take care of situations like that so that's why we are asking this to be a hoa lot technically owned by the hoa subject to an easement so we we're not trying to cut out members of the public or anything like that would have the restriction which we all agreed to that'd be subject to pedestrian and bicycle access through that piece of property. So anyway, that's where we're at and we agree with the staff conditions, but on number 12 where it says, denote access to Deerhaven Park and Brighton Clear to the approval of the Division of Parks and Recreation and Green Space Planner. Talk to Parks and Recreation today, they say they're neutral on it, whichever way you want to go but i would ask you to make it clear that a homeowners association ownership is sufficient under the terms i discussed subject to an agreement with the parks department or it has to be with the whole city that's fine too regarding those items i've talked about access and who can come and go who maintains it and that sort of thing on there because if not we'd just be coming back to you in a month to get this resolved so we might as well get this resolved today so that's where we're at and it seems like a small issue but it's sort of a big issue to a lot of people out there as well so we appreciate your listening to it thank you mr murphy yeah mr murphy can you point out which recommendation we're discussing here number 12 on the yellow sheet, which is to note access to Deerhaven Park and Brighton Trail to the approval of the Division of Parks and Recreation and Green Space Planner. I haven't talked about access to Brighton Trail because we got all that worked out at that meeting here, a couple places on that. I would just, as long as you understand, I'm requesting that these two little lots, I think there's numbers on them Rory maybe you can give me the numbers of those two lots are going to be homeowners association here okay our note is our proposed note is lots 279 and 280 those are these two lots shall provide pedestrian access easements to the LFU CG Park property and not be fenced in there but we're agreeable to entering into a agreement with the city on that as well mr pen i don't know whether you want to answer this mr murphy or whether rory wants to but i'm concerned about the access easement to public standards for those townhomes the access easement to that many properties uh i just think it would be better to build public standards so if and when they get ready to work on that they decide they want to turn it over to the city at least it wouldn't be a problem that's certainly something within your all's recommendations you can do typically there's you got public street standards you've got uh private street standards and you've got access easement standards well the reason that this access easement is not one of these other streets i just mentioned is also the um the setback requirements of what you're trying to do more street the more you make it a public street the wider everything gets on you this way we're able to keep it narrow for these i think there's 30 units or all that's accessing the one cul-de-sac there well all it really does is take up a little more your your your park space your green space well if yes that cul-de-sac i think i spent more time on with these new parking regulations. We went around with many phone calls, made different designs trying to get the four new types of townhouse layouts shown on this one to meet the new regulations. Everything depends on front door, back door. So we've squeezed this in. We've got this all to fit. You want to change something with the depth of the access easement, that's fine but i don't want to have to bump it up to the street well i just don't like access easements that aren't convertible i know because after these houses get built the homeowner side they want to convert them in there it's not built to public standards so that's my concern do we have any further questions for the applicant okay not seeing any all right thank you guys i have a quick question if i could oh yeah yeah uh mr kate yes uh if that access easement were to be required to be to public standards uh the additional width would push those townhouses out into the green space and it appears to me that you would then have a sectional problem with a drop from the back of the property down into the low point of the green space am i right about that yes i mean it looks a little tenuous even now looks like there's about a three or four foot drop maybe from the back of those properties something you could grade out but it's tight once we get in there and do the study for the whole area and get the drainage figured out we'll have our minimum floor set and that will establish what we can do with those units and where they will be set and established to the access easement and the creek the flows through there so it as tight and that's why that access easement is so important. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Kaley. I think that's it for questions right now. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? All right, we'll bring it back to the commission. Further questions? Floor is open. All right, Mr. Chairman, could I address the question that Mr. Murphy brought up about the HOA versus public property? I think the staff believes that public access should be then public property as opposed to through an HOA. Generally, HOAs, once they own property, they a lot of times aren't even aware there is a development plan and may not realize that there are development plan notes or restrictions about access to a lot, whereas fee simple ownership would certainly ensure future access to the park for the public. In addition, there's the EAMP that recommends the connectivity between the greenway and the park. And so, again, by having a public property, that ensures that will happen. And then lastly, the subdivision regulations really don't allow for spite strips. So at this point, you're creating a lot that's not owned and only giving LFUCG one small corner of the lot touching the right-of-way, and that's not allowed. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Debs. Just a question for either Ms. Wade or Mr. Murphy. Could you not in your conservation easement secure the right to perpetual public access? Yes, and we're agreeable with that. I will add, we have been assured that this is for pedestrian and bicycle access only. and that's fine with us but this helps to make sure that that is a condition that'll be permanent on this property Mr. Mikkel I was just looking at the conditions I just want to understand um tracy which condition are addressing your concerns really it's the sign off of the green space planner under item 12 because ms friedman has expressed to mr murphy today that her it's her desire that that be again public access via not an hoa lot but so in regarding like the motion here today, the staff request is to make sure that the approval of the green space planner remains under condition 12. Right. And I think we should make it clear if that is via an HOA lot or dedication of that lot as part of the right-of-way. Again, the way it's depicted today, it's a spite strip. And interesting enough, easements can and do work, and they can work both ways. I think this could be resolved if we had a chance to talk about really truly, and I'll give you an example. They're willing to grant the public an easement. Well, if that was public park, we could grant them a maintenance easement as part of the conservation agreement as well. It works both ways. We want to ensure public access to the park. That's what we're trying to accomplish. So it may be that we can resolve the best way to do that. And granted, we like public ownership of that, we do, but. Change 12 to resolve. The question then, Mr. Martin, would be can we change to note to resolve access to Deer Haven Park? Is that an appropriate thing to do? Mr. Murphy. No, it's- I'm sorry. I'm only throwing that out there because it's 419 in the afternoon and I hate to throw you all in the middle of trying to work out something that could have legal ramifications. We just change that to resolve and move on. Okay. Hold on a second. It's possible you could use the word resolve, because I think what you're talking about here is going to get into some kind of legal review in conjunction with whatever parks and planning. And I'm hearing a couple of different things here, but if we start negotiating and entering into easements, we're not going to define the terms of that here today, but it might require review down the road. Yeah, thank you. All right. Mr. Kaley, you're okay. Thank you. So still back to the commission. Mr. Mikkel? I would make a motion to approve PLN MJDP 22-00070 with the 16 conditions changed. changing the wording on condition 12 from denote to resolve 17 17 17 17 yes sorry didn't get all the way to the bottom page the 17 conditions you won't do the road 17 conditions changing the wording on 12 to resolve um i i thought graham made an argument okay all right we have a motion by mr micler second by mr nickel any further discussion to that motion yeah i want to i want to ask graham do you want to do away with the public standards um if it were up to me i would not require public standards for that well i'm trying to get out of a situation where we amend the motion so i want to get up front with that so let's get out of that situation all right so you don't want a public standing i'd rather not okay all right okay we'll take a vote on that motion via granicus we got everybody okay motion passes so you included the findings with that robin we we have two findings on this one one is compliance with the expansion area master plan and then the second is related to the access easement so I'd like to make a motion to approve the findings for use of the access easement and for the EAMP compliance report okay we got a motion second by Ms. Worth, any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Alrighty, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Rory, Mr. Murphy. Alrighty. So that'll put us on our zoning items. Before we step up, yeah, I'm going to get a bathroom break. I'm working on that. I got to go too. But before we get up, for the next agenda item, that's PLN MAR 22-20. For the citizen comments, we're going to go to three minutes for each citizen. So just FYI, when we get up, we haven't got there yet, but this is the next agenda item. But we would like to take a five to, I guess, eight-minute break. We are starting the meeting again. if you could take your seats. Ladies and gentlemen, we are starting the meeting. Thank you. This is Les and Cindy Kopalik. This application is somewhat different from many of the zone change applications that you hear from me. First, that it is at this meeting. And second, this is an amendment to an established ND1 overlay zone. This ends with you all. Whereas many times when you are talking about a zone change application, you are recommending a decision to the Urban County Council. In this case, you will be making the final decision on this application. Before we jump into this application, we do have two letters of support and one letter of opposition, which I will hand to you now. Additionally, while this is not noted on your agenda, the Zoning Committee did not come to a recommendation for this application. There was quite a bit of conversation during that committee meeting. However, this is coming with a no recommendation for your full review. The application is for the property located at 702 Cooper Drive, as well as 1212 Castle Road. We're including 1212 Castle Road in this application due to the fact that the applicant has submitted a consolidation plat for the location for these properties. However, they have not finalized that with a deed. This is for .4831 net and gross acres in which the applicant is seeking to modify or amend the neighborhood design character ND1 overlay zone and the design standards associated with those standards. We are located off of Cooper Drive, moving this way, and Castle Road here. The subject property is within the Montclair ND1 overlay zone and is currently zoned R1C or single family residential. Here we have a view of the land use of the area. We have the University of Kentucky in your western portion coming along the minor arterial roadway of Cooper Drive. And then we also have the local connector over with Castle. zooming into the property the property is currently vacant it had a structure on 702 cooper drive at one point in time but that was demolished in 2018 looking into the property itself we are sitting at the corner of cooper and castle here looking into the property. On either side, we are looking down Castle Road here, and down Castle Road to that intersection with Cooper here, and then again off of Castle into the property. With this slide, we are looking across Cooper, down Castle as it goes away from the ND1, and then down Cooper towards the UK campus, down Cooper towards Tates Creek Road. For any ND1 amendment, it is very similar to a variance request with some added layers. First, the applicant is seeking to apply or remove or amend a condition. It needs to be based off of special circumstances of the property that don't generally apply to this ND1. That strict application would prohibit the use on the property. That circumstances are not of their own making. and that the general intent and preservation goals of the ND1 are being met with their proposed application. Additionally, there is the focus on health, safety, and welfare. The application cannot negatively impact the health, safety, and welfare of the area. The burden for all applications for an ND1 amendment is on the applicant to supply, and then with all the decisions made by the Planning Commission, it is that final point, and it needs to be noted in all of our records. The Montclair Neighborhood Design Character Overlay had a few different preservation goals on which they went through to develop their design standards. The first, preserve the existing land use, which is single-family residential for the entirety, encourage new construction and additions that are compatible with the existing and predominant character of that area, but also recognizing that there are differences along different streets. You'll see this with some of the design standards. And then utilizing those standards to keep the patterning of setbacks, yards, and garages, specifically calling out garages for the built environment. They also had the focus on encouraging the interaction for safe pedestrian movement and bicycles in this area. As you see here, we'll go through a little bit of the design standards. They did focus on building materials, roof lines, landscaping requirements, and then minimum window and door openings. Lot widths, building heights, and then getting into the building setbacks, rear yards building setbacks, and then off-street parking design. The amendments that we are discussing here today are actually three areas of the design criteria. The first one, focusing on the main entryway door. In the design standards, it currently references that it must face a public street. The applicant is seeking to focus in on an intersection location, so they are facing public streets. This is specifically coming to you for your review because during the public hearing associated with the ND1 overlay, there was specific conversation about it facing one street and facing the primary street. So the applicant is seeking to amend that to allow for a corner-facing property. Next, the applicant is seeking to adjust the minimum and maximum setbacks along Castle Road. As you can see here, there are different setbacks based off of the current built context for various different streets within the ND1 overlay. The two areas that we are discussing today would be Cooper Drive, which has a setback of 30 to 40 feet, and then Castle Road, a setback of 35 to 45 feet. In this case, since the applicant is located on a corner property, they are subject to the side street side yard restrictions that are outlined within the zoning ordinance. That requires the applicant to meet the required setback on the frontage, and specifically for this, the 35 to 45 foot setback. So the applicant is seeking to increase that range from 30 feet to 45 feet for Castle Road. And then finally, that the maximum building dimension of the principal structure be from the front building plane. In this case, the applicant, since they are shifting their building to focus on a corner, wanted clarification that it is as defined by the location of the front door. This gets into some of the complications of a building that is facing two separate streets with an intersection, so just making sure that they are meeting this restriction of 55 feet. This is the applicant's site plan that they have submitted for this location. as you can see the proposed amendment is having the front door face onto two streets that intersection of cooper and castle and then that provision that they are 55 feet from the location of the front door you will see that there is a allowable projection on the front of the building that is not calculated within that 55 feet. Within this area there is one other building 666 Montclair Drive that is corner facing. This is an old remnant building that does not meet the 55 foot setback and does not have that rear yard buffer between what you're seeing here but is an example of a corner facing property in this area. The applicant opines that within this application for these two amendments they are not impacting the health safety and welfare and that because of the prominence of this corner this is a unique characteristic that would allow for this amendment to be made next the applicant is seeking to modify the setback specifically along Castle Road from that 35 feet to 30 feet currently on their site plan they are showing two separate setbacks the first one being 33 