Have a great day. Good afternoon. Today is August 14th and this is the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government's Planning Commission subdivision items hearing. Our first item on the agenda is the approval of the revised December 12th 2024 minutes. Do we have any comments or questions about the revision that was circulated? Seeing none, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. I'll move for approval of the revised minutes for December 12th 2024. Thank you, sir. Is there a second? Thank you, Ms. Worth. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. Yeah, Mr. Owens and then Ms. Worth was our second. All right, that carries with one abstention. Our next item on the agenda we'll go a little out of order and do performance bonds and letters of credit. We do not have the June minutes ready. Sorry, the June minutes were already approved and Paula just sent out the July ones but we didn't have time to get it on the agenda so they'll be on your next agenda in two weeks. It was July's, yes. All right, we'll jump over to performance bonds and letters of credit. We should have a memorandum in our packet for Mr. Fairchild dated August 14th. Do we have a motion on that? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. So moved. Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'm sorry, Paul. Who made the motion? That was Mr. Wilson and then second for Mr. Forrester. All right, Mr. Forrester, could I trouble you for your vote? Thank you. All right, that carries unanimously. Next item on the agenda, postponements and withdrawals. The staff has received an email about a postponement. If you all turn to page two, number one, the final subdivision plan, PLN FRP 2514 Boonesboro Manor Interstate Park property. Cheryl, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Could you speak up just a little bit? I'm sorry. Page two, item number one, PLN FRP 2514 Boonesboro Manor Interstate Park property. They've asked for a one-month postponement by an email to the staff. Okay, and what would that be? September 11th? It's no, number one. Oh, to September 11th. Yes, I'm sorry. Alrighty. Thank you. Do we have any discussion or a motion on that requested postponement? Mr. Forrester? I make a motion for a one-month postponement for PLN FRP 25-14. Thank you. With a second from Ms. Worth, any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. All right, that carries unanimously. Thank you. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals from staff? Okay. That said, that will take us to, on page two, item number three. And I believe this is our first, Ms. Wade, this is our first waiver of a requested waiver of a development plan. Of the subdivision Okay, we're looking at PLN MJDP 25-33 Jericho Inc. Professional Office Project Lot 3 amended. This plan is located at 251 Yorkshire Boulevard, which is at the corner of Palumbo and Yorkshire. Richmond Road is out in this area, a little farther off the plan. The purpose of this amendment is to add 40 parking spaces and required interior landscaping to Lot 3. There's an existing office building and an associated building and existing parking on the site at this time. I believe it's 7.85 acres. The proposal is for an additional parking area adjacent to the existing parking area. This was postponed from the July 10th meeting due to, in the zoning ordinance section 16-6A-1, it states that on a corner lot, vehicular use areas shall not be in the front yard on a corner lot. Where this is a corner lot, the front yard would be anything in front of the existing building along either street. So the existing parking lot predates that change to the zoning ordinance, but the new proposal would be subject to that standard and it is shown in the front yard on that lot. This was postponed due to the questions about the vehicular use area and its location. If this is approved, there are the standard sign-offs, engineering, traffic engineering, landscaping, urban forest or environmental quality, bike ped, green space, waste management, and U.S. Postal Service sign-off. And then we also had an additional condition to discuss the location of the proposed VUA in the front yard in compliance with Article 16-6 of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has since July submitted a waiver request to allow for the new parking area, the expansion of the parking within the front yard on a corner lot. And with that, you should have a copy of the waiver request in your packet. This is the first one that will be presented that is a waiver of the zoning ordinance. So it's a similar format to what you would have seen before with the waivers of the land subregs. We've kind of kept everything in the same place. We just changed a little bit of the boilerplate language that references back to the zoning ordinance instead of the land subregs. There is also a letter attached dated July 30th of this year for the waiver request. Make sure I've got the right one here. The findings necessary for the granting of a waiver in this case, the Planning Commission may approve waivers of standards upon a finding that number one, the waiver will not compromise public health, safety, and welfare. Number two, the extent of the waiver of the regulation is the minimum necessary to reasonably afford relief to the applicant. And number three, either A, the applicant has incorporated other design measures that exceed the minimums of the zone and compensate for non-compliance with the requirements to be waived. Or B, the strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. After reviewing the waiver request, again, for a 40 parking space expansion to the existing 36 space parking lot for the existing professional office building, which was built in 1998, the proposed parking lot, the plan is oriented east would be to the bottom right corner. So south would be kind of an, I don't know how to explain it. So the parking lot is south of the existing building. Sorry, lost my place a little bit here. It extends, the proposed parking lot extends approximately 110 feet in front of the building toward Yorkshire Boulevard. And then the existing structure, or the existing parking lot, as I said before, would be considered legally non-conforming because it was in place prior to the change in the ordinance. To the west, there's a lake and a floodplain. They're topographical considerations based on the terrain, the existing structure, the existing parking, which do somewhat limit the possible locations for parking on