# Planning Commission Zoning Items - March 28, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 28, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6076 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6076?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-03-28 - **Last revised**: March 28, 2024 - **Length**: 18,537 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on March 28, 2024, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting addressed seven agenda items, including the approval of minutes, postponements and withdrawals, and informational sessions on land subdivision items, zoning items, commission items, and staff items. The commission conducted 10 motions and votes throughout the session and heard 2 public comments from attendees. The meeting successfully approved the minutes and postponements and withdrawals as part of its regular business proceedings. ## Attendance The following members were present at the March 28, 2024 meeting: **Present:** • Zach Davis • William Wilson • Janice Meyer • Judy Worth • Ivy Barksdale • Bruce Nicol • Robin Michler • Mike Owens • Graham Pohl **Absent:** • Larry Forester • Johnathon Davis No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 9 members were present and 2 members were absent from the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on ten items during the March 28, 2024 meeting, with most decisions receiving unanimous support. **Postponements** Two items were postponed unanimously. The Anthony Humphress zoning map amendment (PLN-MAR-24-00002) was postponed on a motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by William Wilson [timestamp: 00:02]. The amendment to Article 8-1 regarding outdoor recreation in the Agricultural Rural Zone (PLN-ZOTA-23-00004) was also postponed unanimously on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Graham Pohl [timestamp: 00:04]. **Approved Items** Six items received unanimous approval with 9-0 votes: - William E McAlpin zoning map amendment (PLN-MAR-24-00003), motioned by Bruce Nicol and seconded by William Wilson [timestamp: 01:20] - Alexandria Storage development plan (PLN-MJDP-24-00007) with 13 staff-recommended conditions, motioned by Bruce Nicol and seconded by Judy Worth [timestamp: 01:25] - Red Draw Development, LLC zoning map amendment (PLN-MAR-24-00004), motioned by Robin Michler and seconded by William Wilson [timestamp: 02:30] - Jenny Talbott zoning map amendment (PLN-MAR-24-00005), motioned by William Wilson and seconded by Mike Owens [timestamp: 03:30] - East Hills Subdivision, Unit 5-D development plan (PLN-MJDP-24-00012) with 9 conditions including relocating a bike rack, motioned by William Wilson and seconded by Judy Worth [timestamp: 03:35] One item passed by roll call vote: Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 127 development plan (PLN-MJDP-24-00008) passed 8-1 with 11 conditions including a second public access point. Graham Pohl cast the sole dissenting vote [timestamp: 02:45]. **Failed Items** Two items failed. The amendment to Article 8-16 regarding truck rental in the B-1 Zone (PLN-ZOTA-24-00001) was unanimously disapproved 9-0 [timestamp: 04:00]. The Public Facility Review for Harrison Elementary School addition (PFR-2024-1) failed 6-2, with Ivy Barksdale and Bruce Nicol voting against due to non-compliance with the comprehensive plan [timestamp: 04:30]. ## Public Comment Two residents spoke during the public comment period, both expressing opposition to the Red Draw Development project. **Kevin Frederick** [timestamp: 02:50] addressed the board with concerns about the proposed Red Draw Development. Frederick cited multiple issues with the project, including anticipated increases in traffic volume that could affect the surrounding area. He also raised safety concerns related to the development and emphasized the potential negative impact the project could have on the existing neighborhood character and residents. **John Doe** [timestamp: 02:55] also spoke in opposition to the Red Draw Development. Doe focused his comments on preserving the current quiet atmosphere of the neighborhood, expressing concern that the development would disrupt the peaceful environment that residents currently enjoy. Additionally, he voiced apprehensions about a potential increase in crime that could result from the new development, suggesting that the project could compromise neighborhood safety and security. Both speakers presented their concerns as representatives of community members who oppose the Red Draw Development project, highlighting common themes of traffic, safety, and neighborhood preservation as key issues requiring the board's consideration. ## Contested Items Two items generated significant debate during the March 28, 2024 meeting, drawing community opposition and resulting in split decisions among board members. **Red Draw Development, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** The proposed zoning map amendment by Red Draw Development, LLC faced substantial community opposition during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Multiple community members voiced concerns about the potential negative impacts of the development on their neighborhood. The primary objections centered on anticipated increases in traffic volume that could affect local streets and residential areas. Safety concerns were also raised by residents who worried about the implications of additional vehicular activity in the vicinity. Community members additionally expressed broader concerns about how the development would impact the overall character and livability of their neighborhood. The nature and extent of community participation demonstrated significant local interest in and opposition to the proposed zoning changes. **Harrison Elementary School Addition** The Harrison Elementary School addition proposal encountered difficulties during the review process, ultimately resulting in a split vote among decision-makers. The primary issue arose from a determination that the proposed addition was not in compliance with the municipality's comprehensive plan. Specific concerns were raised regarding the project's impact on existing green space, with reviewers finding that the addition would compromise important open areas currently serving the school and surrounding community. Additionally, issues related to vehicular use and traffic patterns around the school site contributed to the compliance concerns. The split vote indicates that while some members may have supported moving forward with the school addition despite these issues, others felt the comprehensive plan violations were significant enough to warrant rejection or substantial modification of the proposal. The divided decision reflects the challenge of balancing educational facility needs with established planning guidelines and community space preservation. ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber [timestamp: 00:00]. This agenda item served as the formal opening of the proceedings, establishing the official start time and location for the March 28, 2024 meeting. No specific speakers were identified for this procedural item, as it represents the standard administrative opening of the meeting session. The call to order is a routine parliamentary procedure that marks the transition from informal gathering to official business. The meeting convened in the Council Chamber, indicating this was likely a municipal government meeting held in the designated public meeting space. The 1:30 p.m. start time suggests this was an afternoon session. This agenda item was informational in nature, serving the administrative function of formally beginning the meeting and establishing the official record of when proceedings commenced. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:01] The board reviewed the minutes from the February 22, 2024 meeting for approval. Janice Meyer and Mike Owens participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The minutes were presented to the board members for their review and consideration. Following the discussion, the board voted unanimously to approve the February 22, 2024 meeting minutes without any modifications or corrections noted. The approval of these minutes allows them to serve as the official record of the February 22, 2024 meeting proceedings. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:02] The meeting addressed requests for postponement and withdrawal of agenda items under section III. Chris Clendenen and Daniel Crum served as the key speakers for this discussion item. The board considered various requests from applicants seeking to postpone or withdraw their cases from the current meeting agenda. These requests typically occur when applicants need additional time to prepare materials, address concerns raised by staff or community members, or make revisions to their proposals. During the brief discussion, the speakers presented the postponement and withdrawal requests to the board for consideration. The requests were reviewed and the board moved to approve the postponements and withdrawals as presented. The outcome was approval of the requested postponements and withdrawals, allowing the affected agenda items to be rescheduled for future meetings or removed from consideration as appropriate. This procedural item helps manage the meeting agenda and ensures that cases are heard when applicants are fully prepared to present their proposals. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 00:05] The meeting addressed agenda item IV regarding Land Subdivision Items, focusing on recommendations from the Subdivision Committee on various development plans under review. Traci Wade and Tom Martin served as the key speakers for this discussion item, presenting the committee's findings and recommendations to the board. The session was structured as an informational discussion, allowing the committee representatives to share their analysis of subdivision proposals that had been reviewed during the committee's deliberations. The speakers outlined the various plans that had come before the Subdivision Committee and provided details on the committee's recommendations for each proposal. This agenda item served as a communication mechanism between the Subdivision Committee and the broader governing body, ensuring that subdivision-related decisions and recommendations were properly conveyed to all relevant parties. The discussion format allowed for questions and clarification regarding the committee's work and findings. The outcome was classified as informational, indicating that no formal votes or binding decisions were made during this portion of the meeting. Instead, the item functioned as a status update and briefing session, keeping all participants informed about ongoing subdivision review processes and the committee's assessment of various development proposals under consideration. The discussion provided transparency in the subdivision review process and maintained communication channels between the specialized committee and the full governing body regarding land development matters within their jurisdiction. ## Zoning Items [timestamp: 01:00] The meeting reviewed zoning map amendments and Zoning Ordinance text amendments during this agenda item. Daniel Crum and Tom Martin served as the key speakers for the discussion. The session focused on examining proposed changes to both the zoning map and text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The review covered various zoning-related matters that required council consideration and input. This was an informational discussion item, with no formal action taken during the meeting. The zoning items were presented for review and consideration by the council members. ## Commission Items [timestamp: 04:45] During agenda item VI, Commission Items, members had the opportunity to present items for discussion. This portion of the meeting was designated as an informational session where commissioners could bring forward matters of interest or concern. The agenda item was structured as a discussion period, allowing commission members to share updates, raise questions, or present topics relevant to the commission's work. No specific speakers were identified for this particular segment, indicating it was an open forum for any commissioner wishing to contribute. This agenda item served as an informational exchange rather than requiring any formal action or decision-making by the commission. The open format provided commissioners with a platform to communicate on various matters that may not have warranted separate agenda items but were nonetheless important for the commission's awareness and consideration. The outcome was purely informational, with no formal resolutions or actions taken during this portion of the meeting. ## Staff Items During the March 28, 2024 meeting, staff provided informational updates on various planning activities under agenda item VII [timestamp: 05:00]. Autumn Goderwis served as the primary speaker for this agenda item, presenting updates on ongoing staff work and planning initiatives. The discussion was informational in nature, with staff sharing current activities and progress on various projects within their purview. This agenda item served as a regular opportunity for staff to communicate with the board and public about their ongoing work and planning efforts. No formal action was taken during this portion of the meeting, as the item was designated for informational purposes only. The staff updates provided transparency into the department's current activities and allowed for any questions or clarification from board members regarding ongoing planning initiatives. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-24-00002** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Anthony Humphress zoning map amendment - **PLN-ZOTA-23-00004** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of amendment to Article 8-1, Outdoor Recreation in the Agricultural Rural (A-R) Zone - **PLN-MAR-24-00003** — passed (9-0): Approval of William E McAlpin zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00007** — passed (9-0): Approval of Alexandria Storage development plan - **PLN-MAR-24-00004** — passed (9-0): Approval of Red Draw Development, LLC zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00008** — passed (8-1): Approval of Pleasant Ridge Subdivision, Lot 127 development plan - **PLN-MAR-24-00005** — passed (9-0): Approval of Jenny Talbott zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-24-00012** — passed (9-0): Approval of East Hills Subdivision, Unit 5-D development plan - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00001** — failed (9-0): Disapproval of amendment to Article 8-16, Truck Rental in the B-1 Zone - **PFR-2024-1** — failed (6-2): Public Facility Review for Harrison Elementary School addition --- ## Full transcript that we have in the East End and I think it helped to bridge the gap between the community and the school. What I love most about LTMS is the students, the community partners, the dedicated parents, staff, administration. These students are talented, goal-oriented, bright, and I know that we supposed to be teaching them but they teach us. We're all growing together. Every day people stop me in the community and talk about their connection and relationships to our school. Some of the stories that those folks share date all the way back to Lexington junior high days and I'm amazed by just how much pride East End Lexington has in our school. One of the things that's wonderful about the East End is their connection to the arts in our community. It really is the cultural center of Lexington. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. is the March 28th LFU CG Planning Commission zoning items public hearing The first item on our agenda is the approval of minutes. The floor is open for a motion. Motion by Commissioner Meyer. Second. Second. Mr. Owen, thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will vote. That carries. Judy, did you vote? that's right all right that carries unanimously thank you item number three postponements and withdrawals yeah afternoon mr chairman i'm chris clendenin i'm here standing in for my law partner Mr. Murphy I'd like to request a postponement at this time for this is on page two of your agenda item 1A it is PLN MAR 24002 like to request a one month postponement still working out some design issues with staff so like more time to get that done. All righty, thank you. And what meeting date would that be, one month? That would be the April 25th meeting. April 25th, okay. All righty. Any discussion to that or a motion? Mr. Chair, move to postpone PLNMAR 24-2 Nancy Humphress until April 25th. All righty, we have a motion and a second from Mr. Wilson. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. Thank you, that carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair, we also have a request for one additional postponement on page seven of your agenda. We've received a request from the applicant for PLN Zota 23-4. That's the amendment to Article 8-1. He's requested a one month postponement to the April 25th meeting as well. All righty, thank you, Daniel. Is there a motion on that requested postponement? Mr. Chair, I'll move to postponement plan Zota 23-4, Amendment to Article 8-1, the outdoor recreation, until April 25, 2024. Thank you, sir. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Pohl. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. All righty, are there any other postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none, we will go to our first item on the agenda, which I believe is on page 3, the William McAlpin item. Thank you, Daniel. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum planning staff the first rezoning request of the afternoon is a request by William E. McAlpin and it is three zone approximately 0.4081 acres of the property at 1120 Alexandria Drive from an agricultural rural AR zone to a light industrial I1 zone the applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to establish a storage warehouse use on the property You'll notice that there's not a discussion or a indication of the place type and development type with this application he's the applicant is using a alternative justification and appropriateness argument for this particular case so I'll explain that a little bit later on in the presentation but to orient everyone the subject property is shown in white in the center of the screen here yeah shown in white at the center of the screen so this is located out Alexandria Drive as it passes under New Circle Road this red line that you see running vertically throughout the map is the urban services boundary so this is within the urban service area zooming in a little bit closer you can see the the subject property itself so it is a somewhat unusually shaped parcel is a remnant piece of right-of-way so it was originally zoned AR and belong to the larger agricultural tracks however with the right-of-way for Alexandria Road and New Circle Road it was severed from the the parent track so what we are seeing is a small triangular shaped piece of property that the applicant is seeking to rezone with this request this red line once again is representing the urban services boundary so we have agricultural uses on the other side of Alexandria Drive to the rear of the property is in a light industrial development that occurred in the the early 2000s and rezoning to accommodate that across New Circle Road we have residential uses however there really isn't much in the way of connectivity to those residential uses across Alexander across New Circle Road so it sort of stands alone as a little bit of an isolated parcel a remnant parcel of agricultural land that the applicant is seeking to utilize and rezone to the I1 to match the adjoining uses to the north in order to utilize it for a storage warehouse the applicant has indicated that this will primarily be for personal use here we have a aerial view of the subject property once again you have the surrounding farms the industrial development occurring to the north that is filling out existing residential across New Circle Road on the other side and then the subject property itself is just a smattering of trees and in open land that has never been formally developed here we have some views of the subject property as it exists today and then views of Alexandria Drive so this is looking south towards the neighborhood there's no current sidewalk facilities that are providing any connections there and then you've got the overpass that is serving New Circle Road look in the opposite direction you see the existing agricultural uses as well as the driveway and the access for the industrial development there are is a small portion of sidewalk that is present on the the site there but it isn't providing connectivity to anything in the larger area so here we have the development plan for the subject property as always mr. Martin will be on to follow me to give me a little bit or to give you all a little bit more information but it's a fairly basic design you have the an access drive stubbing into the the industrial parts access there the building shown in this purplish color is that storage building single single story with accompanying parking spaces once again this is primarily serving the the applicant himself not really intended for for larger public use however they have provided parking spaces in case that changes in the future existing vegetation is shown where it buffers the the other light industrial parcels that is being shown to to remain and they are showing sidewalk now being extended to essentially that underpass so connecting to the existing network here and extending that out when we look at zone changes where the applicant is not arguing for agreement with the comprehensive plan here basically the small size of the parcel the isolation from those other uses and in its general location have made it difficult in order to comply with our typical place builder requirements and fit it into a a really cohesive argument with that based on that the applicant is also able to make justifications that the existing zoning is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning is appropriate or they can argue that there's been an economic physical or social change in the area that wasn't anticipated here they're making an appropriateness argument at less than half an acre in size this is not large enough to suitably farm or utilize it for its AR current zoning designation as far as residential uses the intensity of the roadways being directly adjacent to New Circle Road and Alexandria Drive and its separation and lack of connectivity make it a poor site for residential uses so essentially the AR does not have much use of this current property it's why this property is never developed the applicant opines that the I1 is a more appropriate zone they are arguing that based on proximity to other light industrial zones the intensity of those roadways in the ability for that to function more effectively staff agrees with the applicants evaluation we find that it's inappropriate for the current agricultural rural zone the I1 zone is more appropriate we are making this recommendation subject to a conditional zoning restriction that limits advertising signs so that is a provision that was carried over from the adjoining light industrial development so when that came through in the early 2000s this exact same provision was was enacted so staff is looking to continue that forward and we find that it's appropriate in order to protect adjoining residential uses and preventing prudential distractions in this kind of kind of significant intersection here as always it's made subject to the certification and approval of the corresponding development plan that mr. Martin will be on to discuss momentarily but staff is recommending approval based on the applicant's alternative justification and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have a staff at this time thank you Daniel are there any questions mr. This is just for my information, Daniel, because we've seen warehouse projects come through and ask for I-1, and we've seen them ask for B-4. What are a couple of the differences since the intent is a warehouse here? Yeah, so this could have been accomplished with a B-4 zone just as easily as an I-1. the I1 does let you have more the production aspects really the the B4 is more of storage warehouse that kind of component this would allow for some increased production but we found that with the existing I want adjacent that that was sort of more appropriate and that in the future if those were to say be combined or otherwise incorporated into a larger product that would make more sense in that but the small size of this site kind of limits its ability for for larger production but something like you know flex space could be a future user here so we found the location was generally appropriate for I won and so a before would have accomplished it as well but it was the applicants choice on that thank you alrighty anyone else if not thank you mr. Martin Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan that you see before you is as Daniel described for the show development of this property as an I-1 property. You will see a final development plan on this property in the future. We would anticipate a minimum amount of changes if any. As Daniel pointed out, you can see the triangular shape since it's a remnant piece. They are proposing the 6,300 square foot warehouse with the parking that you can see adjacent at this location. And again, New Circle Road here, Alexandria Drive. Probably one of the most interesting aspects of this plan, and it is a condition number 12 that we're going to discuss with you, and that is the access easement into the property again with concerns about Alexandria Drive and access to Alexandria Drive we had this existing road that serves the industrial adjoining industrial property of staff worked with the applicant and say you need access from that existing street into your property that is something that will have to be resolved at the final development plan in essence it will have to exist and be documented and be a part of that final development plan to again to ensure access to the property in addition there was some discussion about stormwater detention one of those things that can also be handled at the final development plan but we threw it on the table to be very much aware because again with the adjoining property and the services they use. This one's somewhat isolated from facilities. So again, it was just something that was highlighted at this time that can also be resolved at the time of your final development plan. And again, it's fairly simple and straightforward. It's a big rectangle sitting in a triangle. So the applicant's doing his best to try to utilize this difficult piece of property and really with that staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have thank you Tom any questions for mr. Martin yes sir mr. Hans thank you the property line on that long axis is that the red line or is the property line farther out that's the property line the red line Yes, sir. See, and that's why the access easement is so important, because it is crossing the adjoining property. Well, my question would be, the purple, I guess, is the blue. The purple, I'm sorry, the purple is the building, proposed building. Is it set right next to the property line? Should there be a setback of any sort? I don't believe I-1 has a setback on the side and rear. Only on the front. Yeah, just front. That encourages those uses to build out on the property. Thank you. All righty. Anyone else? If not, thank you. Oh, no, Mr. Mickler has a question. Tom, Tom. Just one question on the condition about that access easement. Do they have, I mean, what is the current access to this property, or is there? There is not current access. It will take that access easement in order to access the road, the existing road. And if, I guess they've, in your conversations, they've already had discussions. It is our understanding that they've had those discussions. Thank you. And they'll be happy to elaborate on that, I'm sure. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant. Bill McAlpin. I made an offer on this property 10 years ago and I gave him a standing offer and he accepted it right after I sold the last lot in that 40 acre development next door. and so I bought it and I found out that having a you I used to think of having a pickup truck you as a most popular person in the subdivision but a storage facility is tops the pickup truck but so I think with family and friends I think I can put it to good use. When I first brought it in for the pre-app, I showed the access coming out on Alexandria Drive and no one liked that. So Tom even suggested, and they asked me if I had, and the lot at the time, the lot next to it, I had under contract. So Tom said maybe you could come up the right-of-way, get a permit to come up the right-of-way and tie into this access easement. So then lo and behold, that contract fell through, but I had a backup contract. So when the backup contract came to me, I said, give me a 30-foot access easement up through there, and we got a deal, and he took it. So that's how that all came about. A little history. Thank you Mr. McAlpin, does anyone have any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Is there any commissioner discussion or any further questions? The floor is certainly open for a motion. Mr. Nickel. I just got to comment that as we're trying to utilize our vacant property, this seems to be a good use for it. It's a difficult piece of property that backs up to New Circle Road and Alexandria. And I appreciate the fact that they're trying to create some economic development with a parcel that looks like it would sit undeveloped. So by us considering a motion to approve this, it allows for 6,300 square foot warehouse that creates jobs and helps us to use our vacant and unutilized land. So this is complicated and unusual, but when the time comes, I would like to make a motion for approval. Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Is that motion, that's for the zone change and then we'll do the development plan? Yes, I'll try to do it both ways. So there's a motion for Mr. Neckel to approve the zone change. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. Robin's having technical. There you go. That carries unanimously. Thank you so much. The floor is now open for motion on the development plan. I'll make a motion to approve PLN-MJDP 24-00007, Alexandria Storage with the 13 conditions outlined by staff thank you commissioner nickel is there a second oh commissioner worth thank you so much any discussion seeing none we will vote all right that also carries unanimously thank you so much next item on our agenda page four number three red draw development All right. All right. Good afternoon, everyone, again. Daniel Crum, planning staff. You should have in front of you a supplemental staff report or in the Granica system. So we do have an updated recommendation for this. However, as staff is recommending approval, this may be eligible for an abbreviated hearing. So is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this item or have it heard? Okay. So it looks like we do, so planning staff will give our full presentation. And we do have one letter of opposition for this request. All right. So this request is a request by Red Draw Development, LLC, and it is to rezone the property at 766 Paradise Lane. This property is approximately 2.462 acres in size, and the applicant is seeking to rezone it from its current single-family residential R1B zone to the medium-density residential R4 zone. The applicant is seeking this in order to expand a proposed multifamily residential development. They have placed an enhanced neighborhood place type and a medium density residential development type. Staff agrees that both the place type and development type can be appropriate at this location. We'll speak on that a little bit later on in the presentation. But just to orient everyone, the subject property is this parcel shown in white near the center of the screen. here is Liberty Road as it heads out of town this is served off of Paradise Lane which is a substandard roadway that connects to wilderness that then intersects with Liberty Drive here zooming in a little bit closer you can see the zoning of the surrounding area the this area is actually one of our older areas of residential development and has the R1B zoning that's sort of historically operated here there have been some zone changes in the immediate vicinity the applicant themselves actually within the past year rezoned the three parcels to the north that have that frontage on Liberty Road to the R4 zone in order to accommodate a multifamily residential development. Other than that, most of the surrounding properties are that single-family residential zoning, that single-family residential character with some I1 zoning as you go closer to New Circle Road. It's worth noting that Liberty Road is going to be improved within the next couple of years, adding roadway improvements, but also a trail and some multimodal connections as well. So some significant improvements coming to this section of Liberty Road. The subject property itself has had several requests for rezonings over the years. Initially, in the 70s, there was a request to rezone it to industrial. However, the lack of appropriate facilities and infrastructure in the area had that project disapproved. There was also a request within the past year or so to rezone it to the R1T. There was an applicant that wished to utilize this property in order to establish approximately 20 or so townhouse units. Staff had recommended disapproval at that time due to the lack of facilities in the area. lane is a very substandard roadway and we'll show some photos of that in a moment here but the site's access at this moment so leaving off of a substandard roadway that can't fit to fully two cars fully was a significant source of concern for staff and so ultimately that request was withdrawn at which point the the red draw developer has stepped in and is proposing to reason this portion to match the existing early the new zoning to the north and have this as one cohesive development. Here we have an aerial view of the subject property in the surrounding areas to see how this is sort of laid out. It has a single family residence and then an access drive that is the termination of Paradise Lane. Once again, Paradise Lane is serving as this connector and as of right now the only access to the property is through wilderness and flowing on down. This would change under the applicant's proposal where the cohesive development would serve and have an access point at the intersection with Fortune at that light and where Paradise Lane would be an emergency access only. As far as development in the surrounding area single-family residential in the surrounding vicinity this is the Fayette County Public Schools property and then the single family residential structures that are shown on these aerials would be removed and developed as a part of that previously approved multifamily residential development here we have a view the subject property itself so there's a circular drive that that reroutes and serves uh... it connects back to paradise lane the single-family residential structure that is there uh... in the topography at this area is is somewhat interesting as this portion the property slopes up the portions that they are seeking to incorporate uh... the larger development with also have some interesting uh... topography challenges, lots of valleys and elevation to work with. Here we have a view of Paradise Lane. So this is the current sole access to the property. Once again, it does not have the full 24-foot width, no sidewalk facilities, and so it does not meet the full kind of breadth of what is needed to serve as the main access to the site. Moving forward, if this is approved, emergency services at the time of the final development plan will be looking to see improvements to Paradise Lane in order to make sure that this could be served effectively as an emergency access. Okay, and here is the view at the intersection of Liberty and Fortune. So once again, this stretch of roadway is set to be improved with sidewalk and trail facilities, but the subject property would be incorporated into this development, and it would be exiting at this previously, or this currently existing light system. them. Here we have a development plan for the subject property. A lot of this is going to look familiar because it really is taking what was previously approved within the past year or so and adding this portion to the rear. So we're adding a total of two new apartment buildings along with corresponding parking and circulation that will come as a result of that. Paradise Lane is set to be stubbed into the property there with an emergency access. Once again, the state of Paradise Lane is going to be evaluated at the time of final development plan. However, because the site has this significant and much safer access, primary access, it was not as much of an issue as opposed to the previous rezonings of the site where the only way the access was going to occur was Paradise, and so the state of that roadway was even more significant then. Unit-wise, this is going to bring the original development, which was 168 units up to 216, along with a corresponding increase in parking as well. So really the justification and the application style, a lot of the information that you'll be hearing is going to be very similar to the initial application that was approved within the past year. There's going to be some differences. As the previous application utilized portions of an older comprehensive plan, So part of the staff's last postponement recommendation was having the applicant clean up some of the information, making sure that we're talking about the right goals, objectives, and policies, but largely that the same message is sort of resounding here, utilizing this property to provide additional housing and introducing multifamily into an area where primarily is being served by single-family residential uses. Here are renderings or images, reference images provided by the applicant. These are the same design renderings that were provided at the time of the last development plan, so they are still going with the same type of product, the three-story multifamily residential. So architecturally, the discussion on the multifamily design standards is going to be very similar. and with regard to how they're meeting some of these these various criteria the site planning aspects of the multifamily design standards talk about reinforcing roadways providing this open space locating parking internally into the rear providing eyes on the open space and providing adequate access so we found overall that the site like the previous iteration of the plan before it was meeting the site planning requirements. In the same vein, open space and landscaping, they are retaining the centralized open space. They are adding additional open space to the rear through the inclusion of this property, so areas with slope that wouldn't necessarily be super conducive to building or parking are being left as green open space. But staff find overall they was meeting the open space requirements as well. And then architectural design this is the same exact proposal so they are mixing those elements trying to generate some visual interest but overall meeting the the overall architectural design components with regards to the place builder the applicant like the previous application before is seeking to place this as an enhanced neighborhood this is sort of an isolated site as its own however with the improvements to liberty road this would allow connections and pedestrian crossings across Liberty to Fortune and provide connections to residential development that's on kind of either side of Liberty there. So staff found the choice and place type of enhanced neighborhood as being appropriate. That place type recommends R4 and medium density residential, so the three-story product is something that we're used to seeing in that medium density context. So staff is in agreement with the applicant's choice in place type and development type as well. And from that, we are recommending approval. We find it's an agreement with many of the same goals and objectives that the previous application spoke to. So providing this additional housing choice, utilizing this 2.4-acre property in a more intense manner that really would give it some further utilization, and providing connectivity to transit that's present to the north on Fortune Drive. Policy-wise, we are in agreement once again. We're talking about connectivity to transit, meeting multifamily design standards, orienting parking to the interior, and sort of matching kind of the character and scope that is appropriate along a little bit more intensive a roadway. That is Liberty Road. The development criteria will have changed since the last application. So we find it's an agreement with the land use component. It's increasing density, and it's developing around this sort of centralized community amenity space and open space. We find it meets the transportation and pedestrian connectivity, once again, providing connections out to Liberty Road. It does have that emergency access to the rear that will be developed more fully in the future at the time of the final development plan. And it will combine with those planned improvements that are planned for Liberty Road to provide a fairly well-connected neighborhood and community. Environmentally, they're not impacting any environmentally sensitive areas. The numbers they're providing show an increase in tree canopy coverage. and the lighting is going to meet the requirements of our ordinance there. From a site design perspective, we've got centralized amenities, eyes on open space, centralized open space that provides for those multimodal connections. Finally, it meets the building form criteria by meeting the multifamily design standards, and is an appropriate increase in density from the single-family residential that's really around it. As always, this recommendation is made subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan that Mr. Martin will be on to discuss momentarily. But staff's initial recommendation of postponement due to the lack of information and identifying the correct criteria, the applicant has provided that. And so based on those factors, we are recommending approval. But I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Mr. Mickler. You probably saw me stand up there. Could you go back to that color up of the development plan on your slide, Jo? Yes. So that looks very different from the development plan that's before us now. And so your initial recommendation of postponement, have you had time to, I mean, it doesn't appear that there was time for them to get you a different version of this, but could you discuss some of those differences between the development plan? and I mean I might hold that for Tom Martin but maybe I'll just say this out loud maybe it would be nice if we could somehow get a visual of the two comparison I think we may be able to pull up on the scan here we have a hard copy of that and I guess I'm not being able to show those sort of side by side Yeah. Okay. We'll grab a copy of that to show up on the screen. Thank you. Go to the agenda and then click the development. Thank you. Thank you. or at it and then it adds this parking lot that was a good call well if you catch because i'm looking so it changes this screen space from this sort of area to sliver here and then it takes this one away and puts the parking on that when you called it i said but we have a black and white version this is not correct right that's the point yeah yeah the point he made and when he did it I said yep you're right it's on the cellar but it's never been presented the black and white one the one with the parking corner it should not have been on there and I have no way to take it off that one alright so that one this one So what we got showed is the most accurate plan. We can show this on the overhead. The key is the version that Cheryl needs. We've actually submitted to us as the version that Cheryl Bede does. Everything is a very good catch. That was a good catch because I kept