feet one inch and seven and one and seven eighths inch and then 30 feet two inch two and a quarter inch within the applicants justification for this they indicate that there is a unique characteristic of this location because of the size of the lot I will say that the applicant did consolidate or is in the process of pulling these together with a deed they did consolidate it by plat which allowed it to be a bigger lot the applicant also talks about not providing a fair architectural sense and equilibrium between each sides so that they can have that centralized location and not have an off feeling between each sides so staff has a great concern about this layout first the staff would point out that there are two ranges and those ranges overlap for this location. So the applicant's suggestion that by keeping it at 30 feet they can create some sort of equal pattern between the two areas does not fit. The applicant can fit it within that 35 foot setback. Additionally, if we look at the property, there is only one property That is currently not meeting the 35-foot setback, and that is along this corner property, which is hemmed in by a much smaller lot. It is also a historical context of that, or historical detail of that property that isn't located anywhere else on Castle Road. Additionally, this property was unique in construction. It was the international-style house. However, that historic property, the international house that was demolished, did meet that historic setback of 35 feet. Staff is concerned about shifting this building up to 30 feet because it does throw off the preservation characteristics that were called for within the preservation goals by the neighborhood. So when we're looking at this, staff is ready to recommend approval of design standard five and 10, in the fact that this will not inhibit the health, safety, and welfare of this location. And it does have that special circumstance of being located on a corner. There is that one other example of such a corner facing structure in this area. So staff would recommend approval of the two modifications that are underlined and that have been outlined by the applicant. Staff is recommending disapproval of the reduction or the increase of the setback range from 35 feet to 30 feet to 45 feet. This is not in keeping with the preservation goals that were set out by the neighborhood when they brought this in. it has the ability to overlap at a 35 foot setback already because of the ranges that have been provided by the neighborhood and the justification that this is a larger lot therefore there's a unique circumstance is actually a choice by the applicant this was something of their doing so in a way this is a circumvention of the zoning ordinance so staff is recommending approval of both 5 and 10, but disapproval of Standard 9. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Yes, Mr. Nichols. All right, Mr. Bailey, I do have a question. I understand that in the justification to remove condition number 9, it was referenced the size of the lot, and I'm wondering if the similar justification can be used for the shape of the lot because it looks like there's only one additional corner lot in the entire overlay is that correct oh there are many corner lots in the overlay this would actually be the largest corner lot in the overlay because this applicant went ahead and consolidated 702 and 1212 castle so they have created a unique circumstance by having a larger lot which means that it is a circumvention of the ordinance to then request based off of the created abnormality walk me through those where the setbacks are for those corner lots that are in place right now and compliant for the nd-1 over so currently if just looking at this property the additional properties the four other ones oh there are There are multiple other corner lots that do meet these standards, including these properties down here. There is a property over in this area. So they're already established properties that meet these setbacks. The ND1 was supposed to be a reflection of the different setbacks that were already established. The Planning Commission did approve or approved a change over in this area because of a thin lot that they were unable to meet some setbacks. Or actually, it was over on this property here. However, on this property right here, your most recent ND1 amendment that you saw, which is a very thin lot, they were able to meet both the setback along Scoville and Montclair. So we have various cases in which applicants have built new properties that have been able to meet these different setbacks, especially because there is that range. They can meet them within the different ranges if they want to have that continuity or they can press it further back. Thank you. Mr. Billy, I think we're okay. Thank you. All right, this is the applicant. good afternoon mr chairman planning commission There we go. Let's see if that'll work. Perfect. Okay. My name is Baron Gibson. I'm a partner and principal at Gibson Taylor Thompson Architecture and Design. I'm here representing our clients, Les and Cindy Kovalec, and design team, general contractor, Hellerbilt, dovetail design studio, William E. Esri, landscape architect, and several other design consultants that have participated in the proposed design we are considering today. Our clients, Les and Cindy, are humbled and excited about moving to the Montclair neighborhood from Ohio to be closer to their family. As the architecture firm working on this project, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to design a home in one of Lexington's highly regarded neighborhoods and historic areas. Gibson Taylor Thompson is an architecture firm specializing in residential design with a wealth of experience working on historic buildings and designing within historic districts. We pride ourselves on having a deep understanding of historic appropriateness and knowledge of understanding the context of architecturally significant neighborhoods. GTT has also received many design awards and most recently is the recipient of an American Institute of Architects Awards for Excellence in Design. One of our partners, Darren Taylor, is an instructor in historic preservation at the University of Kentucky and is also an appointed member of the Kentucky Properties Advisory Commission and serves on several local design and preservation-based boards and committees. For the past 12 months, Hellerbilt, Gibson Taylor Thompson, Dovetail Design Studio, Bill Essary, along with our clients, have worked in close collaboration to study and develop the plans that we are reviewing today. When we start working on this project, anytime we begin any project, Our process begins as it does with any project, with understanding the site, our client's program, the surrounding neighborhood, and the site constraints, along with ND1 ordinances, zoning, and residential building codes to develop a responsive design that engages the street and maintains the integrity of the buildings in the Montclair neighborhood. One of the things our clients came to us with is specific program requirements that you can see up on the screen. A few of those things were to design a house that is 3,500 to 4,000 square feet. They wanted a two-car detached garage. They wanted two first-floor primary suites within the home. They wanted a private backyard. They wanted to be scaled within the neighborhood, architecturally responding to a traditional style, outdoor living space. And they wanted to have good natural light through the use of many windows. And they also wanted to use traditional building materials such as Kentucky limestone, masonry, cedar and copper. Our first step is to understand the site. You'll see I have a screenshot, the same screenshot that Hal had that shows the confluence of Castle and Cooper so you can see the site from this image. The site is a unique condition that is a larger consolidated corner lot, is also elevated higher from the street level given the site high visibility and prominence from cars passing by and pedestrians on the sidewalk. This creates a wonderful opportunity to develop a building with great integrity and street appeal that adds value to the Montclair neighborhood. You'll see that this is the survey that we received when we first started this project. You'll note that, oh here we go, you'll note that as Hal said that this Cooper lot has been consolidated with Castle. The The setbacks that were shown on the survey is a 30-foot setback off of Cooper and a 30-foot setback off of Castle. The site is unique in that it is consolidated corner lot and it is elevated from the street level. It is also a moment where we had the opportunity to propose a design that corresponds directly in scale with the size of the larger lot. the combined lot meets all of the lot size criteria for the neighborhood and city zoning requirements therefore this consolidation should not be looked upon negatively when determining ND1 conformance furthermore side yards throughout the Montclair neighborhood are consistently eight to ten feet on average in many cases less our goal was to create a design that has a consistent design rhythm and continuity as you drive down Cooper Drive or Castle and the aggregation of buildings is consistent. You can see that in the image before you where we have a main volume that faces the corner. Our additions have a formal facing facade on Castle and both on Cooper. This is a single-story addition on either side that maintains an 8 to 10 foot setback on the Castle side and with the use of our detached garage we maintain a similar setback which is consistent going down either street on Cooper and Castle. It is also a corner lot. The corner lot presents us with the opportunity for creativity. It also presents us with problems that we can design solutions for. For example, how do we provide a sense of privacy for our clients with a larger corner facing lot without the use of unattractive tall fences or privacy walls? The lot is bigger and could expose one's backyard to a public street if not carefully considered? Also, how do we determine which street should take priority? Both Castle and Cooper are both important streets that we feel are gateways into the Montclair neighborhood. Determining the building orientation was an early challenge for us when we started the design process. You'll see this image before you is 211 Barrow Road. There's a rich history of corner facing buildings throughout Lexington. 211 Barrow Road was a home designed locally famous architect Hugh Merriweather in the early 20th century. It was it was constructed in 1931 around the same time many Montclair houses were being constructed. It is also a source of inspiration for our design at 702 Cooper. The next property that we're looking at is 146 Holiday Road. This is a colonial home built in 1932 at the corner of Holiday and Fairway. The next one that we're looking at is 116 Holiday Road. This was built in 1936 at the corner of Fairway and Fairwood. Here's another one. This is at the corner of Ridgeway and Fontaine. This was built in 1930. And as Hal said, there's also a corner-facing lot as a precedent in Montclair neighborhood. This is just one block down from where we're proposing to build our structure. Some of Lexington's most recognized early architects designed corner facing buildings, including Hugh Merriweather, Robert McMekin, and Stratton Hammond. We chose to move forward with a corner facing design to engage with Castle and Cooper street fronts equally and follow suit with a historic precedent set before us throughout Lexington. The site's elevated, as you can see in the rendering. We're showing the distinguished kind of facade that faces the corner from this rendering as it would look in real life. Now, the reason that we're here today is to understand ND1 conformance in terms of how it applies to our design. There is criteria within the ND1 ordinance that has driven our design to where it is today and we believe that we have designed our building to comply with ND1 requirements completely. Coming from an architecture practice that designs many structures within districts with overlays and restrictions, the ND1 overlay is something that we respect and appreciate. It is also vital to understand the ND1 ordinance as it is written in the exact language that is used for the items in question for this hearing. The first thing that we'll address is the corner facing lot. Item number five in the ND1 ordinance as you can see on the screen says quote unquote, main entry door must face a public street. This item in the ordinance does not say that a main entry door must face a single street. If the ordinance was meant to be restrictive of a corner facing building, the ordinance would explicitly say that doors shall face a single street it does not say this nor does it imply that a main entry door should not face the corner of two public streets you can clearly see in this diagram the same diagram how had up we have an arrow drawn from where our front door is and it is facing a public street i believe this provision in the ordinance is meant to prevent people from not having an entry door visible from the front of the building for example if someone were to put the main entry door on the back or side of the house where it's not visible from the street i believe that's what this nd1 ordinance is meant to prevent i also believe that this provision was left open to allow design creativity which is ever present throughout the montclair neighborhood the next item that we'll look at is understanding the building depth item number 10 in the ordinance states maximum building dimension of the principal structure from the front building plane is 55 feet excluding allowable projections per article 15 5 of the zoning ordinance this ordinance states that the building shall not be bigger than 55 feet if measured backwards from the front building plane you can see in this diagram that our front building plane is houses the front door it's indicated by this dashed line if measured backwards our entire building fits within the parameters of that 55-foot dimension And the third item that we're looking at in the ND1 ordinance are building setbacks. This is important to understand the exact language that is used in the ND1 ordinance. Provision 9 states that the maximum front yard setback, the maximum front setback from each street shall be 30 feet off Cooper, 35 feet off Castle. You can see that indicated here. The proposed driveway for our design enters off of Cooper Drive. It has been discussed that the address for our property would be considered a Cooper address with a Cooper front yard. In the zoning ordinance, Article 15.5, Paragraph B, Line 2 states, quote unquote, On a corner lot in any zone, the required least width of the side street side yard, which would be Castle in our case, shall equal either the minimum front yard required for that zone or the existing alignment on the lot immediately adjoining, whichever is less, notwithstanding the above. No such yard shall be required to exceed 30 feet in a residential, business, or industrial zone. The ND1 ordinance in question is referencing a Castle Street front yard setback and not a Side Street side yard setback, which is what we have. so our front yard would in theory be Cooper, which would be 30 feet, and according to the zoning ordinance, that side street side yard should be equal to that front yard setback. Our design intent is for the building to remain centered and symmetrical on the lot. Our design is a main central body that has two flanking wings. The total square footage for our proposed build is 3,875 square feet. The first floor is 2,800 square feet and the second floor is 1,075 square feet. We performed a study of many houses throughout the Montclair neighborhood and the architectural style that we've designed matches early 20th century center hall colonials in the Montclair neighborhood and around Lexington. This is a case study that we looked at. The rendering has been scaled to match the image that we're looking at. This is 1,200 summit. In terms of height and scale, our main volume design is within the same size range as 1200 Summit. The next image that we're looking at is 1251 Eldemere. 