To the nines, the lowlife dealers with the bad designs And the dilettantes with their open minds They're out on the town, seeing from the crowds Ready to go for the ride, searching the eyes Looking for clues, there's no way you can hide Hear the fire inside Where you've been to the clubs and the discotheques Where they deal one another from the bottom of a deck of promises Where the cautious loners and emotional wrecks Do an acting stretch as a way to hide the ideas And the lights go down and they dance real close For one brief instant they pretend they're safe and warm And the beat gets louder and the moon is gone The darkness scatters as the lights flash on They owe one another just a little too long And they move apart and then move on On to the street, on to the next Saving the knowledge that they tried Making a smile, hiding the pain Never satisfied Fire inside Fire inside Fire inside Fire inside Now the hour is late and he thinks you're asleep You listen to him dress and you listen to him leave You hear his car pull away in the street Then you move to the door and you lock it When he's gone for good Then you walk to the window and stare at the moon Riding high and lonesome through a starlit sky And it comes to you how it all slips away Youth and beauty are gone one day No matter what you dream or feel or say It ends in dust and disarray Like wind on the plains, sand through the glass Waves rolling in with the tide Dreams die hard and we watch them erode But we cannot be denied But fire inside Fire inside Fire inside Burning you up Burning you up Fire inside Burning you up Burning you up Burning you up Burning you up Well, you wake up in the morning You hear the work bell ring And I march you to the table You see the same old thing Ain't no food upon the table There's no fork up in the pan But you better not complain, boy You're getting in trouble with the man Let the midnight special Shine a light on me Let the midnight special Shine a light on me Let the midnight special Shine a light on me Let the midnight special Shine a ever-loving light on me Beyond the coming roses Around the world, did you know By the way she wears her apron And the clothes she wore Umbrella on her shoulder Piece of paper in her hand She's come to see the good now She wants to free her man Let the midnight special Shine a light on me Let the midnight special Shine a light on me Let the midnight special Shine a light on me Let the midnight special Shine a ever-loving light on me If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston If you're ever in Houston Good Afternoon Good Afternoon Welcome, it's January 30th Welcome to the Zoning Addams Public Hearing Meeting I'd like to call this meeting to order It is now 1 31 Um, for the commissioners We do not have any minutes for approval So we want to skip down to Agenda Item 3 Postponements and Withdrawals Yes, ma'am Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission Rory Cahill with EA Partners First item on page 2 This is MJDP 24-95 Newtown Springs, lot 4 We did not work out a Resolution in two weeks, so now I'd like to postpone to March 13th Thank you, Mr. Kaleen, you said March 30th? 13th Yeah, we'll put this back on the Subdivision Committee Okay, thank you If there's not any questions The floor is open for a motion Ms. Boxdale Mr. Chair, I move to Postpone PLN MJDP 24-95 Newtown Springs, lot 4 Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Wirth Thank you. We can vote via Granicus All right, the motion passes Thank you Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicant I will direct your attention to Item C on page 5 This is the Economic Development Zoda We would like a 30-day Postponement until February 27th, I think is your next date Tracy? Yes, to your next Zoning date a month from now Okay, thank you The floor is open for that Motion request Excuse me, the floor is open for a motion Mr. Chair Mr. Owens The floor is open for a Postponement of Plan Zoda 24- What was that? 6 Revisions to Article 23A-10 Economic Development Until February 27, 2025 Okay, do we have a second? Second by Mr. Penn Please vote via Granicus Okay, that motion passes Thank you. I'll see you guys soon Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm Mark McIntosh With Vision Engineering On page 4 of today's Agenda This is the Rose Holdings Lexington Zoning Map Amendment, MAR 24-17 This is at 1899 Parkers Mill Road We would like to request a one-month Postponement to the February 27th meeting Okay, thank you And the reasons are We're continuing to work with the Neighbors and staff on Storm-related issues Alright, the floor is open Mr. Chairman I move for a postponement To the February 27th Is that right? Yes Meeting for PLN MAR 24-17 A second by Ms. Wirth Please vote via Granicus Okay, that motion passes Thank you There we go, thank you sir Okay Alright, Mr. Crum Alright Alright Alright Daniel Crum Planning Staff The next item on our agenda here Is our sole zone change of the Afternoon You should have, in Granicus here And received yesterday afternoon An updated staff report So this is the third supplemental staff report For this particular item So this is an item that has been going on since 2022, but this is a request By Realty Unlimited Bluegrass And it is to change the zoning Of the property at 940 Higby Mill Road From a single family residential R1C zone to a townhouse Residential R1T zone The applicant is seeking this rezoning In order to construct six Attached townhome units on this lot Within the applicant's justification He chooses to place this in an Enhanced neighborhood and a low density Residential development type Staff agrees with the choice in both the Place type and development type But we'll get into that a little bit later on in the Presentation The subject property is located In the center of the screen here Shown in white at the end of Higby Mill Road and between Higby Mill Road and Man o' War Zooming in a little bit closer you can see the Surrounding zoning a little bit better Essentially residential, a mix of the R1C Of the rest of the Higby Mill Road neighborhood To the rear where it adjoins Cephas Way Single family residential zoning across Man o' War with a little bit more intensity With R3 and R1T With townhomes and single family residential So this is an area overwhelmingly Residential in nature Here you have an aerial view of the Subject property, so once again Higby Mill Road in this section, single Family detached, almost in the vicinity But the subject property itself Is vacant, it does have several Easements that complicate The site as well as some interesting Right-of-way implications I'm going to zoom in a little bit Here we have the subject property Once again Higby Mill Road But you'll notice adjoining the property To the east and to the north Is actually this remnant piece of right-of-way So Higby Mill Road was originally Intended to connect to Man o' War, however it was only built To this stub here Over time that portion became Overgrown and eventually The applicant here Requested that that portion Be deeded over, so the portion Outlined in red, which is what That abandoned right-of-way was ceded