the site. And this is all well behind the required 20 foot setback in a P1 zone. The applicant opines that the proposed location for the new parking lot is more functional and safe than an alternate location, that the proposed location minimizes site grading, maintains the improved open spaces, and protects the natural drainage patterns. It will not interfere with municipal easements, emergency access, or interfere with the public traffic flow. And the applicant also states that this proposal aligns more closely with the spirit and intent of Article 16.6 of the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver of Article 16-6A.1 for the following reasons. Number one, graining the requested waiver does not adversely affect public health, welfare, and safety in this location as the proposed vehicular use area expansion will be located on a large parcel with adequate undeveloped land that serves only the employees and visitors to the existing office building. Graining the waiver does not exceed the minimum relief necessary to accomplish the applicant's goals with the vehicular use area expansion. A reduction in size or relocation would reduce the effectiveness of the expansion. And number three, graining the waiver is consistent with the intent of Article 21-9D of the zoning ordinance as a strict application of the provisions of the regulation would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or would create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. And finally, staff recommends if the waiver is approved that landscape buffering of the new vehicular use area must meet the requirements of Article 18-3A.2 of the zoning ordinance. And with that, I'll open it up for questions. All righty. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you very much. Do we have an applicant who wishes to speak to this today? Yes. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Daniel Rayner with Thoroughbred, representing the applicant in Valvoline on this project. As Chris mentioned, we had submitted this before last month and have been working through some of the issues with the parking and trying to figure out how to place the parking lot within the current subdivision regs. And the issue we ran into was obviously the location of parking based on the new changes of a year or so ago on this. And we had submitted right on the cusp of transferring into this waiver, this new waiver process. And so we went ahead and postponed so we could follow all the proper procedure, post the sign, send out the notification letters, for our waiver request, and follow all that procedure which we have done. And just to kind of reiterate, some of the things that we did try to change to further meet the intent of Article 16, which mainly has to do, as you know, with parking, but also trying to encourage redevelopment of existing properties and minimizing environmental footprint. We actually went ahead and had taken out, there was a loop road that went around here. So again, trying to further be within the intent of that and minimize our impact, we took that kind of loop road out to minimize the impact to the existing property. And we had looked, we tried everything we could to try and see if we could fit it anywhere further down. But the more, the further down we go, you can see it drops off probably five or six feet, adds more impervious area, places the parking lot right adjacent to the lake, and so, which is just not an ideal runoff condition. And so meeting, meeting with with Valvoline and their needs and having the parking lot closer to the building was, is the thing that makes the most sense. And so just kind of reading a little, a snippet from the letter that you may have reviewed there that you guys have access to, just relocating the parking lot to the proposed lower area would require additional paving, site clearing, and likely more substantial disruption of the green space and natural runoff patterns, especially with proximity to the lake. And the proposed plan that we have here avoids unnecessary expansion of impervious surfaces and protects the surrounding green areas. So both key sustainable goals for Valvoline Global as well. And after reviewing staff reports and their, their findings for this waiver, we're in favor of all those. We, we are in agreement with those and obviously going to meet any of the required landscape buffering for the vehicle use areas. So if you all have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Sorry. Okay. Ms. Davis. Thank you, Chair. Hi. I have been looking at the plan and wonder about a couple of things. You're adding another point of access on Yorkshire Boulevard and it seems kind of a funny street and then it goes through Yorkshire Boulevard and it turns the corner and becomes Palumbo. Were there any concerns from, about adding another access point so close to where that curve happens? That's, that's a good question. So we actually aren't adding any new access points. This access point is existing to their parking lot that goes right here. I see. And then our expansion, it comes right off that parking lot and it's just this, these parking spaces right here. So even though there's a hard line between kind of this parking area and that there, it is meant to be, you're supposed to be able to drive to both of them from that access point off Yorkshire Boulevard. Yes. The existing access is off Yorkshire Boulevard. So the parking lot here and here would be accessed from the same entrance. So no, no new access points are required, if I'm understanding your question correctly. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions? Seeing none, thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this request today? Seeing none, do we have any final commission comment or question? If not, the floor is open for a motion to, on the waiver. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLMJDP 25-33 Jericho Incorporated Professional Office Project for the reasons provided by staff. Thank you. And this is approval of the waiver. Yes. Do you want them both at the same time? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I see what you're doing. No, that's fine. Whatever. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Do we have a second Mr. Wilson's motion? Thank you, Mr. Whatever. Okay. All right. Any discussion on that motion? All right. Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. And that carries unanimously. Thank you. And then, Mr. Wilson, if you'd now for the waiver. Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLMJDP 25-33 Jericho Professional Office Project's waiver for the reasons provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? Ms. Wirth, thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none. All right. That also carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Next item, we're on page three. Vernon and Roxy Harris Property, 363 Pasadena. Good afternoon. As you said, this is MJDP 25-41 Vernon Roxy Harris Property. This property is, this is Pasadena. And then, we have Hillandale, Eastway. We come down here. We have Sunseeker. The property is located in the middle of all this. It's a property right now that's currently accessed off of Pasadena. This plan did make it to the committees last week, or last month, earlier this month. And it was recommended for a referral. And it's a referral because of the waivers that were asked for. We have an access easement finding and then a terminus for a public street, private street. So, that's what we're going to present here. They are asking for an access easement for the sole purpose of the access for the townhomes that they have located here on the property. They're showing 16 townhomes with one access out to Hillandale. They want to use that as the sole purpose for the access for the properties. Access easements are typically created to look like a public street in the fact of having sidewalks, curb and gutters, and having as the purpose to get on off the property to a public street. They also, so for the access easement, we need to make a finding for the approval of that. Then the terminus for the public street, all streets have a terminus to them unless they're stepped into a piece of property for future development. As you can see on this property here at the top, Hillandale was stubbed into this street so now it's connecting. Sunseeker down here was stubbed into this and so now we're going to make that connection for everyone to have a connection from Hillandale to Sunseeker and also from Eastway will now connect into the Hillandale. So then our property here is going to be located here. They do not have a cul-de-sac. They're filing this as a hardship due to the size and the shape of the property to be able to create a cul-de-sac on this property. What they have shown here is a area for large vehicles to be able to come down here and if they need to to back up to turn around. Due to the size of the property and the configuration of the townhome lots to be able to be created on this property. So they asked for the waiver for that terminus. After the review, the staff believes that granting the waiver for the public street to be created as an access easement. We found that there was not a public safety or health public health and safety problem for the community. Then the terminus we feel like with the addition of the turnaround meets the intention for the safety of that area. We feel along with that again the public health and safety welfare falls in line with the land subregs. We ask that along with this that there will be no parking signs along the access easement and also within the turnaround area and then that the access easement pavement curb and sidewalk all be constructed to the minimum standards of the roadway manual. They are proposing on this property the access easement. We have a 10-foot setback and so what they've done is they pulled the sidewalk to the front and then they're moving the utility strip behind that sidewalk so that meets the 10-foot setback. So that's why we want to make sure that the curb and gutters are allowed on the access easement. And with that I'll answer any other questions. Okay, thank you Cheryl. Do we have any questions at this time? Yes sir, Mr. Owens. Sorry, thank you Mr. Chair. Cheryl, it came up in subdivision as to the terminus on the access and the possible backing up. I believe it was clarified that BAR is okay with that? Yes sir, yes sir. They are okay with that. I spoke with Mr. Embree about that again the other day and so yes he's in agreement that would be fine. Okay, he's coming up I think. He was debating. Maybe, maybe not. Embree Beatty with fire. Yes, I'm in agreement with that as long as that turnaround is provided there stays restricted parking on that. So no parking of any vehicles or roll carts or anything of that nature as far as solid waste is involved. Okay, thank you. All right, we have any other questions? Mr. Mickler. Yeah, I asked this at the preliminary but just because it's back in front of us again, if I recall correctly that Sunseeker connection to Pasadena is private and they intend to close it or could close it? You can see here, here is Sunseeker right here. When this property was developed there was no connection to any public streets so they had a connection through this lot here out to Pasadena. And then there's a note on the plan that says that when this does have a connection occur then that lot connection will be removed. So this lot now will be sold for a single-family home and the connection to Pasadena has been removed, will be removed. So that Sunseeker circles down here for another cul-de-sac will have access through Hillendale and through Eastway as the rest of the property. This completes a connection of several pieces of property that are all stubbed together so it gets more access to everyone because this Eastway will take you down to Southland Drive. I guess my question is and I know that the preliminary staff did not recommend it but I mean is there a reason why the we I mean by creating that as a dead end if that Sunseekers closed then essentially it's a half a mile loop when I'm looking at Google maps to get back to essentially where they are on Pasadena. So if you've got residents I mean that sort of bigger picture in the comprehensive plan if we're trying to reduce vehicular miles traveled and peoples and cars if we're if we're creating bigger loops that just adds miles slowly incrementally. Is there a reason that like a right we wouldn't require a right out or right in or some sort of connection to Pasadena? At the time when that plot was recorded it's been a while I was working for planning at the time it was somewhat of a public safety issue because it's right it's kind of a blind spot over top the railroad tracks so this gentleman came in and he wanted to develop his land and to be able to develop it this was the best access point was to be furthest away from the railroad tracks because just right along here is the