1251 Eldemere is 6,700 square feet, over 2,000 square feet bigger than what we're proposing to do. You can see the scaled elevation. The main volume of our elevation is in scale with the same size as 1251 Eldemere. A lot of these houses have larger two-story additions that go off to the back. We don't have a larger addition that goes to the back. We have two single-story additions that flank to the side of Castle and Cooper. Several other addresses that I'll mention are 1245 Eldemare, that's 5,924 square feet. 1212 Eldemare, 4,200 square feet. 1252 Summit, 4,100 square feet. 1248 Castle, 3,900 square feet. 1217 summit 4,700 square feet and i could keep going at 3 875 square feet our building is well within or under square footage of other houses in the montclair neighborhood in conclusion the design for 702 cooper is a proposed corner facing building that engages and responds to the corner condition of the property the design has two flanking wings that directly engage with both Castle and Cooper street fronts equally. This gives each street front, Castle and Cooper, a formal facing facade rather than a monotonous side of a house. The corner facing condition allows for a symmetrical design that gives our client backyard privacy without the use of tall walls or fences. The architectural style responds to early 20th century colonial revival design elements that are consistent with the homes constructed in Montclair neighborhood and other distinguished areas of Lexington. The primary materials are Kentucky limestone, cedar siding along with copper accents. I will also add that there is no vinyl or plastic materials being used in this proposed design whatsoever. Everything about the design has been carefully studied and will be built in the greatest quality possible for modern day building techniques. We have initiated and presented at a Montclair neighborhood meeting that was organized by the Montclair neighborhood president, David Halfley, and vice president, Adam Meyer. There were many residents from the neighborhood in attendance, and we were met with overwhelming support from the attendees. We've also received several letters of approval from the public. I'll add that I've actually uploaded seven letters to Accela in support. One such individual, Aaron Jute, lives directly next door to the proposed design at 714 Cooper Drive. Aaron and his family would be one of the most impacted people by the construction and has expressed his support by writing a letter of approval and appreciation for the efforts put forth and invested towards 702 cooper we have also support from several distinguished architects in lexington who recognize appropriate design richard polk of eop architects has written a letter of support and approval he would be here to speak today if we're not for his out-of-town business trip there are also many people here in attendance to show support for the proposed design as well if i can answer any questions i'd be happy to do so thank you do we have any questions for the applicant robin regarding the setback on castle your diagram i think showed your two feet and one quarter inch off is that correct or that was hal's diagram from the 35 feet that we are we're five feet away from the 35 foot setback we have there may there may have been some iterations that we submitted that were uh that had been moved around but our our last site plan has our setback equally at 30 feet on cooper and 30 feet on castle okay so there's a discrepancy i guess between the plans that staff has and you have by about two and a half or three feet we've submitted several iterations of this design so so your design is getting closer to castle and i guess uh it's it's it's at 30 feet we can uh you're good okay i'm not seeing any other questions thank you okay this is time for citizen comments If you have any comments related to this particular application, please do so by stepping up to the podium. We will be timing. It's three minutes. Got it. Okay. My name is Aaron Judy, or AJ Judy, as some of you guys know me. I'm at 714 Cooper Drive, so I'm literally right next door. What the team has done is unbelievable as far as design. If you look at what they've done with the limestone, if you looked at my front yard, you'd see a really nice retaining wall that was done in 1931 when my house was built and it's limestone. And it is gorgeous. And I spent a lot of time and money to redo it this summer. And they put that into their design plan and done a phenomenal job. I'll say this, that our neighborhood has gone through, I've been there eight years, our neighborhood's gone through a ton of change. And it's not for the good. This project is for the good because we've had developers come in, tear down houses, tear down nice houses, and then just build up whatever they could on spec. That's what I call a house. This is what they are doing is called a home. Someone's going to come and move there from Ohio and it's going to be part of their home and part of their family. And to deny them a home is not what the ND1 overlay was set out to do. And so for that, I applaud them, and I hope you guys do as well. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Herb Miller. I live at 1328 Cooper Drive. I'm the vice president of the East Cooper Neighborhood Association. We have not had time to meet, so what I'm about to say is my own opinion. First, thank you for your service here today. I spent 21 years on the Board of Adjustments, so I understand the long meetings, and we appreciate it sitting next to Gloria Martin here for many, many years. I'm not here to insert my judgment about the design of this home. I personally think it's a beautiful, beautiful home, and I don't want our neighborhood to impose its ideas about design on another. We wouldn't want that in the reverse. But I would say that if you have any thoughts about the adverse effect on the neighborhood in terms of the construction of the home, this contractor has done a lot of work in our neighborhood. It and its predecessor has been remodeled and built homes. They are clean. They are quiet. They are responsive to the neighborhood. And if there's any concern from the neighbors, I'd like to assuage their fears that this contractor is going to do the job and do it well. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Mike Meehan. I live at 3805 Hapgood Lane. I would like to voice my support for the project. Hiller Built is one of the most distinguished and skilled for builders in our community. They have worked diligently with both the city planning and the neighborhood to bring this project forward. I believe that this home will fit very favorably in its neighborhood, and I hope that you will approve. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Adam Meyer. I am the current vice president of the Montclair neighborhood. and I also live two doors down from the property being discussed today. We have received interest and comment about the project from several neighbors, both in support and in opposition, though I am not planning to necessarily share all those sentiments here today. I only wanted to express on behalf of the Neighborhood Association our appreciation for the planning staff and the commission for all the hard work you guys do in upholding the ND1 design standards. We understand that there has been a lot of new construction and renovations in our neighborhood, and with that, there have been numerous variance requests. The neighborhood still believes that the ND1 design overlay is important and that it is a valuable tool in preventing unwanted construction design and methods in the neighborhood. So on behalf of Montclair Neighborhood Association, thank you for your continued diligence and support and fair review of these important guidelines. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Caroline Fettersfield, and we own the property adjacent to the property that you all are talking about. And I think the plan is beautiful. I just have real concern with the setbacks. I think the setback should stay the same in alignment with the rest of the neighbor, the rest of Castle Drive. So, but I do think that it is a beautiful house. I just am concerned about that. Thank you. Good evening. I guess my name is Jim Cornish, and I've lived in the Montclair neighborhood most of my life. Came out of Good Samaritan Hospital when I was born and ended up on Neldamere. I'm still there. I was the president of the Montclair Neighborhood Association when we decided to go to ND1. Back in 2007, we had our threshold house, which just to let you know, it's on the corner of what KET and Cooper is. and we said we need to protect the integrity of our neighborhood. So we got together, we were trying to debate between H1 and ND1, decided that ND1 was the best fit. It allowed some variances that H1 does not allow. We spent a lot of time, and in June 2010, we were finally able to get ND1 passed. It has worked for us. It has kept out the student dormitories. It has preserved the integrity of the neighborhood, the whole character of the neighborhood, such as what we have seen fall apart at the state and Elizabeth Street areas. I think it's a beautiful house. I'm familiar with Heller Construction. They did some work on our street. I know Steve Heller. They do a good job. I am concerned about the setback because the setback on Castle is offsetting from the rest of the houses on that neighborhood by about 10 feet. So I like the staff's recommendation. I don't mind the corner house. I do the corner facing. he was right in the fact that our whole idea with regards to the side of the facing the primary steep street was so that we didn't have front doors facing driveways we wanted him to face and look open to the to the neighborhood so if you ever have any questions about what the intent was of nd1 i'm one of the guys to ask because i went through the whole process with him and tracy wade was part of that is too so we were the third neighborhood to do that so if you have any questions i'm glad to answer them but i really appreciate the time that you all are spending on this and certainly the time that the staff did on it and i appreciate the recommendation thank you okay all right not seeing any more um my name is austin heller i'm with heller built we're the builder on the project and i think the biggest thing that I can lend to this conversation is just assurances that we will respect the architecture the budget on the project is adequate the the products that Baron was talking about are legitimate everything is going to be done out of wood we're gonna have classical mitered corners real Kentucky limestone I know a lot of times you can see that pretty architecture and it doesn't get executed but you have our assurances that it will thank you all thank you Thank you very much. Just a few clarifications. The applicant talked about and showed a section of the zoning ordinance that referenced the side street side yards and the restriction of 30 feet. That is the case if you are not in an ND1 overlay zone. An ND overlay zone is meant to restrict in a greater way. It is applied to properties so that it reflects a historical context or a neighborhood character. So in this case, because these standards were adopted, specifically the setbacks, and I'm getting there, there we go. these setbacks, they are the more restrictive per the zoning ordinance and per many other zoning laws, the more restrictive applies. This is specifically for any type of overlay zone. If we were talking about the, in many cases, the building materials, we don't talk about that anywhere else in the zoning ordinance, but they can be restricted more here. In an H1 overlay, There are a fair amount of aesthetic conversations. In any type of overlay, the specific regulations that are laid out here do apply. And in this case, the side street side yard is a range from 35 feet to 45 feet on Castle Road. Additionally, there was the question about the space for either side. And this is the submission that was provided by the applicant. It is going from 35 feet, they are requesting from that 35-foot line right there down to the 30 feet 2 1⁄4 inch. So it would be a 5-foot reduction. So they are meeting it at this location with 33 feet and 1 7⁄8 inch because that range is within context, so between that 30 and 40 feet. So those are just the two conversation points that we wanted to bring up with this. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. Any questions? Grant. How do you make a judgment about aesthetic intent? So with the front-facing door, is that what you're referring to in this case? or the setbacks? Or respecting the context that's established by the neighborhood. So within that, we first start with a review of the minutes and the intended goals that were submitted by the applicant and then reviewed by the Planning Commission at their public hearing. For the front-facing doorway, the original language actually said shall face the primary roadway. um so there was a bit of conversation uh staff recommended that it be a little bit more simplified because there were the potential of corner lots which is the primary roadway so the determination by the planning commission and the neighborhood was to change that language to say a street period uh so there wasn't a conversation in that way when it's talking about aesthetics within the nd1 for say setbacks staff isn't reviewing that so much from the aesthetics of the building staff is reviewing that for the character of setbacks along that street that creates a pattern or a character along that street that we want to preserve specifically for this area we want to protect this line so that the building that is on the street is not sitting in front of and blocking the next house down that it was the specific intent by the neighborhood to apply to this area to create that rhythm along that street frontage All right. I see any more questions, Al. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, guys and ladies, I'm going to bring it back to the commission for any further discussions or questions, concerns. Why are you all looking at me? You are architect. So a little bit about my background. I was involved with this ND1 overlay when it was created strictly on a sort of voluntary consulting basis. And I've been involved with other ND1s as well. I still get called by building inspection periodically to help them understand what some of the language in ND1s means. So ND1s are problematic because they're, in my view, because they don't have a dedicated organization that, a design-based organization that can interpret the language. And so sometimes language is difficult to interpret for those who are called to do that. My background also is spent over eight years on the Board of Architecture Review, which deals with historic preservation issues. I've got my in my firm have gotten a number of awards for historic preservation projects. So I have stronger feelings about this, partly because I think it's very dangerous to be changing guidelines when you have an overlay like this. I think it has to be done very, very carefully. I agree completely with the staff that I should start this by saying I really respect Gibson Taylor. I think they do very fine work. And all of the people involved with this project are top-notch, so I'm not in any way criticizing the work that's being done and the intent. However, and I agree completely with the staff about the setback, that that setback should not be changed. It's a consistent line down the street. I would point out that the corner property that they mentioned, 666 Montclair, is not on an intersection that's a 90-degree intersection. It's sort of more of a trapezoidal kind of situation, and the house doesn't – it's not parallel to the street, but it's not at all speaking to the corner. The door faces Castle. The sidewalk comes out to Castle, so it is absolutely not a precedent for what we're seeing here. I think that the language about facing a street meant facing a street. It didn't mean facing two streets, And I'd really question that that's an acceptable deviation. And in my view, well, I'll mention quickly the other precedents that were presented by the applicant were not in this neighborhood. So in my view, they're really not particularly relevant. I would say that the Hugh Merriweather House on Barrow Road is a fabulous home, but I would point out that that house has almost a demure kind of presentation to the street in that the wings of the house come out toward the streets, and the front of the house is set back in the inside corner of those wings. It's an absolutely opposite precedent from what we're being shown here. This is a sort of grandiose statement with the main body of the house speaking to that corner, making this big statement about the corner and bringing this big walk down to the corner with the wings sort of receding off behind, and it's just not the same thing. I think that the I'm super familiar with this neighborhood I used to own a property there you know all of us drive down Cooper Drive regularly and as you approach that intersection from the university that property is very prominent and the statement that this house will make, in my view, is absolutely not consistent with the tone of the other properties in that neighborhood. It's grandiose. And I think if that was the intent, they've succeeded. It's a beautiful design. It's beautifully proportioned. The materials are very nice. But in my view, the decision to forget about the statement that the front door is to face a street and make this extremely powerful gesture to the corner is problematic. I also would suggest that the number of times that someone will actually walk up that front walkway would be extremely limited. That's just a silly silly observation, but that's my feeling. I totally agree with the staff about the setback. I also think that the change to the language requiring that the front of the house face a street is incorrect. Thank you for your comments. Mr. Nickel. All right, just to clarify that, my understanding is what you're saying is you disagree with staff's approval for the modification of 5 and 10 as well as 9? 5 and 10 would be where the door faces. I am not opposed to modifying the the setback, the backyard 55 foot, which one is that? The rear yard. The rear yard. Okay, so that would be rear yard maximum, rear yard building setbacks, okay. Yeah. Is that number ten or number five, Hal? Is the rear yard setback number five or number ten? So, sir, if you did not allow number five, number ten would be a moot point because your front door would be facing the street. In this case, it was an interpretation to make sure that it was measuring that way based off of where the location was facing two streets rather than just one. So it was just a clarification associated with number five. Okay, so it could be said that number five would be the corner house and number nine, five and ten would be the corner house, the ability to have a corner house, and number nine would be the setback, basically the setback variance. That is correct. Okay, and staff approved five and ten and is recommending disapproval of nine, which is a setback. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Can I make one more comment? I'm going to make your all's task a little bit more difficult. You know, there really wasn't any movement from the neighborhood that would suggest that they agree with me about the corner disposition of the property. And so I'm very reluctant to insert myself into that kind of situation. When I was involved with the ND1 discussions, I think there was a lot of passion that would have come to the table at this time, but no one's come to the table with regard to that issue. And so I'm just expressing what I'm seeing, and that's one person. And obviously there are a lot of people who completely disagree with me, and so I throw it in your laps. So do you support the staff recommendation? No, I wouldn't, but I'm just saying that the neighborhood doesn't seem to want to – that neighborhood seems to support the staff position, yeah. Okay. You'll get a chance to vote, too, so vote the way you want to. Well, I think I sort of was at the committee meeting felt similarly to Graham. I think, though, I think it's a valid point that they came with support and that the corner did not sort of elicit disagreement. And so I'd be inclined to support the recommendations for staff. And so if everybody's ready for a motion, I can make one. I have a question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. And Tracy, if this is out of place, I'll stop. If, a question for the applicant, if this body approves staff recommendations, so approval of 5 and 10 and denial of 9, where does the project stand? Is that the? We would accept that and we could be able to move forward with the project. So you could work with the 5 feet, the 35 feet on Castle? It would take some. That's correct. Thank you. Okay. I guess I would add, I drove through the neighborhood yesterday, and my instinct is like Graham's in terms of what the neighborhood looks like. But I think it's important to remember that one of the gentlemen who spoke earlier was actually one of the framers of the ND1 language for the neighborhood. And he suggested that they did not intend to prohibit corner basing lots. So I'm inclined to support staff recommendation. I make a motion to approve the request to modify design standards number 5 and design standards number 10 for PLMAR 22-00020, less than Cindy Kovac, and to deny the request to approve design standard number 9. Okay. Okay. Commission items. We have the annual report. Purchase of Development Rights and Program. That's Ms. Beth Overman, and she did provide us a few items here. Thank you. Thank you. While Beth and the staff are making sure this works, I'm Gloria Martin. I am the current chair of the Rural Land Management Board. And I just wanted to make a few comments while they're getting things together. I want to comment and brag on the Rural Land Management Board. The feds didn't come full time in office for the last couple of years because of COVID. But the Rural Land Management Board managed through that entire time. You'll be able, Beth is putting together the presentation you're going to have. She managed to, and Beth is the only, I want to brag on her too, the only full time in-house employee for the Rural Land Management Board. We have some board members here today, and Beth will be pointing out to you it's a very diverse by ordinance group. And I know some of them were here. Robert James is here. Margaret Graves is here. Dennis Anderson. Will Mayer. Anybody else? I don't want to miss anybody. Because they managed to meet every time and through this entire COVID, they never missed a month. We always had a quorum, even when sometimes some of them were doing it from their combines or from their offices somewhere else or at home. We had, you will see that we still managed to do the closings and we still managed to address every request from these property owners. So I want to pat them on the back. Is everything ready now? Okay. Let's see. Okay, good afternoon. I'm Beth Overman, like she said, and I passed out some maps that you all have at your desk, so we will get started. So our PDR program background. Recognizing that the rural service area of Fayette County is comprised of some of the highest quality soils in the nation and understanding the importance of protecting and utilizing those soils, the PDR program was created in the year 2000. The program was created in conjunction with the comprehensive plan update, the expansion area master plan and the rural land management plan and included changing the minimum lot size in the rural service area from 10 to 40 acres. And so for your all's maps, I'm sure it looks green. For the audience, it looks kind of yellow. But essentially, so that is showing the prime farmland and statewide important soils in the rural service area. and you can see that it's essentially the entire rural service area, other than a small white portion down by the Kentucky River. So we are very blessed in Fayette County with these incredible soils throughout our county. Our community also recognized the vast natural resources in the rural service area that deserved protecting, including the five designated focus areas, the nine distinct watersheds, the Royal Springs Wellhead Protection Area, and the environmentally sensitive areas throughout. As Rural Land Management Board Chair Gloria Martin says, we don't have mountains or an ocean, so we better take good care of what we do have. And so the map that you all have shows those five focus areas. They are each based on watersheds, and they are in the pink hatching. And throughout this you can see all of the blue lines are the water bodies going throughout the rural service area. The dark, the green that looks like branches are environmentally sensitive areas. And then you have the Royal Springs Aquifer that is over there where Spindletop is. So all of this is on your map, but you can just see how incredible that the entire rural service area, in addition to its prime farmland soils, is also very environmentally sensitive. A group of 26 community members representing multiple facets of industry, government, and conservation met regularly for two entire years to develop the PDR program and were known as the Implementation Committee. The 16-member Rural Land Management Board was created to govern the program and is comprised of representatives from the groups who served on that committee, as well as three council-appointed seats newly added in 2019. The established program goal is to purchase easements on 50,000 acres of farmland in the rural service area. And so this map shows you everything in dark green is PDR, and we also have the Bluegrass Land Conservancy easements marked on this map. And some of their representatives and participants are here today as well. And so here is the list of our Rural Land Management Board. You can see it's unique, like it's different from you all, where you all can apply to be on the Planning Commission. Because of that implementation committee, the ordinance specifies which organizations can nominate members to our board so that we keep those diverse opinions involved. And the only two organizations that have two members each or the Fayette County Farm Bureau and the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association. So our parcel ranking process. Any parcel in the AR zone that is at least 20 acres qualifies for easement purchase. Parcels are ranked using a land evaluation site assessment provided in Section 2610 of the Code of Ordinances that includes ag supportive scoring such as the size of the parcel, the soil quality, elimination of undeveloped non-conforming tracks, proximity to other PDR farms, which builds the critical mass that's so important, batch application with neighbors, farming activities and production, and agricultural infrastructure improvements. Our environmental protection scoring includes points for environmentally sensitive areas like we saw on the map, designated rural greenways, which are our waterways, designated focus areas, natural protection areas, and wildlife habitats, links to parks, nature preserves, nature sanctuaries, etc., and designated scenic viewsheds and other scenic resources such as tree canopies. Our historic protection scoring includes historic and cultural resources, including those designated for the National Historic Register. They can also show us that they are eligible for that and have been certified as such. They can be also a local designated landmark. It can be a designated federal, state, and local scenic byway or historic turnpike. And you all may know that Fayette County had their first federal designated byway last year on Old Frankfort Pike. We're very proud of that. and we also award points for stone fences and length of public road frontage. We also give negative points for parcels that are in sewerability categories one through four and those that are within one mile of the urban service area. And that is unless they are in a designated focus area or wellhead protection area or a community icon, then those negative points are negated. So the financial benefits of farmland conservation in addition to the environmental and soil benefits we have talked about. A 2017 UK College of Ag study showed the Ag Cluster in Fayette County had an annual impact of $2.3 billion and provided 1 in 12 jobs, having contributed $8.5 million to the local tax base and an additional $1.3 billion in income, profits, and dividends. In addition, the University of Kentucky also stated that the Kentucky equine industry had an annual $3 billion impact to our state. Lexington is the horse capital of the world and home to the Kentucky Horse Park, Red Mile, Keeneland, and Fasig-Tipton, in addition to numerous working farms. Visit Lex has stated that the number one reason visitors come to Lexington is to see our horse farms. And I can say that just this week I was looking at something for Visit Lex, and the minute I pulled it up, the website says Horse Capital of the World. And I also went on our LFUCG website today and pulled it up, Horse Capital of the World. So it really is, you know, who we are and what we need to protect. We are also home to the Bluegrass Stockyards, which is the largest stockyard east of the Mississippi River, which people often do not realize. And the state of Kentucky is the largest beef producer east of the Mississippi and home to one million beef cows per the USDA. In addition, the Bluegrass Stockyards has been a tourist destination with its beautiful new facility. so our new farm easements in 2022 the rural land management board purchased five new easements this year totaling 516.83 acres each farm is adjacent to another conserved farm thereby increasing areas of critical mass of these five farms one is used for cattle two are used for equine one is used for hay and the other includes a mixture of equine cattle and crops. With cost sharing from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Rural Land Management Board was able to acquire these easements at a local cost of only $1,902 per acre, which is incredible. So to tell you all a little more about each of these and if you will look at your map, if you will flip to the one I gave you all, I'm going to show you screenshots, little clips to zoom in, but I gave you all a big map that shows the addresses of these farms that we have closed. So Farm 2 2018 at 6000 Greenwich Pike is 206 acres. The owners are Jamie and Jeanette McCracken-Frost, who operated as a horse farm. Their soil score was 88%. They are a batch application with the adjacent 106-acre farm. So we conserved nearly 313 contiguous acres with these two farms and connected two areas of conserved land that will total over 3,000 acres. There are environmentally sensitive areas on this farm and they are part of the designated scenic view shed. Our next one is Farm 5 2018 at 6166 Greenwich Pike. This is the neighbor to that one. It's 106 acres owned by Nick and Jeannie Larkin who operated as a sport horse farm. Their soil score was 71%, and they were a batch application with the McCrackens. They have environmentally sensitive areas and designated scenic viewshed. And here we are. Let's see if I, oops, sorry. I'll try, I'll also show our audience there. So after sitting in the audience to see how hard it is to see, so that is the area that we're talking about. That's where those two farms are. And you can see these areas up here and down here used to be disconnected until we closed those. So now all of that is all connected, well over 3,000 neighbors. We haven't calculated, but that's huge in what we try to do. So we're very excited about that. They are also, that farm that is right there is under contract now, too. So our next one is Farm 3 2018 at 7330 Russell Cave Road. It's 59 acres owned by Luther Witt and Malcolm and Sherry Witt, who operated as a hay farm. Their soil score was 100%. It's PDR adjacent to a contiguous conserved area well over 3,000 acres. And they have road frontage on a scenic corridor. and so here it is up at the top. I'm sure the audience is there. And a lot of their farm, they have more acreage in Bourbon County and it's my understanding they are going to reach out to the Bluegrass Land Conservancy about trying to conserve that because this has been in the family for a long time and it was important to them to conserve this farm. Our next one is Farm 4 2018. at 1770 Evans Mill Road. It's 60 acres owned by Ray and Jerry Apple, who operated as a cattle farm. Their soil score was 85%, and they are PDR adjacent to one farm that closed in 2018, as well as a long-time PDR farm, and together they total nearly 300 acres of conserved land. They have environmentally sensitive areas and are in the designated scenic viewshed. And there's that one, and it goes right over there. So there they are. And then showing the audience is right there. Okay. And our final one, Farm 6-2018, 3676 Briar Hill Road, is 85.5 acres. The owners are Kevin and Francesca Smith, who operated as a multi-use general ag farm. Their soil score was 96%. They have environmentally sensitive areas, and they are PDR adjacent to one farm that closed in 2018. It's actually not under contract. That's a typo. And they have PDR farms that have closed on both sides. They also abut Heisel Farm Park, and I'll show you that in just a minute. And they have an interstate view and an historic home on the farm that is eligible for the National Register. They are also part of the designated scenic viewshed. So, I may almost need my glasses for this. So, there it is right there near I-64, and you can see two little pieces of yellow. That purple part going back is Heisel Farm Park, and so they have PDR on both sides and then the park. So, there it is for the audience, and then that's Heisel Farm Park. Okay. All right, so our cumulative conserved farms and acreage. With the addition of these five farms, there are now 285 farms in PDR, totaling 31,066 acres. Of those farms, 37 have been donated, and their acreage totals 1,166. Additionally, there are eight federally matched farms under contract to close. Those total 1,664 acres and they are indicated on the map that you all have. And an additional eight farms were recently federally matched and are in various stages of the acquisition process and those total 474 acres. There are also seven applications in the queue. These farms qualify for purchase but are not yet funded or matched due to the landowner's desire to postpone action, life estates, inability to qualify for federal match, etc., and those total 1,181 acres. And then we have four applicant farms that went inactive. The ordinance actually requires that we tell you all three things, that we tell you what farms closed, which ones had unsuccessful applications, and that we provide you all a map. And so Farm 1-2020 we actually made an offer to, but it is owned by three siblings who ended up deciding it was not the best thing for the family. Farm 2-2020 and 3-2020 is also a family trust with several siblings. they thought they were in agreement when they applied to PDR, but some of them are hesitant right now, and so that one is on hold, and they hope to reactivate it to be able to work that out. And then Farm 7-2020, the landowners sold it, but the new owners have reached out to us and may want to reactivate that, so we hope to have that one in, and those total 427 acres. So our summary of farm easement acquisitions, the PDR director and rural land management board are working with 23 farms totaling 3,319 acres. There are eight farms totaling 1,664 acres under contract to close, 474 recently federally funded, and seven farms totaling 1,181 acres are not yet funded. Additionally, the PDR annual application cycle is taking place now through early January. So our stewardship of existing farm easements since providing the 2020 annual report, and the feds did not close any farms last year, so there was no report, the Rural Land Management Board has heard requests from over 20 farm owners for primary residences, tenant homes, historic home renovations, and agricultural buildings. The 280 farm easements acquired prior to this year were monitored for compliance, and only a few issues were noted, all of which were environmental and are being addressed. The board has received complaints for two farms advertising overnight stays and forwarded a request to the Planning Commission in 2021 asking you all to review farm stays, which are now a permitted form of agritourism under Kentucky state law. So our challenges to farmland conservation, and there is a large copy of this map in your all's packets, or the handouts I provided. Though it would seem there is much land to conserve with nearly 128,000 acres in the rural service area, mapping provided by our GIS staff shows how much land is excluded from potential conservation. This does not include the 27,000 acres recently deemed outside the preserved area by the goal for work group, which adds further challenges. So in looking at this map, everything green is either PDR or bluegrass land conservancy. Everything in the dark gray is unavailable for conservation, either because it's already like the horse park or it's less than 20 acres. and so everything in white is what is potentially conservable. So on our next slide if you'll look at a comparison of land marked out that is the goal for work group map on the left