looking at what? So what I see is that the open space by the clubhouse got adjusted and the clubhouse got twisted. and then they added this parking area and shifted this building closer to the neighbors over here on paradise they added a maintenance building or they added some building here I'm not sure yeah maybe Thank you. they didn't change it so i'm sitting here looking at them going well why then he comes but i don't see the yellow sheet or any of the sheets where all the stuff went so that's where i was Well, the question, Judy, what I was doing is they have recommendations here on this one. I don't have any other sheets to tell you this one. That's the result. I can see if you have it. I can't close you right here. That's right. oh they got a revised okay that's what I'm saying that's why when he was talking about it it should be because that's not what's on their granite yeah the granite yes I'm not sure yeah now I understand he's right he's straight down I'm sitting there looking at it saying I'm moving Thank you. staff sort of evaluated and was just incorrectly uploaded to Acela. So this design, since the postponement, hasn't been updated. So this is the, from the site design perspective, hasn't changed. So it's the same as being shown as that color-up. They've changed some of the notation and whatnot on the updated plan. But when we were looking at the updates for the, since the postponement, it was in a matter of updating the justification, their citations, and the like. So that plan that you saw before you with the parking area and the structure in the corner there, that was not something that that staff had really evaluated at any point. So that was, I guess, a mis-uploaded document to a sell-up by the applicant. So apologies for any confusion. We've got what was officially submitted up in front of you again. Once again, it's still showing kind of that same core concept that was shown on the color-up, but that would be the source of the confusion there. So apologies on that, Robin. Can you talk over just a little bit? Are you saying the plan that goes with item B on the agenda, the development plan that's with item B, is not a correct plan? Because it doesn't match what's up there. Yeah, this is what is submitted, what was shown on a Granicus in front of you there was the incorrect version. For option B? Yes. Okay. And apologies for that. So that's in associated with the zone change? Are we looking at the development plan that's associated with the zone change? Just look what's on the screen at the moment. And if we need to otherwise zoom in or clarify, we can. Apologies once again for that. So where did this one come from? Is this the original one? And they presented another one? So what's been reviewed? What is sitting in front of you today is what's been reviewed by staff, what was used in evaluation. What's in front of us or what's on the screen? What's in front on the screen here. i've got a question relates to the appropriateness of the zone change itself one item that i'm interested in is uh... number of units per acre so are for do we recommend twenty four units per acre uh... so within that's uh... it they could choose to develop the site more intensely are for would let them go higher uh... to to do a accommodate additional stories uh... that the maximum height goes goes a bit further but this is still with what we would consider kind of the medium density threshold usually one to two stories is sort of the the initial look at as far as uh... low density residential so three three and and above we start to get into medium medium-high and kind of from that so it's on the lower end of what on the medium density and uh... but the applicant is is kind of opted to for this uh... three-story so on this parcel we're looking at twenty one point six units per acre And it looks like they've also been able to accommodate over 12,000 feet of community open space, is that correct? Mr. Martin can refer to the specifics of it, but yes, a significant amount of open space in the center. That's what I'm seeing here. Okay, it looks like a significant improvement. So the property that we're looking at for the zone change is at 21.6 units per acre with this additional over 12,000 feet of open space, correct? Yep. Okay. All right. That's, what's on the screen is just illegible to me. Is anybody else having difficulty reading it? We can zoom in. Yeah, zoom in for them. It's the same plan that you can access under development snapshot. Good. Go down to it. An agenda? Yeah, keep scrolling down underneath. There we go. The image on your screen. moved it ever since. Zoom in. Yeah, that's what you were looking at. I want to go back to this one. Yeah, I think that's the one you followed your lead and looked at that one. Where were we? Mr. Cromwell. We're trying to get you all as a zoomed-in image. I think we're almost there. really better I think the southern portion of the site I think is what we're well while we wait do any commissioners have any other questions for Daniel all right yeah so there we go so zoomed in should be really kind of the area of focus is is really what's being incorporated with this request so that additional two and a half acres approximately so those those two buildings there the corresponding parking and then the open space being provided sort of next to them as well as centrally but Cheryl will be on here to talk about the the plan itself and kind of what we looked at on this version and once again apologies for the technical mix-ups on that but staff is is recommending approval based on that revised justification for the the zoning side of things so thank you Good afternoon. Okay, we have revised conditions on a yellow sheet. Okay. Whoops. Take it down. Just a little bit. There we go. I was going to say. The. okay huh working I wasn't holding it, that's my problem. Okay, so here's Paradise Lane. The property line was coming off of here, going up around this direction and cutting through here. So this bottom part here is the second part of what we're rezoning at this current time. the other portion up higher was already rezoned so I don't know if this helps you showing you this being Paradise Lane was kind of the boundaries of the other piece of property right here so at the current time they came back in and they have two additional apartment buildings added to the plan with the remaining portion of what was already rezoned so with that we have our typical sign offs we just had a couple questions or a couple conditions it says to pick boundary lines and bearings and all distances per plat e686 at this current time because this is two different pieces of property that was one of the conditions was to show the other property boundaries because we don't have a consolidation plan on it yet so that way it would define where the two pieces of property were complete the vicinity map including the property to be rezoned at the top on the vicinity map they were still showing the zone change from the previous time so we just needed them to add the additional part correct references to place builder design criteria on plan as you can see the long list on the far side over here this long list over here with the zone change there was a few things that needed to be changed the criteria they didn't make all the changes on the notes so we needed for them to correct the titles on it and correct a couple notes this was a plan that came in then they were still working with Daniel they came back and they gave us another plan but at that point we'd already used this plan to revise the conditions on so that's why we have this correct references to you place builder so that we make sure that everything is actually correctly understood with what Daniel had written. And with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Was I able to help understand a little bit? I think so. Thank you. Are there any questions? Yes. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Cheryl. While looking at this, according to this plan, in the bottom right corner, there's like 30 significant trees. Are they identified on this? Are they being kept? They weren't identified on this sheet. They're identified on another separate sheet where they have tree. Are those 30 trees being kept on this? that would kind of be with their what the applicant can explain to you I know they're keeping you see here these trees here along here but as far as interior I'm not sure what interior at this without looking at it again Can interject something here? What I'm looking at down at the bottom, the circles, three circles at one of the new buildings, T28, 29, and 30, those are significant trees. Oh, the circles? Yeah. Okay. And they're listed on over in the extreme right as Northern Red Oak, Northern Red Oak, and American Elm. Is that part of what you're asking about Mr. Owens? Yes. Yeah. They just show on here, but they don't say. There's a table on the bottom right corner. If that'll slide over, there's a table listing all the trees. Oh, it has symbols. Six on the ground. Looks like they're coming down. There you go, right there. Okay, go back up a little bit. Yeah, you want to slide it up. Okay, so there. So you can see that the circles are the proposed trees. Yeah, I'm finding that now. And then the other ones with the rougher edges are the existing significant trees. Is that what your question is? Yeah, presuming that out of 30 trees, it looks like six of them are in danger. So we can move on. Those ones along the edge that I think are outside of the building line that you pointed to, sometimes there's language on the conditions to have a buffer for tree protection area. We can ask. I mean, for them to label a tree protection area. Especially along that one side, it seems like that's where the emphasis probably should be. Okay. We can... I would like to clarify that at this stage of the development, on a preliminary development plan, This is a tree inventory map. It attempts to identify potential conflicts. It is at the next stage where you get the actual preservation plan to try to protect the ones they can protect. And that will be done in consultation with the urban forester. I would add that I know there's one concern along one of the property lines because the sewer, the sanitary sewer line, may run down through there. And that is a conflict we have seen in the past with trees is where the sewer line is located. So I know that's one of the concerns on this property. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you so much. Mr. Carter. Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. First of all, I'd like to apologize for kind of the chaos so far. A lot of that was due to, we had placed several versions of plans on Acela, and unfortunately, we have no way to remove them. And so they're still there, and I think that caused a lot of the confusion. having said that again i apologize for all the confusion and hope hope i can answer any of your questions um this project is really just an extension of the previous one that you approved the place builder concepts and criteria from that project we're going to carry over through this one as well. Some things I'd like to point out is all the parking is for the most part in the interior of the property and not located behind the buildings. There was some question about if we had excess parking or too much parking. We've run the numbers based on the old criteria where you look at number of units versus bedrooms based on number of units and the old criteria of 1.5 spaces per unit that would require 324 and we have 333 based on beds at 0.9 parking spaces per bed we have 372 beds that would require 335 spaces so we fall in between those at at 333 so I feel like parking is not an issue some other things I'd like to point out is we've been working with water quality on removing a pump station that's you can see it in the kind of the southeast corner of the property and currently that pump station the city wants to take it offline and as of yesterday we talked to them and they've agreed that they will like to take it off and they'll work with us on running the gravity sewer to tie into existing facilities on the other side of Liberty Road. So we plan on doing that. Another issue that was brought up was having a second entrance so that emergency vehicles had a way in and out of the site. So with that, we have two options. We don't have it worked out yet, and we plan at the next stage, when we get to a final development plan to have that resolved. But our two options are tying into Paradise Lane. That would be option one. And option two would be to utilize the pump station where it's at. It has a road 300 feet up to Wilderness, and we would use that. I've met with Captain Lingle, and he has agreed, I guess in theory, that that way will work. He's going to, as we move forward with this, he's going to help us get more into the specifics of what he needs. but Paradise Lane would be an option too but it would require a lot of improvements along Paradise Lane to get it up to the current standard so that's probably our second choice we we we would most likely rather use the pump station road another thing on Paradise Lane because it terminates at this development, we would have to put a cul-de-sac at the end of it, someplace where vehicles could turn around. But having said that, again, this is just when you add this into the previous part that was zoned, it's a total of 10 acres, and this makes it just one big cohesive development. But with that, though, we are in agreement with the staff's conditions, and we appreciate all the time and effort they've put into this helping us recently, and we would ask for your approval. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Are there any questions for the applicant? Yes, sir, Mr. Irlands. Thank you. Mr. Carter, good afternoon. Access, second access. you're talking about two options are they going to be public for everybody no no the second access would be emergency vehicles only if for some reason the first entrance was or the principal entrance on delivery road was had to be closed we would utilize the second entrance but It will be gated and not be open to public. You've got 216 units and 372 beds? Yeah, and that meets the code. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Anyone else? All righty. Thank you. Applicant. All right. Thank you. Is there anyone here from the public who would like to speak on this particular application? if so please approach the microphone and state your name the policy of the planning commission is everyone has three minutes and we do not allow the lending or borrowing of time okay well thank you for being here and my name is kevin frederick i'm a resident at 716 wilderness road and i'm actually speaking on behalf of most of my family that i have different six different properties on this street wilderness road and while we're on this subject about the the changes or whatever they just put up here. I think the addition of zoning this, along with the multifamily unit coming from Liberty, is not a benefit to anyone. Actually, it makes things worse for people on my street and on Paradise Lane, one being that that lane right now, actually you can turn around and come back out. This will eliminate that, and I don't see that with this emergency access, I think that's going to be an issue too as far as being able to come out on that narrow lane that's right beside the property, which I'm actually at. I'm actually on the bottom. I don't know which one I could show you on here, but I don't want to waste all my time doing that, but I'm at 716 at the bottom right corner of that where the pump station is. And the one thing that we met with, they had a community meeting for Red Draw developer, and this was for the multifamily unit on Liberty Road. So when we met with them, it was already proposed from Cravens to do the townhomes on Paradise Lane. So that was already in the works. So we asked Red Draw, I said, there is no way that you are going to piggyback this into those apartments. And they assured us, no, we have no concern with adding that property for this development. That was told to me and another resident here with me. So now we come back to this point. This has all been done within like a six month period of time. It hasn't been years of it going on with this. This has been like within six months of it changing to now what it is today. So that's where I find that's a problem with me for you to go ahead and approve this. I'm totally opposed against this approval. I'm really opposed for the bigger structure which has already been approved because after the community meeting within 24 hours I saw it on the news that it was actually here comes a new apartment complex on Liberty Road. No kidding that was within 24 hours of having the community meeting with Red Draw. So my proposal is this, is that that should stay as an R1 for residential single family because that could be divided up into four lots for single family homes and still have the cul-de-sac and have the proper in and out on Paradise Lane to Wilderness Road. My other concern was safety as far as the infrastructure. My wife was here 17 years ago when they tried to approve 756 Wilderness Road for medium density housing and at the time I I think the person on the board was Don Blevins, Jr., actually told us that until infrastructure was put in place, there would be no developments in that area. And as of today, you know, 17 years later, we haven't had any infrastructure issues or anything taken care of on that end of town, on that side. As far as the traffic, I don't know if you're familiar with that area, but throughout the day, it is a nightmare to get in and out of our road. I can't go left on Liberty, usually. I have to go right and make a U-turn to come back in. And one last thing, just to give honor to one of our residents, we actually had a fatality within the past, I think, seven to eight years that rode the public transportation. He was actually standing at the bus stop, and a driver that was coming too fast actually hit him, and he died on the scene there because of this, and mainly because of the structure of how much congestion there is in that area. So I appreciate you all listening to my time. I know I'm up, but that's why I oppose this whole thing, it would be rezoned. Thank you. All right. Would anyone else like to speak on this application? You can't. No, no, if you wish to speak, everybody has three minutes. I'm John Brannock. I own a piece of property, 7-Eleven Wilderness Road, that they're trying to buy. This additional complexes that you're all putting in, we were told everything's going to stop at Paradise Lane. Well, now it's the old bait and switch. Now we want to make it more road for the more people that's coming in, which will make wilderness road hell. It's bad right now. Trying to get out of wilderness road between 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock. You sit there and wait and wait and wait and take it again. We'll try to get out. They're not thinking about the people that lives there that's been there for 40 and 50 years like I have. and this is going to destroy Wooderness Road. They're going to say that, oh, it's going to be a nice place and everything. Well, we see how nice it is right across the street there on Fortune. That was supposed to be nice also. Now it's the hood, just like Hollow Creek, just like the other ones. They end up being like terrorist traps. people coming into your properties stealing things vandalism it's all happening all over again i can see it i have them coming up on my property from wood hill right now where i have to run them out of there five and six of them youths five and six of them at a time coming through your property destroying things. And it's, no one brings this up because they don't want to hear it. Well, I guess I'm one of the sticklers. I am totally against this. This is going to ruin the nice, quiet atmosphere we have there on one of the road. I can get out there on my property at night, 11 o'clock, I don't hear nothing. It's quietness. It's nice. Now we're going to put a big ball field, you might as well say, right across the street there. It's against the principle of us, the small guy. We don't have a lot of say, but there's a lot of people. So I guess that's all I've got to say. All right. If there's no further public comment, I will open it to commissioner comments and questions, if any. Yes, Mr. McClure. I've got a question in terms of the traffic and access to Liberty. And I guess what I'm hearing is whether the developer puts a connection to paradise or whether the second connection is to wilderness that they would like it or that the staff would like it to remain gated. What I'm also seeing, and I maybe would like a little bit of a discussion of this, is we just heard that access to liberty from wilderness and paradise is pretty difficult. Giving people access who are existing on wilderness and paradise to a traffic signalized intersection could make could make left turns towards town easier for some of the existing residences and so i guess maybe i'll hear from you may be on on the access but i'd also like to just hear about access from the rest of the citizens and maybe i jumped in front david um... but yeah i'm greg lingle with the division of fire so the second access point for emergency access is because of it goes over the hundred unit threshold So that's the NFPA standard that we go by. The last time these plants were in front of us, six months ago, eight months ago, we spoke, the Division of Fire spoke on Paradise Road being a substandard street. There's one house on that road that's occupied, I believe, and their driveway is better than the street. So we stated there needed to be improvements. Now, when the townhome units were coming in, it was agreed to or the plan was to have Paradise Road upgraded to some extent. That's gone away, so now we're looking at an option as far as a second access point of it being Paradise Road where some kind of upgrades are going to need to be met or coming back on Wilderness Avenue. I spoke with Matt Carter last Friday, I believe it was, and so that option was proposed because they do have a drive aisle there. Now, they're going to have to work on turning radiuses, getting our trucks in and out of there, and it'd have to be gated. As far as the other option of having a roadway connect to Liberty that's public, the Division of Fire is not opposed to that by any means. So we just need access points. and since we're kind of looking at this project here as the apartment so that's kind of where the second emergency access comes in to meet that. Any other questions for Captain Linkle? Commissioner Nichol? I do have a question. So we're hearing from the neighbors that it's difficult to get out of Wilderness Lane. We're hearing from you that we need a second access. That access is best through Paradise Lane but Paradise Lane needs to be improved. The proposed emergency access, is that gated so there is no exit from the current development and only an entrance through Paradise Lane by emergency services? Is that what's being proposed? That is what's being proposed by the developer. Once again, I'll go ahead and stand back or on the side and answer that the Division of Fire not opposed to any access points if they want to make it public wide open to everybody we're not opposed but what we're looking at for a second access point to this apartment and yes all the roads out there are tight narrow substandard actually wilderness roads better than Paradise Road or at least when I was out there driving it but this proposal is for Paradise Lane to be used only for emergency purposes and entrance for emergency vehicles correct that is correct but like I said they're gonna have to make some upgrades to Paradise Road because it doesn't meet that now so and so that's the other that's area and I don't know how much we want to talk on this but it's good conversation to have is can we make the apartment make proper improvements to Paradise Lane because it's their second access for emergency so I'm not sure what the solution is there that could be a good discussion for the final development plan that's when that would occur okay wonderful thank you sir any other Questions? Yeah, I'd like just for you maybe to touch on that. Because I'm looking on Google Maps here and I see wilderness goes back pretty far with no, am I seeing that correct? That wilderness goes back pretty far with no other access points. And so we have, this is not going to be an opportunity that comes along very often to give another access point to wilderness and especially a signalized one. So with Liberty, so I guess that's kind of my, it's certainly possible. I think if you put an access point in the south, it's kind of balancing both interests. I mean it's likely that people at the south end of this development would use that access point to exit. So you're in increased traffic on Paradise Road and Wilderness Trace. It's just kind of balancing the public's interest. If they would prefer an option, going through development is not really how we provide a secondary access point, but if a driveway is there that's ungated, certainly it's implicitly, I guess, a public option. So it's sort of up to the, in one respect, up to the applicant what they wish to do. But there are going to be implications to those neighborhoods, both good and bad. You know, if you're increasing traffic, that's going to be more, especially in an area where it's not used to much other than those who live there, there's not really anywhere else to go on Willard and his Trace unless you live in a home there. So in this instance, there will be people coming back and forth that could be marginally more than before. And then speak on traffic on Liberty Road. There it is in the right-of-way phase, so design's completed on the improvements of Liberty Road. It's going to be five lanes, center left turn lane, multi-east trail, sidewalk, whatnot. If that doesn't have a signal, though, that would make it harder to get out of wilderness. Yeah, wilderness trace. I don't think we'll. No, that's correct. And so then it would be even harder because it would be wider and more lanes to cross without a signal. It's a good question for the applicant, whether they're open to making a public driveway, essentially, a public access point to the development. Again, it would be implicitly able to access the signal. Because I would assume that, from your perspective, the number of trips that someone would make to the dead end end of Wilderness Trace would be low from the applicant. I mean, obviously, unless you live there, generally. Unless you live there or want to see what's back there, yeah. Currently, yeah. Can I comment on that? Not right now, Mr. Frederick. You said something you want to hear from the citizen. That's why I would like to be a citizen. All right. Does anyone else have any questions for David or Captain? No? Thank you all. Thank you. Mr. Owens. Well, I think Captain Lingle and David Filiotree addressed my questions. I do remember when this smaller track came originally, there was much discussion as far as access in and out of Paradise Lane. Paradise Lane was substandard, but it kind of seemed like that was the only access they had. And I've expressed this before on other plans with 216 units, 372 beds you know we hear from the staff all the time on connectivity connectivity and and i think that's a lot of units to go in and out of one place i would very much be in favor of second public access so somehow All right. Commissioner Mickler. Well, when we heard from the applicant, there were discussions related to both Paradise and Wilderness, and this is the preliminary development plan, I think. So we've, it seems like, I mean, I would kind of second what Mike just sort of said, and it seems like adding language to say that we would like that second access point included, but give some flexibility for them to work with staff on where it's best to do that and how it would be best to be made. Thank you. Any further discussion or comment? Of course, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chairman, let me just make it pretty clear. If that's not a second access point, I simply cannot support this. without thank you mr wilson my comment to that would be best practices is to have two public accesses but sometimes we're in situations where the neighbors do not want an additional access which could lead to the the development using what has traditionally been neighborhood streets. But with the size of this development, we do need an emergency gate. So I'm in support of it as an emergency gate only, as drawn. And from some of the comments from the neighbors, I would imagine that they would want no access from the new development onto Paradise Lane. I would. Well, I would like to make a motion to. I'm going to, sorry, I have the pink sheet in front of me and then I. This is for the zone change, so. Yeah, so I started, but I'm going to look over here on mics. So I'm going to make it into motions because, or, this is a question for staff. If I would like the condition to be, if I would like to add a condition for a second access point to be on the final development plan, would that be as part of the zone change or would that be on the preliminary development plan? The preliminary development plan, okay. So my first motion is to motion for approver for PLN MAR 24-4. Thank you, Mr. Michler. Is there a second or any discussion? I'm sorry, a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Any discussion? This is for the zone change. Motion to approve. Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. All right, that carries unanimously. The floor is now open for a motion on the development plan. So for the development plan, I would like to motion for approval for PLN MJDP 24-8 with the eight conditions proposed by staff plus The two additional conditions, which would be that the plan that we're approving is the one that was presented today and not the one that was loaded into Granicus. And then the second condition would be that there would be a second public access point to either Paradise or Wilderness Trace as worked out with the applicant and staff on the final development plan. Second. And should we clarify that it would be a public access point, not just an emergency or anything like that, but specifically? Yes. So a public access. All right, and I think, am I correct that there are ten conditions? Ten conditions. So it would be 12. There are currently ten, so we can delete number ten because it's discussed the place builder criteria. delete 10 and then add the twos for the for 11 total conditions okay so does that bump us to 11 all right motion and a second from mr. Wilson any discussion seeing none yes ma'am if they're deciding on that second public access point and the plan needs to change i mean can we can we say that you know we're proving the plans that was presented today and then when they go back to figure out which public you know how they're going to do the public access doesn't that potentially change the plan that we saw today we would anticipate that the second public access would be determined when they file their final development plan so that gives them time to go through the zone change process and then come back with a plan that they have researched and evaluated and determined is workable and bring that to the commission but you've put them you know on notice that a second public access is important for this site and it's expected when their final development plan comes back so really that 11th, I guess number 10, new number 10, is just basically saying that we are looking at, you know, which one we were looking at since we looked at so many different ones. Correct, correct. That's my anticipation, that our staff ensures that the one they bring in to be certified was in fact the one we reviewed on the screen and not the one with the extra parking in the lower corner on the Granicus. All right. Any further comment or discussion? If not, we will put that to a vote. Eight in the affirmative, one in the negative, Mr. Nickel. Thank you. Next item on the agenda. We're over on page six, number four, Jenny Talbot development. Thank you. Anyone in the audience that is here for this item that would like to have it heard in full or would like to speak on the item? Mr. Chair, it looks like this can be done as an abbreviated hearing. Here we go. So this is a request to rezone the property at 592 Eureka Springs. It is approximately 0.404 acres in size. It currently is zoned in professional office P1. The applicant wishes to establish a residential use at this location, so a multifamily residential component, and is seeking the R3 zone in order to do so. The applicant has identified this as an enhanced neighborhood place type. Staff agrees. In the initial submission, the applicant actually identified this as medium density residential. Staff, with it being one to two stories, thinks it's more appropriate as low density residential and finds that the low-density residential criteria can apply at this location and are appropriate at this location. So here we have the subject property shown in white in the center of your screen. Eureka Springs Drive circles around and includes a commercial component, the Lexington Ice Center, as well as a convenience store joining, otherwise surrounding a residential area of various residential zoning. So here you're seeing a mix of R2, R1D, as well as R3 zoning. Initially, this was zoned agricultural, and then the 70s was rezoned to the R3 zone with the intent of having a residential development here. However, in the 1980s, there was a switch. The owner at the time thought the property had more application, was more useful as a professional office zone. So this is an instance where the applicant is actually seeking to go back to the zone that it previously was rezoned from. Here we have an arrow view of the subject property. So it is an existing professional office structure that was constructed in the 1980s, and it's accompanying parking. We have residential development on multiple sites here, a convenience store use here, as well as the Lexington Ice Center and other residential uses in the vicinity. Here we have a view of Eureka Spring Drive. So the subject property is shown on the left. So this is an existing residential area in an existing neighborhood. So staff thought the enhanced neighborhood place type was appropriate. Here we have a view of the current structure. So in the P1 zone, they are allowed to have a residential component. So currently there are residential units on top of the top floor of the structure. However, in order to operate in the P1 zone, they need principal uses, professional office uses on that first floor as well. The applicant at this time has had issues with getting tenants for that space and wish to take the structure, renovate it entirely for residential, and then add a portion to the rear here that would accommodate two additional units. Here we have a color-up of the development plan for the subject property. So you see the existing building is going to remain in its existing configuration with this addition to the rear. They are showing a net reduction in the impervious surface where the rear is being converted into a green picnic area. The dumpster is provided and being moved up, but is otherwise retaining most of the parking found on site. So this is really reusing an existing building in an existing context, adding a couple additional units to that configuration. This is a multifamily residential development, so it is required to review the multifamily design standards. This is a little bit of a unique circumstance, though, where they're reusing an existing building. So they are going to retain, as far as an architectural standpoint, the same type of design, all brick building with an addition to the rear access through a similar stair situation. From a site planning perspective, we're working with existing structures. So a lot of this is boiling down to increasing the open space, providing eyes on the street, utilizing this existing structure for additional residential. So many of the design criteria that we would look at for a sort of greenfield development don't necessarily apply here. But staff has found both with the site planning, open space and landscaping, as well as architectural design, that the project is meeting generally those requirements that are applicable with adaptively reusing an existing structure. As far as the placeholder review, once again, we have an existing residential area, a mix of single-family residential duplexes attached. So this is providing sort of an additional density at a sort of small neighborhood compatible scale. The R3 zone accommodates this and the level of intensity well, and is a recommended zone for that particular type. So overall, staff is recommending approval. We find in its agreement with the goals of the comprehensive plan, providing that additional housing, utilizing those existing structures, and taking advantage of an area that's already connected to transit, has sidewalks, and is already a thriving residential area. It's meeting the policies, the comprehensive plan. It's providing new bicycle facilities. It is utilizing the multifamily design standards to the best of its ability as a sort of adaptive reuse or a reuse site. And it's providing additional variety in the terms of the housing stock that is available in the Eurich Springs neighborhood. We find it's an agreement with the comprehensive plans, policies, and development criteria as it relates to land use, transportation, environmental sustainability, site design, and building form. As always, Mr. Martin will be on to discuss the development plan following this presentation here, and it's made subject to approval of that corresponding development plan. So adaptive reuse of an existing structure to provide additional housing in an area or in an instance where professional office uses were not particularly thriving. So staff is recommending approval at this time and we'd be happy to entertain any questions you may have. And that was the abbreviated version. Any questions for Mr. Crum? Thank you, Daniel. The Honorable Tom Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, this is a preliminary development plan that you see before you, so there will be a final on this property as well. We have passed out a pink sheet with revised conditions on this plan. As Daniel has already so ably demonstrated, we have Eureka Springs. Here is the existing property. They are proposing an addition on this plan to add residential units. Again you can see the existing parking that they will utilize with the access. This does show the green space well. was one concern we asked for in the conditions as an exhibit to demonstrate compliance with the open space. There was some concern as well, making sure they had the ability to meet Article 18 landscaping along that boundary. They do have that ability and you will see that on the final development plan. The future patio that you see encroaches slightly into the normal setback. They can reduce that by utilizing a fence along with landscaping elements. again they can meet article 18. They and those are really the exhibit on the open space as long as resolve compliance with zone to zone they do have the ability to do that again just utilizing provisions of article 18 for that particular buffer. I would add very briefly that you see this nice color up if you look at Granicus, you're going to see the plan that was prior to this. They submitted a revised plan, staff reviewed it, staff prepared these. However, they failed to upload that into Granicus, that particular version. I apologize to you on their behalf. So, because what you'll see if you look at your granicus is you'll see conditions that have been addressed by the actual plan that they submitted to staff and that we did review. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions on the plan. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions for Tom at this point? If not, Mr. Clendenin. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission and staff. Chris Clendenin, here on behalf of the applicant, Jenny Talbot. I'm joined by Mr. Jacob Clements from Thoroughbred Engineering. And he's our engineer on this project. As usual, Mr. Crum and Mr. Martin have done a good job of explaining this plan, the design elements, the place builder criteria. Briefly, I would add that although not a project of a major scale, it is a very nice, straightforward project. And with this, we are taking an existing piece of property. Currently, it has three multifamily housing units on it. It's zone P1. It's just the only thing that's P1 in the area. It's surrounded by residential and a variety of business and commercial sites around it. It's just kind of an orphan out there. It's P1. The applicant has tried to get professional office tenants on the first floor as required by the P1 zone. and has had been less than successful. I mean, periodically has had some, but it generally just has not been conducive. So what she's trying to do here is take the existing building. There's currently three apartments on the second floor. She wants to add three apartments on the first floor and then increase the size of the existing building by adding more space on the second floor for an additional apartment and more space on the ground floor for an additional apartment, where we would go from three units now to a total of eight. In addition to that, we are reducing the paved area and thereby increasing the open space. We are also increasing the tree canopy. I think right now it's proposed that we would lose one tree that my understanding is diseased and add a number of additional trees so like I said it's not a major multifamily you know five-story apartment building but it's a very nice use of adaptive reuse or infill and not the infill and redevelopment area but it's infill still the same and we are increasing and making use of the existing building and increasing the density for some additional housing units that we need in the community that being said I'd like to apologize if something wasn't uploaded and we don't need to add to the confusion see if we can rectify that and get all that straightened out before we have a final to put in front of you that aside if there's any questions I can answer I'm available to do so right now thank you mr. Clinton anyone have any questions no thank you Chris thank you we and also just lastly we agreed to the revised conditions as on the pink sheet okay thank you all right is there anyone from yes mr. Wilson okay is there anyone who would like to speak on this application today present if not then we will have commissioner discussion and door floor is always open for a motion I have one one quick comment I would encourage the applicant to rethink the location of the bike rack you know as a person who bicycles every day the best place for a bike rack is first of all undercover which we hardly ever see so I understand that but also nearer to the building where it's a little more secure I think setting it out by the sidewalk is an invitation for problems so just something to put in in your hat and think about thank you mr. Paul yes sir mr. chairman I move for approval of PLN MAR 24-5 Jenny Talbot Development LLC's only map amendment and East Hill subdivision with the four conditions provided by staff. Thank You Mr. Wilson. Second from Commissioner Barksdale thank you any discussion? Seeing none we will take a vote. That carries unanimously. Mr. Chairman I move for approval of PLN MJDP 24-12 East Hills subdivision with the nine conditions provided by staff with an emphasis with Mr. Pol's point about the bicycle racks. Second by Commissioner Barksdale thank you. delete number nine or maybe resolve is it so do we replace it with okay so can we replace number nine then with the uh recommendation from mr poe sure okay mr poe would you like to restate that or just whatever it is simply succinctly move the bike rack to a more secure location. Okay. All righty. Thank you. Commissioner Barksdale, seconded. Okay. Now I'll go back to the motion and indicate the nine conditions provided by staff with the addition of number nine, striking out discussed placeholder criteria and moving in to place the bike rack in a more secure location. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will vote. That also carries unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is, I believe on page seven, the truck rental amendment in the B1 zone. Mr. Crum. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The ZODA we are evaluating today is an amendment to Article 8-16, that's the B1 zone, and it's really oriented towards adding truck and trailer rental and leasing businesses to that zone in the expanded context. So the current language of the B1 zone, truck and trailer rental, and the applicant here is the U-All Corporation. Currently the B-1 Zone, which is really oriented around neighborhood level businesses and the surrounding serving residential uses, currently rental of trucks is allowed in a very, very specific context. It's only as a conditional use, it's only in conjunction with a service station, and it has to be abutting a federal highway. There's multiple other conditions that are sort of lumped in with this, but essentially it limits rental in the B1 to a conditional use in an area that at today's ordinance would really more be more classified as a B3 type use. So this is existing language that's been on the books for a while, but otherwise is the only way that in a B1 zone that you can rent trucks and trailers. The applicant, and currently in the B3 zone, we allow for this as a principal use. So it's lumped together with the sale and rental service and repair, farm equipment, automobiles, other similar uses that have sort of similar land use impacts. So in the B3 zone, oriented more towards traveling public, higher intensity roadways and the like, it's allowed as a principal use. The applicant is seeking to place this in the neighborhood business zone. They are seeking to allow this with the language up on screen. As a principal use, it would be subject to several conditions related to the location of storage areas, a separation from residential and some other components, but if those conditions could be met, it would be able to operate as a principal use with no trip to the Board of Adjustment or review by the Planning Commission. In review of this language, we looked at the intent of the B-1 zone, so we're looking at neighborhood shopping facilities serving residential areas and where the services are adequate to serve this intended population. It should be adopted or operate in conjoining with the goals, objectives, policies, and criteria of the comprehensive plan. And so here, to kind of explain how we arrived at this situation, this ZODA arose out of some enforcement action that was taken against businesses in the B1 zone, such as this one here that was cited on Rosemont Garden, that were operating as U-Haul sellers without meeting the criteria or the conditional use that's allowed in the zone. So this was an example from one on Rosemont Garden. This was another location, another B-1 zone. And finally, just adjoining the property we were just speaking of, the adjoining convenience store also was operating as a B-1 U-Haul location. This is not allowed in the zone, so a complaint was received, a mass complaint naming approximately a dozen or so locations in town where U-Haul were operating without the necessary approvals. When they met with staff, the options typically when someone is in violation of the zoning ordinance is to seek either a change in the zone to a zone that allows for the rental of these trucks and trailers or a zoning ordinance text amendment. In many of the cases, especially in a B-1 context, the B-1 really is the most appropriate zone, especially in close proximity to neighborhoods. So in many of the cases that were brought forward and highlighted as these zoning violations, the B1 zone was really the only zone that made sense. It's not adjoining these higher intensity roadways or isn't located downtown or meeting the other location criteria in order to change to a zone that would make sense within our current comprehensive plan. So that left the sole kind of avenue forward for these existing businesses was for the applicant to file a zoning ordinance text amendment that would allow them to remain. Now it's worth noting that the language that was provided by the U-Haul Corporation wouldn't allow actually for some of the properties that were cited. So some of the restrictions wouldn't even necessarily apply or these properties wouldn't necessarily be applicable. Staff in review of the language had several concerns. First of all was just the compatibility with the neighborhood context. So the B1 zones are supposed to be near our residential areas, our areas that we're wanting to be most walkable. We're trying to encourage connectivity, multimodal, and the like. This introduced a lot of truck and trailer traffic, high turnover, more suited to a B3 zone or zones that are located in higher intensity roadways. We had concerns with a principal use versus conditional use. This would allow them to operate without the need to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment for appropriateness in a given area. And if they can meet those fairly limited conditions, then they would be able to operate without needing further approval. We found that there was lack of agreement with the comprehensive plan. You know, the most recent update is speaking all towards about making our commercial areas more walkable, more well-connected, and really making it safer in our community to take multimodal options and really create kind of these connected vibrant places that the truck and trailer rental businesses aren't necessarily contributing to. Staff understands that these uses are necessary in order to have a thriving city, having a thriving community. However, that doesn't mean that they belong in a neighborhood context. Similar to self-storage, which residential uses definitely need, but it doesn't mean that it needs to be in the neighborhoods, kind of taking away from the neighborhoods as a whole. There was some inconsistency with other vehicle and equipment rental uses. The applicant didn't provide any information why we should be treating the rental of trucks and trailers different than the rental of automobiles or other equipment. Really, this was sort of a ZODA that was aimed not for consistency with our comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance, but rather to address this very specific instance in which they had been cited. And then inconsistency with current efforts to modify the B1 zone in the UGM ZODA that you all reviewed and recommended to approval to the Urban County Council that is still in consideration. removes the current ability to have even the conditional use that is on the books currently. So under the language that you all kind of put forward and recommended for approval, there would be no rental of trucks or trailers in the B1 zone at all, even as a conditional use. So staff in their conversations with U-Haul corporate and these operators had been very kind of upfront with the direction that our comprehensive plan was going, the efforts of the planning commission to kind of make our neighborhood businesses more appealing and safer and more well connected but this was the kind of the lone avenue they have to meet the compliance zoning compliance issues that they had from operating illegally so staff recommends disapproval for the reasons you see on screen that we just touched on we do not find it's an appropriate use in this context so we are recommending disapproval at this time and i'd be happy to entertain any questions you may have of staff thank you Any questions? Seeing none, thank you. Is there a representative from U-Haul? I do not believe there is a representative from U-Haul in attendance. All right, so no applicant. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular item? If not, Commissioner comment? Yes, Mr. Mickler. Just a comment that it's odd to pay to file a ZODA and then not come to the hearing. Is there been discussions with U-Haul about the hearing date and the process? Yes, during multiple components. They also did not attend the zoning committee meetings either. So staff has been very, very, very upfront about this meeting date, this being the significant meeting, the meeting that needed to be attended by representatives in order to kind of argue their case, and they have opted not to attend. Mr. Chair, could I ask one other question of staff? Did you all pass along the information about the possibility of disapproval, and you did, and they had no comment back to that? Okay, thank you. None with that. Thank you. One other question. It seemed like in the subdivision committee, we saw a request down on Manchester Street that involved a U-Haul. Is there any connection? It's corporate U-Haul, but other than that, the situations are very different. That is an I-1 or I-2 zone property, whereas they're requesting permission in the B-1. This is really separate. Okay, thank you. Any further comment, or of course the floor is open for a motion? I do have a question. Okay, so those B-1 businesses that are operating a U-Haul, would they then individually need to come and seek conditional approval, or how does that work? So currently none of the examples shown on screen met the criteria to even under the current zoning ordinance to even apply. So this was sort of the way to make those businesses work. And it's sort of part of understanding sort of how we got here. you need to understand that U-Haul essentially finds, there's very little that's sort of put in on the property owner's side. So there's not a startup fee. There's not a franchise fee. You reach out to U-Haul. They pay. They provide the app. But otherwise, it's more or less utilizing your property in this open vacant space. So to that sense, they're sort of loose contractors versus a dedicated U-Haul location, like I think Manchester Street may be an actual location owned and operated by U-Haul. So that sort of disconnect between the operators, between the folks in Arizona that filed this zoning ordinance text amendment may explain sort of some of the irregularities as to why we're in the situation we're in. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Mickler. Have you had any conversations with the 10 business owners? So we've had conversations with, I think, three or so of these locations. Once again, kind of going over the information of is the zone change process sort of really viable based on kind of the locations provided? and then sort of what their options were moving forward. So, yes, we've had conversations with Sun, but all of those that were notified within the citation have been, you know, contacted by zoning enforcement. Zoning enforcement has passed, you know, our information along as well. So anyone that has sort of been impacted and needed to have, I guess, you know, some information or sort of contact with staff has been able to do so. But yes, so probably about three or so. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. Floor is open for a motion or for a discussion. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, as it relates to PLN ZOT, ZOT 24-1 amendment to Article 816 truck rental in the B-1 zone, I move for the support of, let me put it this way, I move to support the staff's recommendation of disapproval for the reasons provided by staff. Is there a second? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Wirth. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will all vote. Something you taught me, Mr. Wilson. last week disapproved but in the affirmative all righty I believe we're on page 8 Commission items Fayette County Public Schools good afternoon this is a public facility review for Fayette County Public Schools for a new addition to Harrison Elementary School always like to remind you that a public facility review is a little bit different type of application krs 100 provides for the planning commission to review public facility projects and to advise whether the project is in accordance with the comprehensive plan you all can make recommendations and suggestions but you do not formally approve or disapprove the application so this project again is for Harrison Elementary School which is located at 161 Bruce Street also known as 152 168 Jefferson Street it's a through lot and the proposal is to construct a 3,200 square foot addition and to do some site redevelopment so this map here shows the subject property and the zoning it is a split zone parcel with residential zoning along Bruce Street and neighborhood business zoning along Jefferson Street it is adjoined by two historic district overlay zones but itself is not within one of those historic districts the existing structure which you see here and again I'll zoom in a little there is approximately fifty five thousand six hundred square feet it's a single story structure with a full basement they are proposing to construct a new addition in the vicinity of this area here as you can see currently there is some parking off of Bruce Street here that's about 10 parking spaces and then another I'm sorry that's 14 there and then oops oh boy we all we all do it and then some additional parking from access by Jeff Jefferson Street here and then a large grassy play area here so moving forward this is sort of the overall site plan and you can see included this because you can see that across the street is where a lot of the teacher parking is located so there is additional parking located across Bruce but zooming in here to the the proposed plan you see the new 3,200 square foot addition this is for three new preschool classrooms and And then we see a lot of different hatching styles on this plan, so I want to touch on a little bit on what these things are. They are proposing to remove the existing parking off of Bruce Street in order to allow for all of their school bus pickup to occur along this frontage. The school faces the street. They are proposing to install a sort of rubber playground surface material in the vicinity here where the former parking lot was and then in this area here. To our plan east here, the existing Jefferson Street access point is located here. So they are adding an additional access point here in order to provide this loop driveway for parents to drop off children. are some parking spaces shown in between the loop here so this is about 10 parking spaces and then we've got this area is concrete throughout here so staff review this in accordance with the comprehensive plan and we found that the most appropriate place type and development type here were enhanced neighborhood and low density non residential mixed use development type so for an enhanced neighborhood place type the site priorities are things like neighborhood serving retail services and employment a mixture of housing types connected multimodal network and well integrated public facilities and green spaces the development type prioritizes neighborhood serving commercial uses services