over To the applicant for his use With this project, the adjoining property Owners on the alternating side Also have the ability to claim their Portions as well, so this Is an area where a Street termination of Higby Mill Road was abandoned before it was Fully completed, so it is sort of a stub Not an appropriate termination by today's Standards, but a substandard roadway Condition that the applicant has to Kind of juggle as they look to develop The site and the implications of that We'll delve into in just a moment And yeah, this is just The claimed right-of-way that is now part Of their application Here's a view of the subject property We have the front portion of the property Does have a gas line Easement that runs in front of it, but The large portion to the rear is Currently undeveloped with Some honeysuckle and other Plantings that have sort of grown in that right-of-way Area, but they're also included In the applicant's proposal To the right, we have the Existing single-family home that adjoins And to the rear, you can Vaguely see the right-of-way for Manowar Boulevard Here is the adjoining property, so Single-family residential all Down that strip, with kind of Front-loading garages and driveways Here is the right-of-way for Manowar Boulevard, but Otherwise not a terribly wide street And once again terminating And currently an accessory Recreational use in a basketball Goal, so not an appropriation Termination of our roadway, so This is something that the applicant Is looking to fix with this Request, so in order to kind of Discuss the myriad of staff Reports that we have and kind of How we got from here from Here to here, so part of the Discussions and the difficulties That we've had since 2022 was How do we appropriately terminate This roadway. The applicant's Proposal up until this point had Included constructing a cul-de-sac Here, however, it didn't meet Current standards. It was sub 40 feet in radius, and so Standard vehicles, emergency Services would have difficulty Accessing the site. Building to Larger standards would mean that There would be an issue on the Applicant's side. Other issues That we had when we originally Reviewed these plans was the Number of units they were Proposing needed variances. In Order to fit seven townhome units As originally proposed, they Needed setback variances on both Sides, as well as the amount of Paving that was being provided in The front yard required a Variance as well, so essentially Seven units with two parking Facilities, little to no Landscaping proposed, and a Substandard roadway condition. The updated or revised plan you Have in front of you makes Several changes and was the Reason for the updated Subdivision as well as zoning Staff reports, so essentially They have proposed a cul-de-sac All on their property that Incorporates the required Dimensions, meets the Subdivision regulations In doing so, they now have the Ability to meet the setback Where it adjoins the single Family home here, and Incorporate all the required Zone-to-zone landscaping. Alternatively, where it Adjoins the rear of the Properties, they now have the Ability to meet the setback There as well. They have met The requirements where you're Pairing driveways, so Essentially instead of a cul-de-sac They now have more green space In the front yard area, and Means they no longer need Variances relating to the amount Of pavement in the front yard. Essentially reducing the scope Of the project and bringing the Public infrastructure up to the Level that is needed to service The site and provide an Appropriate termination for Higbee mill road was the main Reason for the staff report Switch from the previous Request. The applicant's choice in zone The r1t isn't expressly Recommended in the zone. However, historically the Comprehensive plan has called For things like townhomes in Single-family residential Detached areas to provide Additional density in a Context-sensitive manner. So it really is a matter of How these units are being Employed is what we're looking For. We have an infill site, an Area that is currently Undeveloped. The comp plan tells us within The bounds of being Context-sensitive, look to see If you can get additional Density there. Prioritize providing a mixture Of housing types. Right now the neighborhood is Solidly single-family detached. This provides an additional Density. The sidewalk network to cover These additional units as well. The development criteria speaks To many of the same types of Concerns. Increase the density when you Can. Encourage compact single-family Housing types. Ensure those roadway and Multimodal connections are Appropriate for the type of Neighborhood you're looking at. Providing additional variety when You're looking at an area that Is primarily single-family Detached. With that, staff now has a Revised recommendation of Approval. We find it's an agreement with The 2018 and the 2045 comprehensive Plans, goals, objectives and Policies that speak to providing Additional density in a Context-sensitive manner. We find it's an agreement with The 2018 and the 2045 comprehensive Plans for those same reasons and It meets the criteria for site Design, building form, location As well as transportation and Pedestrian connectivity as well As green space and environmental Health. All of that once again subject To the recommendation and Certification of the corresponding Development plan. I did want to note with respect To public outreach was another Recommendation of the 2045 Comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan typically Calls for prior to submitting an Application having these Conversations that then inform the Design of the site. As we've carried through since 2022, that conversation really Hasn't taken place. The applicant did provide some Information relative to the last Time this application was before You all that indicates they had A number of units and what was Being provided there relative to The single family residential Neighborhood, but those contacts Eventually were made, although Not in the way that really the Comprehensive plan would call for Being met and having that Meaningful actual dialogue. Just wanted to provide an update On that, but essentially the Applicant's revisions and Corrections to the plan reducing The scope have brought it to a Conclusion. I'm not going to go into the Development plan in a little bit More detail, but I'd be happy to Answer any questions you all have Of staff at this time. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Any questions? Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Crum. You or Tracy want to talk about The reduction where it says Provide parking from 14 spaces Now to six. Show me that. Let's see the previous iterations Of the plan. Each of the homes previously, This was the last iteration, Each of these townhouses, Seven townhouses Had two spaces Located in front along with Individual driveways. Each of those resulted in a total Of 14 spaces. Shrinking it down from seven to Six as well as shrinking the Number of spaces provided per lot From two per to one per Results in a total of Six parking spaces as opposed To the 14 under the extent Of the previous request. So Each driveway only Allows one parking space now? That is correct. Okay. All right. We'll continue on. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gronk. Ms. Wade. Good afternoon, Chair Forrester, members of the Commission. Daniel, is this the right You want me to go from here? Okay. So the applicant has submitted a Number of revised plans for this Proposed project, obviously Starting back to 2022, but We're still in the process of Making improvements to the site To the point where the staff Could recommend approval. The staff did recommend approval To the subdivision committee a Few weeks ago, and The applicant Submitted, again, a Very small Tweak, and so I'll Use the agenda today as opposed To an additional handout because It's really only one condition On page Four. So I'll start at the bottom of Page three and then continuing Up to page four. On page four, it has the Conditions of approval, and Let's go over the site a little Bit. I think Daniel gave you a great Orientation, but the structures Will front on to Higbee Mill Road, and then their Rears will abut To meet the ordinance now in Terms of having shared Driveways, and so in doing the Shared driveway, Mr. Crum Mentioned, they also reduced The width of the driveway, so It does only accommodate one Vehicle. And then the six townhomes Are each 1,300 square Feet, not with no Garage, just front Entry, a pedestrian entry There. And then the Subdivision Regulations. I'm going to go back Along here. In terms of meeting also the Land subdivision regulations, Those are looked at when a Development plan clearly Indicates there will be a Subdivision, so their Intention, Mr. Minyard's intention here is to Subdivide each of those townhouses To meet the land subdivision Regulations. They have also resulted in Some changes to the plan, and The land subdivision regulations Also require a certain size Cul-de-sac, and so the Applicant has modified the Cul-de-sac to meet the land Subdivision regulations. They have also provided a Sidewalk around all of the Ball of the cul-de-sac, Although there's not a utility There. And that will be Modified later on if it's Not adjusted. Of note, though, there is One thing on the conditions That will need to remain because A small item does not quite Meet the ordinance yet. But I'll go through the Requirements. So all zone changes are Approved contingent on your Development plan is reviewed, And then we have five Standard sign-offs from Engineering, traffic Engineering, our urban Forester, the green space Planner, and environmental Quality. And then we have two conditions To discuss that were on the Agenda. The first is to modify the Vehicular area in front of the Units to ensure they comply With some new regulations that Are in place. The second is to Modify the parking Area. And this is the one that the Staff would like to request Remain on your approval. And that's because these Parking spaces, and this may Get to Mr. Owen's question, need to be 18 feet deep, which allows for A standard vehicle to park There, but that needs to be Completely out of the front Yard. So if you're going to have a Drive or a parking space, Sorry, a garage, your parking Space needs to be completely out Of the front yard. So you'll get a 10-foot setback For the front yard, and then an Additional 18 feet, and that Ensures the vehicles don't Overlap with the sidewalk and Other things. And where it's a circular Parking space, the two in the Middle, these are the two that Are shortest. Perhaps this as well, but if We measure, it averages 18 Feet on this one and also on These two. So there will need to be an Adjustment in pushing back of Those three units to allow for That driveway to be just a Little bit longer. And then the eighth condition On our agenda has to do with The ordinance requires that you Only establish three units at The same setback and then Provide a three-foot stagger Offset so that they don't all Appear to be in line but provide Some variation on the frontage. The applicant did meet that, so Condition eight can be deleted, Although we will be looking for That to continue to be present When the three units, two or Three units have to get pushed Back towards man o' war boulevard. And then condition number nine Was discuss the place builder Criteria, and Mr. Crum has Already covered that, so that Also can be deleted in terms of Reviewing the plan. And I'd be happy to answer any Additional questions about the Proposed development plan. Yes, Ms. Wersh. Just looking At the cul-de-sac and the area Around, are there any other Places on the street where People will be able to park if They have visitors? And if so, where would that be? Well, there would be a little Extra space in the rest of the Ball of the cul-de-sac here Coming around. But then along man o' war Boulevard, sorry, not man o' war, But along higby mill, this is a Fairly low-density area, so There should be room to park Along higby mill road. Any other questions for Ms. Wersh? Yes, Mr. Mikler. This is a small question, But this is a Zone change From To A Townhouse Adjacent to single Family. Yes. And I guess What is the I think there's a Zone to zone Landscape buffer, even though They're both essentially Single family. What's the I'm just sort of Noticing that, I guess. I think it's six feet. It's eight feet. Eight feet between a single Family and an r1t Zone. And that's Six feet. I think it's Six feet between a single Family and an r1t zone. And that's Six feet. So my recollection was it was Six feet, but I can double Check. I think the side yard next to Single family has to meet the Single family setback, which is Eight feet. End units of a townhouse row, And I think you have a Thresh and tree requirement And I think it's one every 40 feet for trees. And then shrubs six Feet tall. Thanks. Thank you, Miss We think some more Questions. You Yes, sir. Well, I'm Matt Vineyard, and I'm the Owner developer of the project, and I'm Also one of the neighbors. It's a labor of love To do these sort of things. The safety and soundness Of this is to remove A stubbed street And by providing A court That a fire truck or EMT Or the police can turn around Could save lives. So I'm Praying for your Support. Y'all have any questions? Any questions for the applicant? No, sir. Thank you. This is citizen comments time, so If you want to speak on this particular application You can do so by stepping up to the podium. Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Lexi Holland. I represent Claire and Clovis Collins. So they actually reside At 3541 Cephas Way, so they're kind of in the Backyard of this property. And so you can see right here 3541 Is right behind that 940 lot. So just by way of a little bit of Background, yeah, and that's Kind of the aerial map of that, too. By way of background, my clients Hired me several years ago To try to acquire That abandoned right-of-way in their Backyard. On the western portion, and I Submitted some comments, you all may have already Seen this, but the western portion As planning discussed Was deeded over to Mr. Menyard several years ago. So we went through the same process, and Actually that portion has now In the backyard of 3541 Has been deeded to the Collins Family. So through that process And, you know, this plan Has been going since 2022, We have dealt With the applicant. We have, you know, tried to work on some of These issues over the last couple Of years. And the primary reason I'm before you today Objecting to this plan is because of The public engagement aspect of this. We are not actually part of The Higbee Mill Neighborhood Association Because we are on the other side in the Stone Creek neighborhood. But from the very beginning, It has been a really, really Difficult relationship Attempting to engage with Mr. Menyard or have any of these conversations. We have They've attempted at times to Get in the way of us being able to Get that right-of-way that we Are entitled to as adjacent Property owners. There have been reports made to Code enforcement that were completely Baseless on my clients and Neighbors' property. He's shown up to Neighbors' houses late at night Demanding to be able to talk about Issues resulting in even Police calls. Finally, he has Filed a lawsuit against my client And a couple of The other neighbors on Cephas Way. Alleging generally That he may be entitled to some of These portions of the right-of-way Has also filed against LFUCG. So in all, we are very Worried about how this is going To proceed. If it goes into development, This is right in my client's Backyard. Very literally. And it's been a really, really Difficult process with lots of Very aggressive language and Behavior, and I wanted to make the Planning commission aware of that. I'm very glad that Daniel and Tracy cleared up one of The other issues related to the Comprehensive plan itself, which Is the parking issue. So we understand that the parking Has generally been reduced, but It doesn't change the fact that Parking may now move into that Cul-de-sac, which is, again, right In my backyard. We also don't believe that KRS-100-213, the other criteria, Have been met, and there's Been no physical, social, or Economic change, and no finding That the existing classification Is inappropriate. So those are my comments. So thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions If you have any from me. Thank you very much. Thank you. Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Michelle Harr, and I'm the president of The Higbee Mill Neighborhood Association. Last year, when this came back Up, I Went All around Higbee Mill on that end, And Trapassi Court to speak with As many neighbors as I could About whether they would be opposed Or in favor of this Project, and I could not Find anyone That had anything good to say about this Project. They feel like This Townhomes are being crammed down their Throats, they're right next door To this proposed development, And they do not feel like There's anything positive About having Six townhomes right next to a bunch Of single-family homes. And I think She mentioned the parking issue. So he Has reduced the number of units From seven to six. Wow. He has reduced the number of parking Spaces from 14 to Six. So where are those other cars Going to park? Higbee Mill Road is very narrow, Trapassi Court is very narrow, There's, on one side of Higbee Mill, there's no sidewalk or curb, So there's not going to be Any room. You can't get two cars Parked across from each other And get an emergency vehicle In between. It just can't happen. So the people on Trapassi and at that End of Higbee Mill are going to be At the mercy of where All those other cars are parked as to whether They'll be able to get in and out. The reasons that we Originally were Opposed, and I sent you all an email Back in December About our opposition, Jamming these townhomes into a space That's too small. It's all synchronized. family down there and not townhomes, and it was a very small side yard buffer between the house next door and the proposed townhomes, and the increased traffic and parking issues on both Higby Mill and Trapassi. Those haven't been mitigated in my opinion. And the cars are just, there's just not going to be any room there. The mail truck already has issues, the garbage trucks already have issues, it's going to be even worse with all these additional units here. He can build two single family homes on this lot right now without any zone change. That would complete the street, it would fill in the street, and there's no reason that we can see for townhomes to be there. The other thing I'd like to say is I also felt like the communication was much too aggressive. It was very difficult for me to feel like I would be safe talking in person with this gentleman. Thank you. Okay, in your documents you have a right-of-way plan from 1980s to where, when Man O' War was built, Higby Mill was required, the city was required to build a court there. It never got built, okay? I don't have an explanation why it never got built. It's not, it wasn't built based on state standards, based on my research at the highway department, okay? So if that court had been built, a lot of these issues wouldn't be before you. So what I'm trying here to do today is to resolve the safety and soundness issue of a stub street. It's going to cost $125,000 to build this court, and that's what the neighborhood needs, what the town needs for safety and soundness for the EMTs, the police, the fire, and all these other people. As far as the comments that parking, Higby Mill is an arterial street, which means it's extra wide. There's plenty of parking. Parking is not an issue here. The issue is safety and soundness. As far as the comments made by the Collins' attorney here, that's just not true. I tried to approach these people in 16 to buy the right-of-way when I realized the court didn't get done. They wouldn't sell to me, okay, fine. I didn't want to continue this project and not resolve the right-of-way issues. It's infested with honeysuckle. People come there, dump truckloads of trash and debris. Code enforcement calls me, thinks it's mine. It's not. It's in the right-of-way. This right-of-way issue has cost me several years and thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars trying to resolve it, this abandoned right-of-way. We're here now to resolve. I'm here now to fill this in. It needs to be resolved now, and the way to resolve it that's in the best interest of the community is to build this court. To build this court, I got to have more units. Yes, I could build two houses, but that's not going to solve the right-of-way problems. That's not going to solve the safety and soundness problems. I'm open for questions. Mr. Minion, I don't think anybody has any questions yet. I want to see if Ms. Holland has anything additional, because you kind of stepped up before I was going to ask. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. It's fine. Yes, so the right-of-way issue is interesting, but again, as we have kind of pointed at, the left-hand side has already been acquired. When right-of-ways like this are parsed out, usually the developer of the Stonecreek neighborhood would have worked on going ahead and incorporating that abandoned right-of-way into each of those lots, and that did not happen at that time. My clients didn't purchase this property until well after 2016 when Mr. Minyard purchased the western portion. My clients came to us when they purchased the house not realizing that half of their backyard fenced in was an abandoned right-of-way. They are entitled to it as the adjacent property owners on that side of that property, and so they went through every detail of the process to get that acquired, and the neighbors on each side have the ability to do the same. This development does not resolve any right-of-way issues here. This development already incorporates Mr. Minyard's western portion of that right-of-way, so if there are any other questions, happy to answer. Thank you, Ms. Holland. Thank you. Thank you. Hold on, Mr. Minyard. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. I know where you can add nothing else. You just gave your rebuttal. You went too fast. Hold on one second. Okay. Ma'am, do you want to say anything? You sure? Okay. All right, Mr. Minyard. Now you can come on up. It's forming down. I hope so. It only gets better. It gets better? I hope it gets better. Y'all ready for better? Here's better. I want you to go short and sweet to the point. Okay. There's been a series of mistakes made here, none of which are my problems. I'm here to solve those mistakes. The plan before you has taken years to get to this point to where it's actually justifiable and feasible. The right-of-way issue must be resolved. I had to file suit. They wouldn't sell to me. Okay. They wouldn't talk to me when I knocked on the door. I had to file suit to get their attention. I don't need their right-of-way to build a court. The court should have been built in the 80s when men of war was built. The real issue in front of this board and in front of this neighborhood and in front of this community is a stub street. A stub street at a critical moment where every second matters is dangerous safety and soundness to the people of the neighborhood and the community, not to mention the trash workers. They've been slipping and sliding away too. When you get there, the trash truck can turn, the fire truck can turn, make a big difference. As far as the Stone Creek folks go, earlier in this, I spent a lot of time with my engineer trying to find a way, particularly to give the Collins' and their neighbor, the Jacobs to the north, access to a court so they wouldn't have the driveway that comes down behind their house and up in it. The last three weeks justify that. There's a plat restriction with Stone Creek that prevents them from tying into this. I tried to get it up to where they could do it. We just couldn't do it. There's also some utility issues here that are out of easement. There's more wins here than loses. I'm asking for your support. I'm here to do the right thing. I'm here to resolve problems. I'm here to make Lexington a better place. I appreciate your support. You have a question for me? Hold on. I've got some other members I want to check. Do we have any questions for Mr. Minion? No, sir. Thank you. Mr. Crum, do you have anything? Ms. Wade, anything you wanted to add? Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll bring it back to the commission. Further questions or Ms. Wirth? Just for clarification, Mr. Filiotro, Higbee Mill Road, can that accommodate parking on both sides? Are there one-side parking restrictions? What's the situation there? It's narrow between the cul-de-sac and the adjacent intersection, which is Trapassee. I think it's more narrow. It's shown on the cross section. I think it's 19 feet there. It does widen out to about 24 feet, which I don't believe there's explicitly restrictions on there, but that is slightly more narrow than our standard cross section, which is 27. Trapassee is 27 feet wide, and I think if you go to Google Street View, you'll see there's some parking on the right side. There is general parking in the area, but it looks like, at least what I've seen, that most generally people just drop park in their driveways. There's not a lot of on-street parking utilized. Thank you for the answer. This is Jonathan Davis. I need a little bit more clarification on that. Are you saying that neighbors can park safely or cannot park safely on the street? Yes or no? Generally, fire safety wants 20 feet clear, but that's not an across-the-board kind of applicable thing. It's usually case-by-case. In 24, if you park on there, that would reduce it to less than 20. If there were certain complaints, that might result in a parking restriction, but there is none today. Trapassee would be fine regardless. There's 27 feet. The width of a car is about 7 feet, a little less, and so that would be fine. Higbee Mill, that's why it's kind of a ... There's plenty of streets that are 24 feet that have parking, but there's also consternation from public safety sometimes when that occurs. Right now, there's no restriction on on-street parking for this section of Old Higbee Mill. I know that's a little cloudy, but it's not necessarily a hard and fast rule either. I'd like a bit more clarification. When you say no restriction, does that mean it's safe? Well, I mean ... I'm asking as a citizen. I'm not a traffic engineer, so as a citizen, look at this. Safety is such a ... Probably most ... I've lived on streets that are 24 feet wide and parked on the street, and it's felt safe to me. Now, I'm sure there's instances where if there's a ... This could be a public safety question as well. There could be instances where there's a ladder truck that maybe has trouble getting through there or if they need to set up at a particular location. The 20 feet wide is because of the outriggers. Now, that's generally why they want that. The 20 feet clear, excuse me. There's certainly scenarios where that could be, I guess, an impact. At least that's what our public safety members have expressed in the past. But again, a lot of the old streets in the downtown are less than 20 feet wide, so there's no ... Again, there's no strict rule where we've enforced it everywhere in that respect. I've got a question. Within the cul-de-sac, if someone were to park on the street, because we still are very much a driving community, so one car per townhome is probably not realistic. I would assume they would end up parking in the cul-de-sac. If that happens, does that allow emergency vehicles to be able to turn? Typically we restrict parking and try to restrict parking within a cul-de-sac. Do people do it? Yes, but typically that's not because it's a turning radius. The reason why it's 40 foot radius, I believe, or yeah, 45, for that radius for the fire truck. But in reality, they do park in it quite often. But as far as the parking, I know there's practicality and then there's a requirement. There is no parking minimums or maximums either, so it's another thought as well. Thank you. If there's not any further questions, the floor is open. We look at this, we will have two motions. I've got a bit of a confliction here with a couple of statements. The purpose of public engagement, as we put it in the plan, was to produce a better