if you'll look at the comparison of land marked outside the preserved area versus available for conservation so much of the gray on map one. That is what's considered outside preserved area. And then if you'll compare it, you'll see that those gray areas cover much of what is white, conservable, on the map that tells us what's available to PDR. And additional challenges to farmland conservation. And this map is also, we provided a large copy for you all. There are 3,224 parcels in the rural service area, size 0 to 19.99 acres, and therefore they are unavailable for PDR purchase, for PDR easement purchase. In contrast, there are only 972 parcels that are size 20 plus acres. Of those 972, nearly 300 are already in PDR, and many others are occupied by businesses or governments such as the airport, Keeneland, the horse park, UK ag research farms, etc. So addressing those challenges, as part of our presentation today, we will be providing language from Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances and requesting the Rural Land Management Board and PDR staff be included in all Planning Commission discussions about the Goal 4 report. One of the sections cited within that chapter will be section 2619-2, Planning Commission Duties, which addresses the Planning Commission's review of any changes to the urban service boundary and states. In reviewing these issues, the Planning Commission shall consult with and receive recommendations from the Rural Land Board and other entities holding interest in land design to preserve and manage agricultural, rural, and natural lands. so we know that 2023 will be extremely busy year with the review and consideration of the goal for report a needed update to the rural land management plan and the comprehensive plan and we just want to ask that we be your partners with the planning commission and staff and address addressing the issues facing the rural service area thank you and we did include that language as well from the ordinance we provided that with the map handouts that you all have We do have one question that we got on Tuesday that we said we would answer. Ms. Bean actually, yes, at the council on Tuesday, Ms. Bean asked about why we don't list the individual, how much each farm cost or that cost. Actually, each farm is different. We work with federally approved appraisers, and every farm is based on page three, I think, that Beth read to you that's in the ordinance, based on where they are, how much road frontage they have, how many acres they have, what percentage is prime soil, statewide importance. So there is a very objective list that gives them numbers. Some of you who have served, three of you here, on the Rural Land Board already know how objective it is, so much so that we don't, even in the board meetings, refer to a farm by somebody's name. They go by a number, and it is not until we have closed and they are recorded in the county clerk's records that you know how much it costs for that particular easement. And that is all public knowledge. It is very transparent after that point. Anybody can go to the courthouse and look any and all of these 300 nearly easements and exactly what they cost. And I forgot to recognize Tracy, who's always been there, our legal counselor. And again, thank you to her, too, for always being there and always helping. I hope that answered your question by very good. All right. Are there any questions? Any questions for Ben? Comments? Frank? We are very fortunate today to have people who served on that committee from Hale, as I called it, from Margaret Graves, shared it, to put this thing together for two years. and the interesting thing about this is that we ground tested this before we ever rolled it out we actually went out and picked sex picked farms and so and put the negative points and the positive points to see if it actually worked so there was a lot of effort put into this before it became an ordinance and then there was a lot of effort put in to make sure that we followed those ordinances after we got them put in and the change from 10 acres to 40 acres was a huge change and don robinson and some of the rest of us here now i shouldn't even start calling names because i'll miss some of them but the the issue of going from 10 acres to 40 acres and then putting in the rural land management plan to do it and we've gotten down the road 25 years to where will be 25 years very quick to where there is an escape valve and that escape valve I want people to understand that is you can get out of an easement if you've come forth with another farm of equal or more more statewide importance land and you buy that and trade it and that was put in in order to go from one generation to the next to be able to have a pop-off valve there in case we got in that kind of situation so as we go forward and as we look at expansion if we do as we look at expansion this was not intended to be a emerald necklace that went around and stopped growth what it's intended to do is preserve what actually makes us unique and to preserve enough land that this thing can continue to operate and beth i salute you and gloria and margaret and all the people here today that are in the rural land management board and have been as zach and some of the rest of us have have been, but don't forget that land is finite and we've got to preserve it. It doesn't mean at the cost of the city expanding, it means that the fact that what makes us unique, we're going to keep and thank you for the opportunity to get on my soapbox a little bit. Thank you Mr. Pint. Mr. Nicklin. Well, I have a question, just this is kind of new to me. I'm just curious about 2022. Is 516 or so acres typical for what you all have been acquiring in a year? It varies. It depends on the, some, like next year, it will probably be closer to 2,000 because we have a farm under contract that's 1,100. So generally, it's anywhere from 500 to 1,000. But in the beginning of the program, they had so many, you know, a lot of applicants and did so much. I think, and I'm sure Margaret Graves, who is here, is, you know, there were over 100 applicants their second year, I think, of the PDR program. Is the limitation now applicants, or is it funding, or both? Yes, we are seeing more applicants lately, and we also have had support from this mayor for funding and the council, and so that is always helpful. So it can be a combination. Thank you. You're welcome. Ms. Elich. Just a couple of things. Beth, it's an extraordinary program. Gloria, it's an extraordinary program, and it truly is something, as Frank says, that makes this city great, this community great. And it's a foundation play that these peers of mine actually had the vision, Margaret and Helen and all you guys who had the vision and the ability to put this together. and it truly is something that for longevity and such is fundamental and foundation. So I commend you for that. My question is, since more and more farms are being a part of this, are the contiguous farms more inclined to become a part of that? Are you able to use that as a tool for recruitment and such? How is the atmosphere for purchasing of farms today? So it's good, and we are able to. Our GIS staff has actually provided us with mapping that shows every available farm, and we especially want to reach out to those that are adjacent to PDR farms and try to recruit those. And so I think we're seeing a mixture with the release of this goal floor report map. I think some people, it makes them anxious to conserve their farm. But then, you know, some it could scare about conserving their farm if they're in an area that's marked outside the preserver developable area. So both. But yes, we very much do want to recruit those farms that are adjacent to PDR farms. And a lot of times the farm owners will work with us to reach out to their neighbors and things. So, yes. Thank you for your kind words. Thank you. And, well, I certainly should have included Donnie Robinson because between Donnie and Frank and all these guys, it's just quite extraordinary, really. Yes. Thank you. Beth, thank you so much. When I resigned my position on the rural land management in 2020 to take this job, and I've often wondered about that decision. I left knowing Gloria was our chair and Beth you were there and I am entirely pleased with everything you've been able to accomplish in two years. So it's a testament to you and your commitment and to the founders of this program who structured it in a way 25 years ago that 25 years later it still makes sense. Thank you. Thank you Zach for your service too. Nice of you, Zach. You all right? Okay. That it? Okay. We need a motion to accept this. Yes, we need a motion. We don't need a motion to accept it. Just hearing it. Okay. Okay, cool. But thank you for your time and all your hard work. Thank you. Thank you for the maps, Beth. Oh, you're welcome. So next up, I guess that's why everybody's still here. We have council staff is going to be speaking to us about goal four. There will be questions from the commission to staff, and then we're all going to let the public speak. Each individual will have three minutes to speak at the podium. But as a commission, we will not be making any votes today. This is more informational purposes. So hopefully we will get that settled shortly in 2023. But we need to get this piece going. So hello ladies and welcome. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Sutton and I am currently a research analyst with the City Council. And my name is Eve Miller. I was previously with the Council Office and now I'm in the Division of Environmental Services. And today we are just going to give you a brief overview of the goal for work group report. So on today's agenda, we'll be discussing the purpose and membership of the Gulf War work group, the report's primary recommendation, the development process of the preservation map and the map itself, the process recommended by the work group to consider adding land to the urban services area, and then lastly, the approval process and the path forward for the report. So we will initially start out with just some background information about the work group and the work group members. We had the Vice Mayor Kay and Council Member James Brown as co-chairs alongside Council Member Bledsoe and Council Member Plowman also on the work group. And then we had additional work group members. They were selected based on various experience and perspectives. They are Stephen Howard, Bessie Jackson, Nick Nicholson, Rusty Underwood, Bill Witt, Judy Wirth, and Anthony Wright. We could not have done this work without the help of staff. A special thank you to everyone involved in planning, Director Duncan, Chris Woodall, Chris Taylor, and an even bigger thank you to our GIS staff who helped us create maps very quickly throughout this process and those individuals are Chris Dorge and Dustin Baker. So there is only one primary recommendation from the workgroup's report, which can be found on page 12 of the report. The objective of the workgroup was to fulfill the request of Goal 4 in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, and that goal asked to complete two main tasks. The first was to establish a process for future potential development, and then second, to identify lands for long-term preservation. And the Goal 4 report, alongside the Sustainable Growth Task Force work, completes this ask. And as such, the workgroup's primary recommendation is to replace Theme E Goals 3 and 4 with the new Goal 3 that reads, protect Lexington's invaluable rural resources and inform long-range planning for infrastructure, community facilities, and economic development through the adoption of the new process contained in the report of the Goal 4 workgroup. And we should note that there are six other sub-recommendations in the report on pages 12 and 13. However, we are just bringing to you today the primary workgroup's recommendation. So the intent of the primary recommendation is to incorporate language and details of the report in the goal statement and this does a couple things. It, I, identification of land to be preserved and or suitable for development. It separates the timeline of the consideration of inclusion of additional land in the urban service area from the consideration, I'm sorry, from the schedule of the five-year update to the comprehensive plan and it gives it its own time for analysis and research. and if land is to be added in the urban service area, it shortens the zone change process time frame and assures that land is developed within a reasonable time frame in comparison to the 1996 process. So the recommendation does not expand the urban service area. Rather, the report sets up a new process for an incremental strategy for including land inside the urban service area if and when needs are identified. So the report in the process does a couple things. It identifies land outside the urban services area for potential development without negative impact on the rural area. It helps to ensure that we're meeting ongoing growth projections for our city, and it helps to establish a mechanism to meet the identified needs. So as you all know, the work group developed a preservation map taking into consideration several criteria. So they took into consideration the conservation areas, which includes PDR and other publicly owned property, various cultural icons and environmental factors, different types of road classifications, sewerable areas, soil quality, different surrounding county zoning, what that looks like on our borders of Fayette County, the confirmed or projected transportation projects as well as water lines you can see several areas is highlighted and bolded and underlined because that was a foundational map for the work group the with the other criteria overlaid the sewer bull map is based on the 1999 rural service area management plan the preservation map included in the report identifies all land presently outside the urban services area that are presently or potentially developable with areas A through F and special conditions for area C, which I will talk about here. You can see in the gray that those are identified as areas outside of the preserved area with special qualifications for area C. The work group separated that area for areas that are for future development proposals that are in support of the agricultural economy through agri-technology and agriculturally supportive development. Proposals in this area may be evaluated independent of the process outlined in this report. The reasoning behind this was that the quality is because of the quality of the soils and the current agricultural area or uses in this area. There is an additional recommendation in the report which asks the Planning Commission to further define what kind of uses would be allowable in Area C. So as we have mentioned, the workgroup in the report has recommended a process to begin the consideration of land to be included in the urban service area. The first step is to support the division of planning to oversee the review and annual updates to the data set included in the sustainable growth task force work, which has been approved by both the planning commission and the council. then every five years in between updates to the comprehensive plan if it is the desire of the council they can establish an urban service area evaluation task force to evaluate the need for expansion and if so what acreage should be included and what needs should be met the task force will then forward its recommendation to the planning commission and then the planning commission will forward its recommendation to the council for a final decision and we should note that to set this process up in alignment with the current comprehensive plan schedule. That first, the next review would be in year 2026. If a need for land is identified, the following steps are implemented. The Planning Commission would craft a set of criteria based on the needs identified previously for review of proposals for ways, for those proposals, for ways to meet those needs. The planning commission would then solicit proposals which would be from the designated developable areas that are in the map previously. The proposals would then undergo an evaluation process with a proposal review committee, which would be appointed by the vice mayor and consist of LFUCG staff from planning, water quality, engineering, and facilities, as well as outside development professionals. The proposals would already include a zone map amendment, which is required for the proposed development plans. The developers would also be expected to sign an agreement if they do not meet certain milestones in a defined time frame, their property could be removed from the urban service area. The review committee would then make its recommendation to the planning commission for each of the proposals, and those proposals would be evaluated on technical need. The Planning Commission would then follow the normal process for zone changes for each proposal. And then the Council would then conduct zone map amendment hearings and would make the final decision on the proposals. So the path forward. The Goal 4 workgroup already forwarded their report to Council for information, and they recently passed a resolution to acknowledge the recommendation for a new Goal 3 in the 2023 Comprehensive Plan. Now the goal for work group report is in the planning commission's hands, which the planning commission could either adopt the report's recommendation, adopt the report's recommendation with various amendments, or adopt its own recommendation. Then the planning commission would forward their recommendation to council, which then they would either adopt the commission's recommendation, amend that recommendation, or adopt its own goal. And with that, we'll be happy to answer any questions. And we do have a couple work group members here with us today. Of course, we have Ms. Judy Wirth. We have Mr. Bill Witt in the audience. And Council Members Kathy Plumman, James Brown, and Vice Mayor Steve Kaye with us today. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any questions? Commission members? All right, not seeing any. Thank you. Thank you. So it's just a citizen's moment. You can come up. We'll express your concerns or lackings. We're not sure. But you step up one at a time, give your name, and we will have a three-minute timer. I did. Good evening. I assume that we're, that was an open call, right? Okay. Good evening. My name is Adam Clear. I'm a resident here in Lexington, and I have deep concerns about the nature of this report, actually about the detail of this report. It's a 17-page report of which I think 11 are substantive to the subject matter. I've seen more in-depth reports on playground equipment. There has been, as far as I'm aware, either no or very limited public input into the nature of this report. Considering it's involving a process that has been historically contentious, that seems extremely problematic. I don't, it's not that I disagree with the concept of a dedicated process for the urban services boundary. The idea is sound. The report is insufficient and flawed. In its inputs, both public and study-wise, I feel that it has not had the necessary information or public input to make it valid to the current circumstances. Two, I feel there's a lot of vague hand-waving in the way the process has been laid out. And there are insufficient opportunities to present alternative solutions beyond expansion of the urban services boundary. There's no clear definition laid out as to what should determine the need for an expansion. It just refers to a generic need. There is no stipulation that there should be an alternative circumstance that says we could expand the urban services boundary in this need, or another solution may be X, Y, or Z, which I think should be a valuable consideration in making these sorts of decisions. There is no prioritization of the land that has been suggested, which, as you know, amounts to 27,000 acres, I believe, or a little bit more of land, very close to the amount that has been preserved over 25 years of work with the Purchase and Development Rights Program. That is an aggressive amount of land that has been unprioritized in any way. The fact that when a need is determined, and it is determined that the urban services boundary needs to be expanded, that relies upon the initiation of a private development interest rather than the city determining what land is appropriate for expansion, I believe is problematic. To sit here and iterate all of the problems with this report and its lackings, I think would take a lot more time than the three minutes that I've been given. I know that you're not making any decisions tonight, but careful consideration before moving forward with any promise to make new goals in the comprehensive plans based on this report is very necessary. Thank you very much. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. I serve on the Rural Land Management Board and I chair the Bluegrass Land Conservancy Board and was very involved with Frank Penn and many others in this room in setting up the PDR program. I have a number of concerns about the Goal 4 report, which I've outlined in an op-ed, but I want to raise some additional concerns tonight. The report suggests a new process and a new task force to consider potential expansions to the urban service boundary that conflicts with existing state law. I know that the city's legal department was not consulted on the Gulf IV report or recommendations, and I would urge you as planning commission members to very carefully have a full legal review of what is and what is not permissible under Kentucky law. My understanding is that the proposed process is not permissible under current law. Number two, the report calls for greater data collection, but is itself based on outdated sewerability information. The map fails to acknowledge or incorporate changes from the 2007 comprehensive plan that adjusted the boundaries of sewerability category number four. There's no explanation for this oversight, and it's a substantial amount of land that is involved and a number of PDR parcels are involved. The report opens the door to leapfrog growth that contradicts Lexington's longstanding land use planning history. Such growth would be expensive to service and would destroy farmland caught between the urban service boundary and new growth. The map contemplates 27,000 acres for development and 98,000 acres to be preserved. But it is misleading to claim that 98,000 acres would be conserved when with eight votes on the council and six on the planning commission, that land could also be developed. I find it offensive that the map is called a preservation map. The only land permanently conserved is land under easement, which currently totals over 33,000 acres of farmland. And finally, as our community considers how and where to grow in the future, I would suggest that we consider where land has already been conserved through the PDR program and the Bluegrass Land Conservancy and seek compact, contiguous growth to the existing urban service boundary, rather than sprawl to the county line, which will endanger the $85 million investment we have made to date in conserving farmland. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you will reject this report. Margaret, will you say your name for the record, please? Sure. Margaret Graves. Hi, I'm Mary Diane Hanna. 6398 Old Richmond Road, Lexington, Silvacola Farm a farm that's been in our family since the 1800s and my dad was on the Green Space Commission with Gloria and some others of you here and I guess I'm carrying on his legacy I'm president of the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association it encompasses I think over 40,000 rural acres of land, it's between Tate's Creek Road, 8th and Spoonsboro Road Richmond Road starting at Jacobson Park, going out Athens, Boonesboro to Clark County, going out Richmond Road and Hayes Creek Road to Madison County. The association is without a doubt the largest in land area of all the neighborhood associations and probably inarguably the largest attended neighborhood association. and I think Linda Gorton and our council members can attest to that. I think they get a good showing when they are there campaigning or being heard about what their plans are for the future. Expanding the service boundary is a direct attack on the area of the Old Richmond Road. I may be wrong, but I don't know anyone who lives out there that is forced to live out there. They live out there because they want to live out there. It's their explicit intent to live in the country. And I have heard neighbors' outcries and rages against this plan over the past month. And, of course, over similar intrusions by over the past 30 years, I've been president of the Neighborhood Association against expansion, city-like road intervention, intrusive development, businesses and entities who wanted to and against current ordinances have located in our area. We are tired of the fight, but we're not going to back down. We have the right to live in the rural area, and we do not feel like the government has the right to push more toward us if we don't want to be pushed. With regard to the pretended altruistic cries of developers and realtors who say we need more affordable housing, this is not an area where those who need affordable housing will be able to easily get to jobs or find a nearby job. It's not an area on a city bus route. I guess it could be if it's taken into the urban service area. Those who will ultimately try to develop here will probably not build affordable homes. Note Ellerslie, note Hayes, note the Ball Homes Development off of Squires Road. I would like to add these comments to the public record, and thank you for your time and your service on the board. Thank you, Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Brittany Rothmeier, and I'm, of course, the Executive Director of Fayette Alliance, which is a nonprofit dedicated to smart, sustainable growth here in Fayette County. Really appreciate your time. I know it's been a very long day, so thank you. The Goal 4 report raises really some alarming questions and fundamentally incorrect assumptions about expansion of the urban services boundary to allow future growth. It proposes a map that you've seen that destroys, in theory, the concept of the urban services boundary and suggests, as has been mentioned, a legally questionable process for determining how future expansion decisions will be made. It was developed on a fast-track timeline without the broad community input that's really essential to these public policy decisions. Before any growth proposal is considered, the community deserves more information, better data, public input, and a hard look and thoughtful analysis of the impacts, necessity, and appropriateness of development in the rural service area. It should not start with this proposed report. While the community should have research-based discussions about where and how to grow, it's irresponsible to propose a map that begins that discussion by suggesting over 27,000 acres of land in the rural area for future development. In the 26 years since the last expansion of the urban services boundary, a little over 2,500 acres have been developed, just over half of what was brought inside the USB over 25 years ago. Using this rate of development, the report identifies enough land to accommodate growth for over 200 years before determining how much might realistically be needed, for what reasons, when, where, and how. The map doesn't break down the cost, feasibility, or impacts of developing those 27,000 acres or account for the differences in these factors on all of the different areas that are identified in the map. Those differences are significant and diverse, and we should not start an important conversation about growth based on something that disregards so many principles of our community. The process also raises serious infrastructure questions. It indicates land could be developed in multiple directions outside the USB at the same time, incentivizing scattered development throughout the rural area, unsustainable infrastructure investments, and negative impacts to the ag businesses and federal dollars that have invested tens of millions to support the PDR program. The last time we failed to consider the relationship between development and infrastructure capacity, overflowing sewers caused serious harm and the EPA sued, resulting in the consent decree that we're all familiar with, costing taxpayers close to $600 million to correct. The process set up by the 96 expansion to ensure that developers do pay their infrastructure to serve new development outside the USB, like roads and sewers, doesn't propose a new process. It leaves major policy questions for community members and taxpayers that must be answered. Outlining a growth in infrastructure process led by private developers through an RFP process, development open to anywhere in 27,000 acres, and I know I'm over time, Ms. Ricca White has agreed to concede her minutes to me, and then I promise I'll wrap up. This RFP process means that one-off developments will actually drive infrastructure investments and future growth patterns. It overlooks the importance of city comprehensively planning growth, making these investments in places best suited for future growth when we need it and where we need it. Those decisions should be made pursuant to community priorities and our visions for future success, not private developers competing against each other and the city having to legally justify why their proposal isn't the best suited. The process resulting in the report may have begun with good intent, but ended abruptly, failing to include updated data, key stakeholders, public input, or analysis of the major issues that we now have to address. Reliable data is key for making public policy decisions, but even more important is the involvement of the community in making them. A decades-long plan for growth isn't as simple as drawing lines on a map. The report does a disservice to our community if the fundamental issues aren't acknowledged up front. There must be a review of the process, a commitment to updated research, and an opportunity for public input. The best next step to these informed discussions are an update to the 99 sanitary sewer capability study, an update to the rural land management plan, and an updated cost of community services study, so we truly understand what growth outside the urban services boundary is going to cost us as a community. They must be incorporated into any proposal for long-term growth and the impacts evaluated in making them. We don't outline these concerns at Fayette Alliance to stop discussions about future growth processes. We've always advocated for smart and responsible growth, not no growth. We outline these concerns to say that the way we use our land in Fayette County is too important to put a bad process in place. There's too much at stake. It has to be done, but it has to be done right. It has to be done thoughtfully. The community deserves it. Let's continue to lay the groundwork necessary for truly responsible growth. and we appreciate your all's efforts in doing so. Thank you. Frank, before I start, I'd like to ask you a question, if I can, about the PDR program, since you know a lot about it. And then I'd like to do, I'd like to make a comment about Goal 4. Is that all right with the committee? I'm going to look at Mr. Penn. She wants to ask you a question. Well, we've wasted enough time. Tell me what you want to know. Pardon? Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. My name is Dottie Beam. I'm in Council District 8. My question was brought up here in public about the amount of money that the taxpayers are paying for these easements. And I want you to know my question was not made out of nosiness, but I am asking on behalf of several other taxpayers in this community that I represent. We have a right to know. Now, I'm asking this, and we intend to pursue this. How are these easements recorded? and are they added to the value of the property when the PVA assesses it? Now, are they recorded on the deeds in the county clerk's office or are they recorded in the PVA's office? Can you answer that for me? Correct me if I'm wrong. they are flagged in the PVA's office so they know which ones are PDR'd. Okay, and they are recorded as the amount of money paid for those easements? They are recorded as the PDR farm. The amount of money paid is public record. That's what I'm asking you. And the other thing is that it is a deed easement. The easement is recorded with the deed. Okay, thank you. Now, I do have a comment about the goal for here. As we move forward with Lexington's comprehensive plan process, we see a major need for two things here. One is increased participation in this process by ethical, unbiased, non-stakeholding taxpayers on all of your committees and complete compliance with all laws relating to public comment on matters that are in the public interest. That means public hearings and public notification that they're going to occur. This is absolutely not happening now. small groups of people with vested interests are now making the very big decisions about this community's future. We also would like to see a comprehensive analysis of how much of our valuable land that was set aside in previous comp plans for affordable housing for families has been rezoned for commercial and retail uses, especially after it was sewered at taxpayer expense. That study needs to cover the years 1990 to 2020, or the last 30 years. Also a similar study for properties owned by the University of Kentucky throughout this community needs to be done. How much housing has now been absorbed into student compounds. We would also like a separate study of how much new affordable housing, and I do mean affordable, I don't mean $300,000 houses, has been built in the infill area that is still under development. We would also like to see, add a comment about the development near Joyland. It should not happen as anything but affordable housing, period. It is time to end 30 years of land speculation in Lexington and actually start planning for a livable community. It is shameful we are in the situation we are in right now with homelessness. Yes ma'am. By the way. Ma'am, ma'am, your time is up. I'd like just one more minute. Mama's finished. I can't. Pardon? I would like to, but I can't. You can't. Oh, you could. I could. Please don't lie to me. You could do it. But it's just not me. You've done it for others. You're not allowed to me. You have done it for others. Okay. Thank you. You just don't like to hear anything to disagree with. I don't know. I'm going to keep a smile on my face. Fine. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Reverend Lisa I, the interim pastor of the Walnut Hill Church, which is located at 575 Walnut Hill Road in Lexington. And I come to speak with concern for the way in which this report has the potential to negatively impact our congregation and its neighbors. Just to share a little bit about who we are, the Walnut Hill Church is the oldest Presbyterian church in Kentucky. We have that gift here within Lexington. And the current building was built in 1801, and the original building on that site, a log church, was built in 1785. This means that it predates the Cane Ridge Church in Bourbon County, which was built in 1791, and it's the oldest Kentucky church still in existence. The land was donated by Levi Todd, the grandfather of Mary Todd Lincoln. And this land was also, and church was, rehabilitated in 1974 at the behest of its neighbors. And it received Preservation Award in 1976 by the Lexington-Fayette County Historic Commission. And it also serves, is on the National Register of Historic Places. It abuts the Judd Monte Farm and is across from Belmar Farm and is accompanied by a beautiful scenic historic cemetery. The unique attributes of this church are its setting, which allows for the opportunity for the day school, Walnut Hill Day School, which operates in our facility to welcome children from across the community, and also allows this church and its neighbors to serve the neighborhood, but also use its unique setting to serve the larger Lexington community. So I would encourage the commission to consider this report carefully and consider the ways in which all of these decisions will impact our community as well as our neighbors. Thank you, and I would respectfully request that this be a part of the record. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, members of the commission. Thank you all for your time and your patience. My name is Jim Shropshire, and my wife, Jane, and I operate a 315-acre family farm raising cattle, 3079 Royster Road here in Lexington. I'm here to address you all today because our farm is one of those protected by a PDR easement. Yet we are potentially threatened by the recently released Gulf War report and map that showing our farm is in the largest area identified for possible future expansion. We live on a family farm that has been in the family approximately since 1800. The farm, the land agent on the farm was a fellow by the name of Elijah Craig. You may know the name, particularly if you like bourbon. And so somebody's been out there for a long time. Our farm's soils are considered to be of statewide importance. In other words, we have top quality soil, and it's a very productive farm. Additionally, our property is listed on the National Register and recognized by the state of Kentucky as both a historic farm and as a bicentennial farm. Our fear on seeing the proposed map is that the history and productivity of our farm may one day disappear. Our farm may become, like John Fritz's, an island in a sea of commercial development. This is not favorable to cattle production or to the sanity and well-being of the farmer. We appreciate the work that the group, the Gulf War Group, has done, and their attempts to provide a structure to future growth and, when necessary, expand if that is what is deemed necessary. Yet before any map is adopted or a growth proposal considered by the Planning Commission, the community deserves more information, better data, public input, and a hard look at the financial and ecological impacts, as well as necessity and appropriateness of development in the rural area. It feels to us premature to make public or rely on any map proposing over 27,000 acres of land into the rural area into future development before more work is done and community input is accepted. It's always easier to expand outward than to make hard decisions about infill and redevelopment. Yet once again, once agricultural land is taken, it is never recovered. We thank you for your time. Austin Kerr, 5660 Old Richmond Road. And I'm going to show my age here from many of us that are here today in the fact that there have been many times in this room, Frank, Gloria, myself, fought long and hard to get a comprehensive plan that included excellent knowledge in our rural areas and excellent knowledge in our development areas. And those plans have kept us until we all saw the goal for report. I've been told by Kathy Plowman, who is a friend and a council person, that, you know, this is just a report. But in an email she sent, she said I had to amend a motion that said council endorsed to council acknowledging. In this room, literally every single one of us knows. Sometimes when it gets on paper and it is a report, it's amazing how it comes. My husband and I were one of the few that way back then when we had excellent leadership in between the council and the urban areas and all of our farm ag areas, we decided we worked so hard for this that we donated the piece of property. We are not PDR farm. We did not get paid for the land to which over 100 acres that we gave into the conservancy. And this goalful report literally throws that gift, which we gave to the city, almost down the drain because, like Jimmy Swapsha said, we could be an island out there. I know the conservancy will fight hard for us. PDR program was not even available at that time. So all those people that jumped on that ship jumped because we believed we had a governing body that would stick to the rules. So I implore this planning commission to send the report back, include on members on this report that represent the ag community, that represent the conservative community, that represent everything that we have worked for, which it is really not there in what you see. So hopefully you all will take a very hard look at what that map shows and see if we can't do something about it. Thank you. Good evening, Planning Commissioners. My name is Knox Van Ogle Pfister, and I'm here to respectfully request that you not support the Gulf War Workgroup report. A general endorsement of the report is ill-advised at best, as too many significant questions are on the table, such as the short- and long-term economic consequences of earmarking a 27,000-acre urban reserve for future development in the rural area, the absence of key equine and general agriculture, real estate, and neighborhood stakeholders from the Goal 4 Committee discussions, the limited consideration of land inventories, the important partnership between urban and rural vitality, and the interplay of regionalism in our sustainable growth strategies, and the real fiscal, environmental, and cultural impacts of an expansionary outward growth approach on our coveted brand, signature industries, and World Monument Fund endangered bluegrass landscape, in which this government has invested millions of dollars to conserve, in which this report's recommendations jeopardize. While I appreciate the committee members' intentions, let us honor these efforts not with a general endorsement of the Gulf War report today, but rather with a real commitment to engage everyone in a transparent and rigorous planning process to consider the community's growth needs starting January 1st. As part of this exercise, important work needs to be done, such as updating our rural land management, rural durability, and infill redevelopment plans, evaluating our exaction program, performing a cost of community services study, and understanding the most recent demographic, housing market, and land data in Fayette County. In light of such research, we will be able to better understand both the short and long-term fiscal and environmental impacts of future expansion. As many of you know, I come from a farm family and have dedicated much of my life to advancing good growth here in Lexington, Fayette County. Together with everyone in this chamber and beyond, we have come very far. From weathering the consent decree and great recessions to attracting the World Equestrian Games and Breeders' Cup, these accomplishments are no accident. It is from the land we garner our strength, our resilience, and our identity. Whether we expand the urban services area in every direction to the county line or hold fast, it is a balance. Fayette County alone can never accommodate all things for all people for all time. What we lose, we lose forever. Therefore, we owe it to ourselves and this precious bluegrass that we all steward to do more. It is in this vein that I ask you to do more and reject the Gulf War Report at this time. The world is watching. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Will Mayer. I live at 337 Kingsway Drive. I'd like to make an embarrassing admission. I like to consider myself an informed citizen. I read the paper. I vote. I'm engaged like you all are on a board. I serve on the Rural Land Management Board. But I'm embarrassed that I didn't become aware of the Gulf War work group until late this fall. When I did become aware of its existence, I attended its meetings. What I was disappointed in when I went to those meetings was the lack of vigorous debate and the lack of representation, particularly of the agricultural sector. As I went back through the minutes of the meetings, I discovered the minutes of the very first meeting where Vice Mayor Kay laid out how the task force would conduct its work. And he said, suggested that the work group work in complete tasks by consensus. I'd like to offer this thought. Consensus is agreement. It's nothing more. It provides no assurance of accuracy, correctness, or feasibility. It's only a valid decision-making process if agreement is more important than results. I would suggest to you that in 50 years, when our children and grandchildren look back, that the agreement of 12 people in a room on the fifth floor of this building is not as important as the results of the decisions that we make about land use in Fayette County. I encourage you to vote against this proposal. As you've heard, and others have said better than I can, there are a number of reasons to oppose it. But just to put in perspective, this proposal would increase the urban service area by 50%. We don't need that. We can find a better way. We should continue to pursue infill development and continue on the path and the investments that this community has made over the last 15 years. I would strongly encourage you to vote against the group goal for report. Thank you. I brought visual aids. Hey, thank you all for being here. My name is Tom Posk, and I live at 172 Louisiana Avenue. I'm the chief investment officer at Meridian Wealth Management, and I am on the Fayette Alliance board. I also grew up on a farm in Illinois in what is a lot of times referred to as Chicago land. And we watched those farms get eaten up by expansion and sprawl in my childhood. And there was always one guideline that was finally established in that area and it was based on land quality. And I was appalled to learn that in the goal 4 study that one of the first things that they learned in that group was that all of this land was prime. And with that, it kind of brought me to here and wanting to say a little something to you. And that is, first ask the question, raise your hand, how many of you took soils in college? Raise your hand, raise your hand, everybody. You did, we got two, I did, I took soils. And I would tell you, we got three soils people in here, and I would tell you that we did not pay enough homage to these rocks. They take about 500 years to make an inch of topsoil. That is how long they sit in the ground, and they came out of my yard at 172 Louisiana Avenue. They are dolomitic limestone, and they are special to us and to the world because they are the only rock that contains enough phosphorus that we have a naturally fertile soil in the bluegrass region. And especially only in the inner bluegrass region where we are the deeper part of the Ovidashian topography. and these soils represent less than one hundredths of a percent of the world soil, and the only other ones that are exposed are in the Sahara Desert, and they got a little water problem there. So we have the only soils of this type in the United States. So I would sit there and tell you here that I hope we have learned that the only defense for a mistake is to declare it was made with good intention. And I think what we're doing here was good intention. But I believe goal 4 report meets all the criteria of a monumental mistake of epic proportions. You know, the first reading, as I said, of the group 4 discovery report was that all the soils in the county are prime. They are. I assure you. I can tell you anything you want to know about them if you want to get gronky. And it's a big thing if you love agriculture or if you just like to eat. As Lexitonians, we're blessed to reside in the inner dome of the Oredofian limestone, commonly referred to the inner bluegrass region. This dome is comprised of the dolomitic limestone I brought. It takes 500 years to make an inch of topsoil for this to decompose and become soil. And it's special because it's naturally fertile, high in phosphorus and calcium. So basically, I would say that for better or worse, we do not have a World Wildlife Fund for soil. We do not have a Nature Conservancy for soil. But this is endangered and deserves our protection. That's why you're here. It should not be an easy job. It should be a hard job. The function of goal four was to make your life easy. And I'm telling you, what it is is going to make the job hard for our new council, for our new council chairs, because these decisions should be made individually and separately, and I do not want to see the sooner rush to the next land development on some side of town because we've got 20,000 acres to rush upon. So I'm not in favor. Thank you all. My name is Josh Salzman. I live on Delong Road, which would be area F on your map. Contrary to popular belief, all of us don't have mansions out there. We have a very small, not a small house, but a modest house. We're not in one of these grandiose mansions. We didn't ever hear about the Gulf War plan. No one came to us. It's very appalling that our own council member didn't bring this to us, who was on the Gulf War group. we feel betrayed and it is not just me there are over 250 signatures from people out there we're furious we're mad do not adopt this plan this plan will not allow for what's people want affordable housing let's identify what affordable means is affordable 300,000 is affordable 250,000 because none of those houses even if our area f was brought into the urban service boundary would be developed under $500,000 because of the price of the land. There's only one big parcel out there that will eventually get developed, as we all know, overbrook. It's going to happen when it happens. But nothing else out our area in F is up for grabs. I can tell you that. I have gone house to house, and my wife wishes I hadn't because she's at home with four kids and wanting to kill me now. I can tell you all, no one is for this. And we have lost trust in our at-large council and our District 12 council person. I am not alone in this. We are angry. I'm sorry you all are here so late because you are in a no-win situation. You're going to make somebody, well, a lot of people mad. It's just which way you're going to make somebody mad. So thank you. Please do not adopt this plan because it was flawed from the beginning. Thank you. Hi, my name is Helen Alexander. I own a farm out on Old Frankfort Pike, which is an equine farm, and it is under a conservation easement with the Bluegrass Land Conservancy. The comprehensive plan has always guided Lexington in this tension between the urban and the rural and any possible expansion. But the comprehensive plan has citizen input, and everybody is allowed to participate in that. This goal four does not have citizen input. And the idea that you would take 27,000 acres and open it willy-nilly to possible development is just beyond comprehension. This map that came out on the cover of the Lexington Herald-Leader was just absolutely shocking to me when I saw what the intention was of this goal for a group. It shouldn't be a hand-picked group that decides the future of the agricultural or the urban part of Lexington. It should be the citizens of Lexington, of Fayette County, that make these decisions. Thank you. Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, staff, counselor, my name is James Hodge. I'll get the requisite stuff in the record here shortly. Over the years, I've been privileged to indirectly or directly represent the majority of the people in this room. I've also had the privilege years ago to represent your predecessors. But I'm more privileged to reside at 6050 Old Richmond Road with my wife, Mary Ann Delaney. And I'm primarily privileged to get to live with the former Commissioner of Law. But I want to talk to you about the map. the map should be rejected and I'd like to give you a few specific examples of why that is all along Old Richmond Road starting at the intersection of Old Richmond Road and Athens Boonesboro Road at Jacobson Park and this is something I happened to find when I saw this map I wrote this letter to Honorable Pam Miller and the council in 1995. Same issue. Same property. As you go down Old Richmond Road from Jackson Park, on the right, first you come to and all these properties are presently in the rural service area and are protected. Under the new map, they are no longer protected. Regardless of what you want to call them, they're no longer part of the protected rural service area. So as you go down Old Richmond Road, first on the right, you come to Juddmark Farm, which I assume everyone here knows what Juddmark Farm is without me having to explain. Then, if you go on down the road on the left, you come to Belmar Farm, home of Mr. and Mrs. Curtis Green, on which there's an Italian-style circa 1870s home, but as with Judmont, is a very important and large horse farm. Going on down the road, and you heard from the minister, is historic Walnut Hill Church and Cemetery on the right. And you heard from their representative. On down the road on the left is Woods Edge, formerly Castle Lawn Farm, which was owned by the folks that owned the stockyard and owned the newspaper once upon a time, and now owned by some very important horse interests as well. on which the home is owned by Ms. Ronald Kirk. Going on down the road, on the right, you come to Richland Farm, which is now the home of the children of Mr. Arthur Francis, on which this is located a Greek Revival James Shelby house, circa 1830 house. I've got two more items. And then you come to Greenfield's farm, the home of Mr. and Mrs. John Kerr. You heard from Ms. John Kerr. I assume Mr. John Kerr's either home taking care of the farms, and he also takes care of Richland, or he's home taking care of folks who've passed on. In any event, this is just a concrete example of why this map at least should be rejected, because you're changing the status of these important pieces of property, which are part of our heritage and part of our signature industry. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Mike Owens. Currently, I reside at 1362 States Hill Circle here in Lexington. My wife may move me any moment. That's somewhat of an inside joke. But considering the hour and the people here still here speaking today, I've seen enough of it. You would think we're talking about land expansion. You know, expanding the urban service boundary. What are we talking about? The possibility of future expansion. You know, the last time was 1996. 5,000 acres were included. We still have half that land. That tells me we still have a 20-year supply. So this proposal would give the possibility for future to give us 200 years worth of expansion, 200 years worth of development. You know, we, I think we're getting the cart before the horse here. Really and truly the question we should be talking about, if we're talking expansion, We need to be talking about sewerability or maybe more accurately, sewer capacity. We're still building holding tanks because of a lack of capacity. We're still digging ourselves out of the proverbial hole that the last expansion got us into. To the tune of $600 million for the consent decree. Before we get back in that hole, we need to complete the consent decree and seriously consider how we might sewer any possible feature development. Infrastructure, during my time sitting there with you all, I've never had an accurate description or definition as to the exaction fees associated with the expansion area master plan. does that money actually accurately reflect the cost of the infrastructure have we really received that money during that time i don't know if anyone knows we need to slow down and we need to get this right there's been very little citizens input two of the last comp plans where expansion has been discussed approximately 70 percent of the citizens of lexington have always recognize the importance of rural landscape and agriculture as being our golden goose to the area. Mr. Bell, you should recognize as well as anyone the last three months, Keeneland September sale, record-setting sales. We had record-setting October race meet, followed by the Breeders' Cup, followed by record-setting November sales. My guess would be that's over a billion dollars worth of revenue in just three months. My Kentucky math doesn't figure the economic impact for what that meant to Lexington. And that's just three months. We're beginning to see infill and redevelopment in the last five, six, seven years. More can be done and should be done. And yes, we still need to consider building up. I don't think we've kept that. Haven't even started looking at it really as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying don't look to the future or plan for the future. I'm just saying that this notion being put forth today is excessive. And we need to spend more time with more input from all concerned. Thank you. My name is Bill Justice. I'm Justice Real Estate. I'm on the board of the Fayette Alliance, and I fully understand why Mr. Hodge got paid by the words to the job. I want to applaud the Go Forth Work Group. Their intent was very, very well done and well placed. it would destroy our urban service boundary. The work that we've done since 1958, no one's mentioned the quality of life that we enjoy. Our growth is because of the quality of life that we enjoy. That quality of life is foremost by our signature industry, our horse industry. Thank you. Even gentlemen, having that dinner, so I'm going to make this quick. I buried Saturday, 3416 Laredo drive. And frankly, guys, like you probably are, I'm torn. You know, you hear, I ran for fourth district council a number of times. Nobody's probably spoken to more fourth district people than maybe the current council member. but one thing that I know is that everybody in the fourth district I think broadly in Lexham I think everybody in this room greatly values our heritage we greatly value all the farmland I didn't bring any rocks I'm sorry about that but we had some That was really kind of a cool little history lesson. Yes. At the same time, you know, I want to really state that the Gulf War Working Group has a big idea that, you know, as much as I love, and I talked to some people here that passionately represented the old Richmond Road area, and I love driving down that road. It's such a fun place to just be, and it doesn't, it just really kind of encapsulates in a lot of ways what Lexington is, a lot like old Frankfurt Pike in my estimation. The challenge that the Gulf War Working Group has in front of them, though, is it's not, Lexington is not just the outer boundary. It is the inner boundary, too. And truly the challenge all of us in this room and across this entire community have is balancing the growth needs we have with our preservation of our culture. I'm not telling anyone here anything they don't know there. One of the things that we do need to understand is that people in the 4th District particularly are getting priced out of the area. I'm sure all of you have seen the property tax increases that have been skyrocketing in areas that have a boundary like ours. This is not uncommon to other communities. You see the same thing across the nation in communities that have adopted the American Playing Association's goals and ideals. And that is put a belt around the growth, stop it from expanding, preserve whatever terrain happens to be outside that boundary. You typically have high degrees of increasing rates of homelessness, increasing commute times, which obviously is not good for environmentalism or anything in our community. And it also is going to drastically increase homelessness and the lack of ability of people who currently live in the districts around the city to afford the housing that they're in. So regardless of what you ultimately decide on the goal for plan, I hope you will consider that at some point this will boil over. What's happening inside the boundary will boil over. Something needs to be done. You have some very well-respected people who are in charge of this plan, and I hope you will take it seriously. Thank you. So, again, Beth Overman. I am Robert James. Our board member is passing out something. I want to follow up on what our board member and founding member, Margaret Graves, said earlier about the map that was used, the sewerability map. So the first page of your handout is from the 2007 comprehensive plan. And the part that's highlighted says, based on the professional opinion of the Director of the Division of Sanitary Sewers and a review of the 2006 Sanitary Sewer Capability Study, it was determined to not be economically feasible to provide sanitary sewer service to the eastern portion of the I-64 Avon Sewer Ability Category 4 area. During the review of the Rural Land Management Plan and evaluation of the rural sewerability categories as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, the planning staff recommended that farms located in this area should not lose points during the scoring process. Therefore, the limits of the I-64 Avon Sewerability Category 4 area are amended as part of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan as shown on the Sewerability Map 13. So if you flip to the next page, this is the Sewerability Map 13 in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan. And you'll see over on the right, the red striped area. That area, if you'll look at the legend, it was removed from sewerability category four. It's no longer. This is an adopted part of the plan. And then if you'll look at the map on the right, that's one of our PDR ranking maps provided by GIS. And you'll see that the blue area where the red and white had been, we've got that marked in blue as sewerable. That's what we've used for 15 years. and this is what GIS has provided us. It matches the 2007 comprehensive plan map. And then if you go flip to the last page, you'll see that the map that the goal for work group used, area D, is that 1999 map that goes all the way to Clark County. So that is one of our major concerns about this. As we said in our report, we award negative points if people are in the durability category. So for 15 years, we have not awarded negative points to anyone in this category. We have purchased over 20 easements. We have farms under contract in that area. Mr. Shropshire spoke. He is in that area. So that is one of our biggest concerns is that an outdated map was used. So we ask you all to please look this over and keep that in mind as you consider this. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here. I hope you'll advance the Goal 4 report. The Goal 4 Committee took on an issue nobody else was willing to do. That was called for in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, identifying areas for preservation and development, and they did it. They did have a diverse group there. I think everybody in this room feels like they should have been on the committee too. I know I do. But not everybody can. But they had a group with frank discussion, and it was a very deliberative group. I want to point out, as you all know, that report doesn't put a square inch of land inside the urban service boundary. It just sets forth a process. We need the process to go forward. We in the building industry know we're in a housing crisis right now. The report says we won't even consider discussing expansion until 2026. Last time when there was an expansion in 1996, it took six years before the first house got a certificate of occupancy. As a result of that, six years, about 2002. If we wait until 2026, that's putting us up to 2032, almost 10 years from now. We have a crisis, we feel, in housing right now that needs to be addressed, and the Gulf War Committee has taken the first step to do that. I want to point out that there are a number of other people here tonight who wanted to talk. I know Todd Johnson and Joe Palumbo from the Building Industry Association were here to speak in favor. they both had to leave. Andy Johnson from the Commerce Lexington was here to speak in favor of it and had to leave as well. Dennis Anderson had to leave as well too. So we wanted to point that out. We feel timing is important. We know the report didn't get done when it was supposed to in 2020 because of COVID, but it needs to move forward. And whatever decision you're talking about to now, we're not going to have any impact for 10 years and that's way too long to wait. Thank you. Hi. Hi. Claudia Mickler. Our family has property on both Maxwell Street and out in the country on Kidville. And I apologize, I'm not very eloquent. But today has been a very interesting day, but quite a disconnect for me. I felt I watched the first part, many development plans, one after another. after another and without a laser I couldn't exactly really get everything they were talking about but Everything pretty much looked paved. There was a big piece of property all paved. There'd be a little green thing over here and then a little pond for water, but pretty much development was solid paving and the discussion was how do the cars go? How do the trucks go? What do we do about the pollution and Then we talk about, I believe I'm quoting this, and I hope I get it right, but I believe when the two women were here giving their report, they said, growth without impact on rural areas. And I find that to be, from their report when they read, and I find that to be kind of naive. Because our growth doesn't seem to have any aesthetic component. Our growth doesn't seem to have any ecological component, and I certainly didn't see any plans to accommodate low-income housing. So somewhere, I just feel like there's two groups that aren't really communicating. Anyway, I am definitely opposed to the plan of the areas for development. Thank you. Hi, I'm Helen Morrison. I live at 5776 Old Richmond Road. And I wasn't really planning to speak, so excuse me if I'm a little off the cuff. But so much was said and so eloquently by neighbors and just people that have a love of the land. And I want to support all of that and encourage you to at least delay and not support the plan for as it is presented here. And a couple of points I think that maybe weren't covered enough were, one, in addition to the fact that this is irreversible. Like, if you put that land out there, it might as well just be gone. Because there are a lot of people that profit off of that. They make money off of that, and they are looking for opportunities. And they'll be here every day asking to use that land. And we're going to be at our jobs. We're going to be at our homes. And we're not going to be able to show up every day asking you not to give them that land. So the way that it's written, it is unfair to the democratic process where the public has some say in how land is conserved in this community. So I think the way it's written favors those that would profit from that land in just monetary ways. And we've, of course, covered the irreplaceable parts of that. So the other thing I want to point out is that in looking at this, I know that the best argument for expansion to help citizens of this community is about affordable housing. And I do not see how this could possibly be the solution to that problem. And the reason is because that, first of all, desert areas are not known for affordable housing. Someone's already done that. But also, I just kind of glanced at the urban refill and redevelopment steering committee site. And they're the people that we need to have addressed that problem most forthright right now. Like that's the committee that really should hold that in the palm of their hands right now. Because that boundary isn't, the boundary for that zone isn't even close to the rural service boundary. there's so much space inside that area that's not even in the area that we're talking about how to use best so there's a lot of things that are discussed and a lot of people that know a lot more about this weren't included in the just included in discussion in the first place so I do urge you to vote that down thank you I've already been here, but some things have been said that I wanted to bring up something about that. About meeting the housing needs. I would really urge each one of you, and I know some of you who have been on the board, have read the Rural Land Management Plan. It's about 130 pages. It's an easy read. It's big print. It has a lot of pictures. All jokes aside, you really should look at it. because there are, and we, the board, voted and formally requested, when you all were looking at the ADUs, to also look at the rural area for those possibilities. And as I wrote a note to Jim Duncan, we have grannies in the rural area and kids coming home from college, just like people inside that urban service boundary. Let's look at it. Let's look at it all fairly and honestly across the board. If you will carefully look in that rural land management plan, there are literally thousands of lots, small residential lots out there already. The maps that Beth gave you today, GIS has been working on with us for months now, even during COVID, to update the maps that you were given today. We have 45 subdivisions in the rural service area. That's over 5,000 acres, from a quarter of an acre to about 11 acres. We have 16 rural settlements, and this was something about that map that disturbed me, and I have voiced this. In one of those areas, we have 16 rural settlements, some of our crossroad communities and the hamlets. I have worked through preservation for many years trying to preserve those little historic hamlets, many of which are left over from Civil War days and our African American heritage. Those were just over the top of. And we have a whole group of ladies who presented on Tuesday when I was here about trying to save those rural hamlets. So I just want everybody to be honest. Yes, we do have some housing issues. Yes, there may be a housing crisis. But you also already have thousands, literally thousands, of small residential lots out there that you could be looking at. So I just want to urge everybody, read the plan, be honest, look at it, look at page, I think it's off the top of my head, 52 through about 54. about your little rural settlements and those hamlets. So let's make sure that when you all look at this, some of these things were not looked at very carefully. You know, our own lawyer, that's a lawyer for you, she did not participate in this. She was not on this committee. Beth asked to participate, and they said they didn't want it to be biased, so they didn't really want her there, And she did go and sit and attend or listen to as many of those as she could and answer questions when she was asked. She was not asked to ever make a formal invitation, a presentation in front of that group. We had the sanitary sewer folks. We had State Department of Roads. They made a valiant effort to bring those people in. So I'm a little disturbed because a lot of the people who came today, I'll have to tell you that this Goal 4, and I've already told Kathy because she's a very dear friend, our council representative, this Goal 4 report coming out when it did, honest to goodness, ruined my Thanksgiving. If you heard 21 people today, I want to tell you that I heard twice that many just a few days around Thanksgiving. Text and calls and upset. So read the plan and be honest. Ms. Martin, would you state your name for the record, please? I'm sorry. Gloria Martin. And I live at 7416 Grimes Mill Road here in Lexington. Okay, Mr. Duncan, you're up, right? Thank you, Mr. Chair. That concludes the agenda today. I wanted to tell you all that our next meeting is off schedule. It's next Thursday, the zoning hearing. That will be the 15th at 1.30 in this room. Thank you. Thank you.