places of employment things like schools neighborhood serving services bike and pedestrian connections to the adjoining neighborhood are emphasized as well our buildings oriented to the street which which we do have here, and those are required to ensure the non-essential character is in character with the surrounding neighborhood and creates a walkable environment. Parking should be minimized and where necessary located internally. So staff did find that the public facility of a preschool classroom addition will serve the needs of the community, specifically those with children who are assigned to the school. There are no goals or objectives of the comp plan that are in opposition to this. However, there are goals and objectives that do support the plan. We found that things that were supported by this plan included theme A, goal 4, to address community facilities at a neighborhood scale, incorporating schools and other educational and recreational facilities into neighborhoods in order to maximize safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists. We found that there were several policies within theme A and theme D related to locating schools in neighborhoods and designing parking areas so as to not be the visual component of the neighborhood. However, there were several criteria that are typically applied to low density mixed use non-residential place types within enhanced neighborhoods. Some of those were the ones that you see on your screen here. Development should incorporate vertical elements such as street trees and buildings to create a walkable streetscape. Development should be designed to minimize tree removal and to protect and preserve existing significant trees. And development should improve the tree canopy. So we did find that the proposed site redevelopment includes the removal of a pretty substantial amount of vegetated area throughout the site and of several street trees along Jefferson Street. they do not plan to include any new landscaping in their plan everything is sort of a paved surface or that sort of playground material so we we do recommend that they reduce the paved area along Jefferson Street so that the two distinct access points are created in order to allow for that drop-off area but to perhaps allow for some of those trees to be retained or for new trees if that's not possible to retain the existing but just have a space for some new trees the second sort of grouping of criteria here are ads 5-4 that says development should provide a pedestrian oriented and activated streetscape and DSP 1-2 which says school design should prioritize a high percentage of open accessible street frontage so while the school has an existing activated streetscape along Bruce Street the proposed redevelopment is adding a significant amount of vehicular use area along Jefferson Street and we have concerns that that will create pedestrian and motorist conflicts in this location by expanding one single access point to two access points with a large swath of concrete vehicular use area in between so we do recommend that fayette county public schools coordinate with the division of traffic engineering to ensure that this frontage is safe and efficient for its desired use and for other users of long jefferson street finally we found that visible usable green space and other natural components should be incorporated into school sites was not being met in this location again the proposed site redevelopment results in a significant loss of green space and natural components they are showing a significant play area but there are no sort of vegetated areas associated with that so we are recommending a 10% vegetated open space be provided and that is sort of typical for the zone that their property is in again they're in a split zone but in the r4 generally projects would be required to provide 15 of vegetated open space in the b1 it's 10 we felt that 10 was appropriate here given the context that this is a school and not a residential use and that it is an urban school we're also recommending that the new parking areas be landscaped in accordance with article 18 of the zoning ordinance so that would include vehicular use area tree canopy and vehicular use area buffer screening around the perimeter of the parking area. So with that, I'll answer any questions that you have, and I do believe someone from Fayette County Public Schools is here who can probably answer some additional questions. Thank you. Do we have any questions? Not a question, just a comment. I'm really happy to see the recommendations about the addition of the green space. I think, I just heard a report yesterday about exposure to nature and even pictures of nature with brain scans shows a very positive impact on brain activity and for kids not to have access to green when they're in school I think is a mistake thank you thank you Mr. Worth Mr. Wilson I have a curious how many students attend Harrison Elementary right now I don't think I can answer that question the applicant may be able to speak to that And of course the corollary question is how many more students would attend as a result of this addition? They're proposing three additional preschool classrooms. I'm not sure what the rate is for number of students in that situation. Thank you. Any additional questions for staff at the moment? Yes, Mr. McClendon. The development plan with the, I guess it's the play area, which I guess currently is wider, is now going to be narrower on Jefferson and then also a separate area on Bruce Street. The language there is pervious poured in place surfacing for increased impervious area. I think that means that the pervious play surface area will offset the additional impervious area that is being provided by the additional concrete and asphalt. But the designer may be able to better speak to that. Okay, thanks. all right seeing no more questions thank you applicant sorry good afternoon how can i answer your questions i'm sarah with rostar architects and we're the designer for for the school all righty we can direct any questions for the applicant I mean do you have the answer to how many students this might be able to accommodate it's a little under 300 students that attend and the preschool playground the preschool classrooms are dying for 20 students apiece so it'd be 60 additional students going here. Do kids at this age, do they ride bicycles to school? I do not know how many students ride bicycles to this facility. Most students are dropped off by parents or take the buses. Oh, okay. Thank you. Can you show us where the green space is? We are not adding any green space to this facility. There is a little bit of green space behind the kitchen area. And then the playground, because of the size of the site, is really being reduced down into a more compact playground and we're giving it all that play surface. So we're removing the green space and making the playground smaller? Yes, we are. And that does not look to me like it's done to provide for that 3,000 square foot of needed preschool classrooms. That looks like it's done to provide for the vehicular use area. Is that correct? So we had to add drop-off zone for parents at the back of the school. Currently students and parents drop off, they come in off of Jefferson Street and they actually drive, it's a two story building actually, and they drive actually underneath the building, drop off students and pull off into Bruce Street. So by adding this preschool classroom building, they can no longer drive under the building and through. So we had to give them a way to loop back and when we did that we had to take some of the existing K-12 playground, make it a little smaller and compact. And then the surface area kind of to the plan left of the playground is actually the preschool playground. So there's two different playgrounds being added on the site. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Meyer? Given the recommendations by staff, can you accomplish any of these recommendations? I mean the trees along Jefferson Street? I would like to answer why the trees along Jefferson Street are being removed. in conversations with the Division of Engineering, the preferred location for the dumpsters are, I don't know, top button, oops, see. This one? Are right here. So these dumpsters are being located right here, and in order for those dump trucks to come and pick up the dumpsters, the garbage trucks, they're coming in here, here they're backing up picking them here and driving off there was no room with this new site for them to back all the way in to pick them up here and back all the way out and so in order to accommodate that we had to make this area kind of accessible by those trucks and then there's a fence right here that is closed during non-school hours so they can't you don't have a turning radius with this with this you that you're creating you to have for dump trucks for the garbage trucks to come in and flow through this this you that you're proposing it is not quite wide enough to make that turn this is this radius is not big enough for that turn we were having to lose additional parking spaces and they were going to have to do a three-sided turn like that and it was deemed a little bit more dangerous to traffic and parent conflict than just having them outside of that loop and keeping that separated All righty. Any other comments? Mr. McClure? Well, I have a comment. I appreciate that Fayette County Public Schools is looking to add the additional service of the preschool. And I understand that we're not voting this up or down like we would be in normal development. But I do understand that what we are doing is we are being asked to vote whether this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And we have a historic green neighborhood in part of our outskirts of downtown. And our comprehensive plan, when we look at Place Builder, calls this sort of a second-tier urban neighborhood. And what we have here is a development plan that virtually eliminates the green space. It cuts down the street trees. It moves the dumpster to the sidewalk. And it increases the vehicular use area on a pedestrian corridor. And it is, in my opinion, not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Thank you, Mr. McClure. Any other comments? Commissioner Wirth? I just would agree. Mr. Wilson? May I ask the staff, do you feel this project's in compliance with the comprehensive plan? Well, I'll let Autumn address that since she was the primary author of the staff report. So we did find that generally placing schools in neighborhoods is well in line with the comprehensive plan and maintaining an existing school and attempting to make it more usable, have a longer lifespan is certainly in agreement with the comp plan. We agree with your frustrations that have been stated. I don't know if that answers your question or not. Well, the floor is open. Do we require a motion or is it just a report? Well, we have to have a motion to either state that it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan or whatever the motion might be. Is it possible, of course, my colleague here has made a really good point about the elements that are concerning here. can we say in effect that we approved the plan but we have some concerns related to? Typically with public facility reviews when you generally agree with the staff recommendations your finding is generally that the project is in agreement with the comprehensive plan but you adopt the staff's findings and recommendations. Is that generally right Tracy? Could you repeat that? I could not understand what you were saying. Sure. So you would make a finding that the plan is in accordance with the comprehensive plan, basically subject to the staff's recommendations. So you would adopt those recommendations. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have to do them or that they will, but that you all are sort of backing those. I THINK I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AUTUMN. AND PART OF ME AGREES, BUT THE OTHER PART OF ME FEELS THAT WITH THAT MOTION, EVEN WITH your very valid bullet those very valid bullet points would be lost in the messaging of the title of the motion and so i i'm gonna i i don't know if it'll be seconded but i'm gonna move that this plan is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan thank you mr mickler and commissioner worth is attempting to second so there is a second is there any discussion i would just ask to clarify the reasons for the record anyway of why you think it is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan and certainly you can reflect on the staff report in terms of those three recommendations or if there's something else like you you sort of mentioned those in your discussion earlier for the for the um reasons described in the staff report in particular the location in a historic second tier urban neighborhood and the removal of the green space, the increased vehicular use area, and the move of the dumpster to this pedestrian near the pedestrian area on Jefferson. Well, with the removal of the green space, that includes the, in my mind, the removal of the trees along the street trees, which are an important historic element along our second-tier urban neighborhoods along Jefferson. Thank you. Any discussion to that before we vote? I'm a little confused, Mr. Chairman. I guess my point is I agree with my colleagues' points, but I know we're not trying to make it more difficult as such, but we are trying to express kind of a caution light here about some of the things that may be going on. So did you indicate we could put that in as a part of the motion about the points that he's made? Yes. I think Autumn said that, but yes, you can make a motion and find that in general it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan, but that these things could be improved. Well, I, in part of me agrees with that sentiment, but I feel that because this is only a recommendation, this isn't something that they have to follow one way or the other, that the motion to, that it is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan sends a stronger signal from this group that these things need to be changed than a motion that it is support, but hey, we'd like these things changed. Just to clarify, and I think that either way that they do not have to follow this board's vote, is that correct? Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. This is the motion to disapprove. All right. That motion carries 6 to 2. Staff items. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Davis. today just a reminder that we do have committees coming up next week so subdivision in the morning and zoning in the afternoon on the fourth and then following in the next couple weeks we will have another work session April 18th so thank you without objection we are adjourned