understanding with the understanding that potentially could be disagreements. But this is the first time I've heard that public engagement required police intervention in an area of that nature. I don't quite understand if the applicant didn't need the permission of the people to do what he did, then what's the nature of the police intervention? He sued them. So I don't quite understand that linkage. If he did not need their permission, then what was the purpose of the lawsuit, I guess is the question that I have. Lawsuit or the 10 o'clock or 10.30 call? No, he said he sued them. That's what I heard. I'd like to answer those questions. As far as police engagement goes, I don't even know what they're talking about. There's no police called out there. As far as the right-of-way goes, this thing is an eyesore. It's covered with invasive species of honeysuckle. It attracts trash and weeds. I want it cleaned up. I'm fixing to spend $125,000 to build a court. I don't have to build. I shouldn't have to build it. And if someone hadn't made a series of mistakes, it would have been built. I'm here today to build it. I'm here today to solve the problems. And I need your support. There was no police called. I had to file suit against my better judgment being something I didn't want to do to resolve this right-of-way problem that's an eyesore, that's an environmental hazard. It cost me two years. It's cost me tens of thousands of dollars. I want it resolved. I want this eyesore in my neighborhood cleaned up. My neighbors that join me would not take possession of their right-of-way. Okay. They don't have to. Let me take possession of it. And I'll clean it up. I'll make it look good. I'll make it smell good. And I'll stop all these people from dumping on it. You know, I'm here today to do the right thing. I'm asking you all to do the right thing. Thank you. Mr. Wilson, you got anything further? No, you know, these kinds of things, like I said, I feel a little uncomfortable. But our position here is, does this particular plan comply with the comprehensive plan? That's the issue. And based on our staff's recommendation, it does that. So to that end, I understand where the neighbors are coming from, but despite the other elements that go into this, I'm always concerned about neighbors when they come forward and say that there's, again, it's not intended to produce agreement necessarily, but understanding. But understandably, I feel and sense for the neighbors. But at the same time, I again, as a comprehensive plan, as it complies with the plan, that I would support that particular position. You just, you making a motion? Because on here it's showing you're making a motion. I move for approval of, let's see. It's on page three. Yeah, page three. Yeah, number one. Okay. I move for approval of PLN MAR 22-16 Realty Unlimited Bluegrass LLC with the conditions provided by staff. I'll second. I'll second. Yeah. Who's seconding it? Davis. Mr. Davis. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. We can vote via Granicus. Two, three. Okay. That motion passes. All right, Mr. Wilson. Okay. Still on page three, item B. Yeah, gotcha. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 22-59 Higbeeville Court Block 11 with the conditions provided by staff. All righty. So we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Seconded by Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Okay. That motion, Mr. Penn. Passes. Okay. Mr. Mignot, thank you. Neighbors, thank you. Okay. Mr. Wade, you want to follow up that? That act? All right. Go ahead. Did you ask if I wanted to follow that? Our next item is an initiation request for a text amendment. And it appears on your addendum today. So this is a request by the staff for the commission to initiate a text amendment. And we were able to print out the entire packet that we emailed out to the commission yesterday, in case you want a paper copy of that. And the first two pages is the summary that we mentioned. And then it includes the text of those particular articles. And again, those are proposed to be amended in order to comply with House Bill 443. And those will impact, at this point, Article 1 for definitions, Article 6 related to zone changes and amendments and conditional zoning restriction requirements for hearings, Article 9 for group residential projects, Article 11 for interchange service business zone, Article 12 for commercial center zone, Article 15 to clean up a deep building provision in those regulations, Article 16 related to vehicular use areas, and specifically within that, clarifying drive-through and pickup window standards, bike storage standards, and creating commercial access standards. The biggest changes you're going to see are in Article 21 for development plans to amend that process. And then Article 23 in the expansion areas and Article 28 for mixed use zones. You'll notice some of those include specific zones. In those zones, there are references to development plans going through a particular process. And so to make it uniform, we've deleted the references to development plan needing to follow these processes or variations of them in the B5P, B6P, mixed use, and expansion area zones. And it just refers back to Article 21 now. So those are some kind of clean up and just making the procedures all the same for each zone. Be happy to answer any questions about the process or the text. We did talk about it last week at work session. But we anticipate doing mailings in February and moving to public hearings in March. Ms. Werth? Yeah, just I don't want to get down into the weeds. You know, the old English teacher part of me would probably send some things over notes. Yeah, we'll have time for the weeds. That's not for today. But in terms of what impacts us, and I didn't read this as carefully as I read later, is there a description of at what point things pass to the zoning subcommittee or have we eliminated? I noticed we got very clear definition of when things would come to subdivision committee, and that's a big change. Is there also a description of when things come to the zoning subcommittee? That should not change. So all zone changes that are applied for are still a discretionary decision by the planning commission or recommendation. And so all zone changes will get filed and then be reviewed by the zoning committee. The zoning committee would be making recommendations on zone changes back to the full planning commission. Does that need to be included in this text, or is it just assumed that? It might be in the bylaws specifically. I'll double check article six just to make sure if we're missing something there. That's always been the process. Tracy, let me ask you one question. I pulled up or had pulled up 443, and that little one page sure caused a lot of change. It did, yes. My question to you on this is that we'll initiate this text amendment and then help me go through the process of how we'll get back to it. In other words, going down the road, how are we going to handle this? Do you mean implement the changes? Well, that's the last part of it. The first part of it is do we have public review on it? Do we? Yes. So at this point, this is the draft text, and we are working to post it to the planning commission website today so it's available. We'll add it to Estella so it has a case number. And then we will do our regular mailed notice to all the registered neighborhood associations and other organizations to make sure that they're aware the text amendment is available for review. And then we start our normal review going to a zoning committee for review, then to the full planning commission, which we anticipate those two things would happen in March. Then the planning commission will make a recommendation to the urban county council. Usually it takes about a month for the staff to prepare the minutes and send that report on to the council. And then the council would have generally May and June to review this and hopefully adopt it before the July 1st implementation deadline. And then in July, we would start whenever it's approved, we would start making changes process-wise. Okay. So we'll see it in a work session. We'll talk about not only implementing it but the unintended consequences. I love that, Trace. We can certainly talk about it, yes. Well, I mean, I can phrase it any way you want to, but there's going to be a discussion about this. Well, there's going to be changes for sure. If we want to talk about the text specifically, we can do that in February. I think as we get closer to implementation, the May-June window is when we'll talk about process changes. And also make sure that we're informing our applicants and their representatives about those process changes. It's a big change, there's no doubt about it. Okay, thank you. Mr. Nickel. Yes, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Penn, for going through this process and the lengthiness of this process. And our desire to handle all of this with as much effort as needed. What I would like to recommend, because this is going to take a long process, and this is a significant change to our entire ordinance. It looks like we've gone through Article 1 through 21, it looks like. I think that we're facing a problem right now with our corridor business zone. And I would like to propose we look into this problem that I'm going to address now with this ZOTA. So I'm going to recommend an amendment to investigate a change in the corridor business zone, the B3 zone. And I will get to the reason why. But as I look at the intent of the zone. So the intent of the zone is to provide retail and commercial uses which are necessary to the economic vitality of the community. But may be inappropriate in more neighborhood oriented zones. And these zones should be on arterials. What we've seen over the past couple of years are problems with getting B3 development plans through. And I believe that that problem is because of 820 section I, which requires a minimum lot coverage. And it is the only business zone that we have that requires a minimum lot coverage. The reason we have a lot coverage of 30% for the structure itself. So if we're looking at scattered parcels in our community that need to be redeveloped. So we get them off our vacant and underutilized land map. I think we should consider we're trying to promote density or promote use. And when we, in the business zones, when we associate that to the building size, we may reduce the economic vitality of that parcel. So I think we ought to think about the development of land. Not just from the land use side, but how it can affect the economic vitality as in stated by the intent. So what I would like to, when it is time, I would like to make an amendment to this ZOTA. To consider the possibility of changing section 820 of corridor business. Number I, to remove the minimum lot coverage. And the reason I'm saying that again is we want to improve the applicant's ability to provide economic vitality on vacant and underutilized properties. And I think we're running into it. I've seen three different cases where we're running into some issues with a minimum lot coverage. For example, on a one acre track, that's 43,560 square feet. 30% minimum lot coverage puts you at a 13,000 square foot building. And on these smaller sites, it doesn't make them economically viable. And I think we ought to consider removing that requirement so we can start using our vacant and underutilized property. Not just for density, which we want to see a lot more for our housing as we saw today. Putting an R2 development next to an R1 development. But what I'm saying is from the economic vitality standpoint, if we reduce that requirement or eliminate that requirement completely as I'm requesting, we will see those parcels be used. Go from being vacant and underutilized to providing greater economic viability for our community. So when the time comes, I would like to make that recommendation as an amendment to this ZOTA that is looking into quite a few of our different regulations. Thank you. Yes, sir. Bruce, I'm not here to argue whether you're right or wrong. I just think if we're going to start today adding amendments to this, that none of us have read this to the scope that you have. So if we're going to pass this with your amendment, how are we going to take care of some of the others that's going to come up? Because we haven't studied this like you have. We have until July 1st to look into that. And I'd recommend we do a sweeping change wherever we find necessary while we are engaged with the community trying to address these issues. Why wouldn't you do it in the process rather than an initiation? Because without an initiation, we're not going to look into it. So with an initiation through an amendment, that gives us the ability to get the community interested in this potential change. And if we come across potential changes along the way, if they're R5, R4, RT, whatever they may be, we should try to incorporate them in this process while we have all eyes on this. So that's my argument for going ahead and initiating something like this. It provides a precedent for, or it provides the community to know that we are interested in making as many changes as we can with our ZOTA to not only meet HB443, but to provide a way to reduce our vacant and unutilized property. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Yes. Just, I want to be, just to clarify, I mean, whatever. First off, let me just say you're initiating today. So it will continue to move forward through the process, and you all can discuss. We expect that there would be tweaks. However, just so you're clear, the time frame is that you all will be making a recommendation about this, whatever you decide to include in it, and it will be done by the end of March because it has to get to the council. They have to enact this, and we're trying to hit that July 1st deadline, or else we're going to have to be trying to figure out how to meet HB443 without this change. So just so we're all clear on the time frame, we have until July 1st for it to be enacted, but your all's role comes in a little sooner. So March is our deadline, end of March. End of March is our deadline, right? Yes. So is there, oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Bixler. I was just going to, I guess, part a thought, part a question, but normally when we've been initiating ZOTAs, they're tied to the comprehensive plan and implementation aspects of the comprehensive plan. And this ZOTA is, if I'm reading this correctly, is unique in that it's not tied to the implementation of the comprehensive plan, it's tied to remaining, you know, addressing a statutory change at the state level. And I guess, you know, regardless of whether I agree or disagree on this specific aspect, it makes sense to me, and I guess I'll feel you out if we sort of keep the ZOTAs related to the comprehensive plan implementation separate from identifying the areas in the ordinance as you sort of started to do that have to be addressed related to House Bill 443. And areas in the ordinance that are specific already, such as a specific lot coverage or specific floor area ratio, those would be in compliance with 443. Is that not correct? Because they are specific. That is true. The ordinance draft that the staff has prepared does not change any of the specific measurable requirements of any of the zones, like front yards or side yards or FARs, any of those things. We are working towards either clarifying something that might be considered subjective or updating something that has been, again, not interpreted multiple ways to try to, again, make sure it's very clear for applicants and there's not judgment calls being made. And I do think changes to individual zones, if that's initiated, should really be a separate tract to be considered so that we don't potentially derail the timeline for this particular text amendment. That really has to be implemented. Understood. And I'm not requesting an approval of a potential ZOTA. I just wanted to use an opportunity while we are all focusing on this large ZOTA to consider this request for included in this zone ordinance text amendment so that we can start to address this as we're seeing it more and more. I understand. I guess our perspective is that this is a required change and we need to move forward with the things that need to be updated and then changes that perhaps are not necessary or tweaks to existing requirements should be on a separate tract. And it could start today as well. We could initiate it. I would just ask that it not be included with this packet but perhaps as a second initiation. Understood. I'll do it that way. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Everybody. Yes, sir. Mr. Pinn. Mr. Owens, you got something? No, at this point. I don't think. Oh, come on. No, you cut off. Let me just say, I think from what I'm hearing, I would agree with Ms. Wade in the fact that what Mr. Nickel is offering should be on a separate tract altogether. I haven't had a chance to get down into what all he's talking about but getting the general concept. I think it's a separate tract and something we can discuss and get into but it's just a separate. It would be a separate ZOTA altogether. I think Mr. Nickel would agree with that as long as it comes up in a discussion. So, I'm going to move it to Mr. Pinn. Initiate? Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I'd like to initiate a text amendment proposal to make LFUCG Planning Commission in compliance with House Bill 443 that was requested by the development community and update KRS 100 as requested by the staff. All right, we have a motion. We have a second by Ms. Wirth. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. All right. Floor is open. All right, I'm going to take this opportunity to see if we can get I would like to initiate a ZOTA to amend Article 8, Section 820 to remove the minimum lot coverage. And this is not to have it approved right now. It's just to start to investigate this so we may solve some problems that we're starting to see more and more of in our economically viable vacant land. So, it's just a request for us to put our focus and effort to consider that possibility. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nickel. Ms. Wade, when that comes up, do we need to put that up in writing so everybody can see it, or did you get it? I have it, and Mr. Sheehy will just make a separate motion for everyone. That's fine. I was going to make sure that you had it. That's all for staff purposes. Sit again. Okay. Excuse me. So, we got a second by Ms. Barksdale. Any discussion to that motion? Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I would like to offer that we give staff a chance to look into this and digest it and get back with as much as they did with this wonderful House Bill 443 in a work session and proceed that way prior to going forward with a ZOTA today. Okay. Those are my thoughts. That's a good, I think that's a good suggestion. I thought they were going to do that anyway when they had a chance, but House Bill 443 is first. Yes. Yeah. I mean, I think we just went through a ZOTA where we intentionally made a lot of changes to ask for increased utilization of the land as it's developed. This feels like a pretty fast turnaround, the other direction on that to me. I would be interested before initiating this on seeing if, seeing, you know, giving, kind of elaborating on what you just said, giving the staff time to find some examples of what this development would look like. And what the data is behind this change that's been made before we walk it back or initiate a ZOTA that sort of forces a hand in a public discussion and brings it all into this forum. Okay, thank you. Just a comment on that. We did in the HB443 changes, we do amend the process for the, we amend the application procedure for the ZOTAs in general, per the attorney general opinion guidance. And we are the body that can initiate a ZOTA. So I'm not asking for us to vote on it. I'm asking for us to initiate a ZOTA that we can then consider with the full focus of the talent that's here. Ms. Worth. So clarification, if we proceed down the road we're on now, do we have an opportunity to think this through before it goes for public comment and hearing? You mean on Mr. Nichols' proposal? Absolutely. Yes. There's no time limit. Yeah, I didn't think he was trying to rush it through. The way I understood it, we was going to have further discussion. But it's going to give staff time to do your due diligence before it comes back. Right. But I'm sure staff's got things they're already working on, but I'll leave that to staff. That was my only way I understood that, right? Okay. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? We can vote via Granicus. Okay. Okay, that motion passes. Everybody on my right voted no. You have a coalition. I'm going to call you. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Also, Tracy, thank you. I know this has been a long process. You and your team are trying to get as much as you can do as quickly as you can. I want to reiterate, we do pay attention. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A reminder of our next get-together. It's on a week from today, Thursday, February 6th for committees, 830 subdivision, 130 zoning in the Phoenix building. Thank you. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.