railroad and we have a bridge that crosses over right here at Pasadena so it was agreed upon that they would be able to develop the land and it would be turned over for public safety issues to be able to be connected to the rest of the subdivision when they do have a connection and it's a note that's on the plat I guess can it be revisited I don't know I don't know if it can be revisited or not I believe they've sold the property well since that property is not in front of the Planning Commission today it's gonna be hard to make no I think I think I'm jumping back to this property sorry to not clarify I'm wondering why when we don't have a reliable connection there this property wouldn't we wouldn't want to see or wouldn't ask that this property be connected to Pasadena because the space it creates a pretty big loop by not connecting it essentially to get back out to Nicholasville they're gonna drive a half an extra mile every every day multiple times spacing for access street access to there's a distance for street access and so there was an access point from this property on to Pasadena but that was for a single-family dwelling unit now we're gonna have 16 dwelling units and so due to the spacing we have Stone Road up here then we have a couple residential access then we have another access down here for another townhome development so there's a certain distance in spacing that we like to see within the or the land sub regs and adding that as an access point will not meet that spacing requirement see a tip so David Philly at your traffic engineering so there's kind of two things we're talking you know when we talk about the subject regulations generally it's a bit we're planning for the future we're doing things based on policy things like that course in this instance we have actual reality to look back on so there's a bit of you know we can look and see if there's been a collision issues things like that but then there's also like they're mentioning it's in it's written recorded plat that once this connection made that that can now be become a single-family home now whether it does and what how quickly is another thing altogether so as far as like it may I don't know like we would have to either one of two things would happen to part the person who owns that lot could then block it off do with like said make credit or we would have to block that connection so it's not gonna go away on its own so there's gonna be a reality to that that that is a little unusual in this instance but whether it stays or not first would have to be up to the the person who owns that lot and then second would have to be some sort of I don't know like a waiver so that would have to be a whole nother process I think outside of this of this what we're doing today just because of reality yes Sunseeker oh I'm sorry I'm sorry okay I'm just you're we're creating we're creating these homes yeah right and let's just assume for a second hypothetically that they might want to go to Nicholasville Road I don't know why anybody would want to go to Nicholasville Road but maybe they want to go to Nicholasville Road essentially they'll if I'm looking at Google the way that this is configured with that as a dead end mm-hmm if if the other one were closed would have an extra half a mile of driving every time they go to Nicholasville Road so over you know over and over and over again and as we look to sort of like reduce vehicle miles traveled I'm sort of wondering how we weigh things and why you know as these plans come through we're not you know I understand there's spacing constraints and it's near other things but it seems like we're also trying to promote connectivity and as we do these urban you know redevelopments those connectivity things are often not going to look like a greenfield mm-hmm and so I guess if you could speak to that so in that instance yeah it does go back to what Cheryl talked about with the our policies that are in place and as far as abiding by that that it would it would violate the kind of the spacing of the subdivision regulations the client would have to want that additional spacing we'd have to go through that whole process but but to the point as far as going forward in greenfield situations there should be that the complete trees manual and the existing urban growth master plan should help take care of some of those instances based on policies they're trying to apply those in retrofits are going to be something I guess we basically will have to take on them in the next the coming months but in this specific instance it would be something they would have to it would try to think that we typically access easements don't connect on both institute private so it's just a kind of a complicating factor then like Cheryl said would would have to have a waiver to overcome in that instance so all right miss Davis thank you chair David you might want to come back was it ever considered that since this property is being developed by the same group that has developed to the west that rather than having two large stub pave-outs there's a connection made to the one in the new development to the north so that there can not have to be there's better connectivity yeah I believe the client the applicant might be able to answer that better because that was something that was discussed at the time the first one came in that would benefit something that the applicant who's the question who should be answering the question right or the statement raised by the urban forester that's in our agenda that the applicant does not preserve protect the greatest number of trees those applicant can answer that okay thanks okay before we go to the applicant I'm having a hard time opening the citizen comment PDF so is there a way we could get the citizen comment either printed or on granicus yeah I'm sorry the PDF is all right let's let's do this while we work on that why don't we go ahead and move to the applicant if they are present mr. chairman members of the Commission mark McCain with vision engineering also here with mark McIntosh we're in agreement with what the staff has be glad to answer any questions okay all righty do we have any questions for the engineers so I'll go back to the two questions that were referred to the applicant one was the comment made by the urban forester we don't have the ability to see where the existing trees are so we don't know which ones we don't know what the current configuration is but it says it likely does not preserve protect the greatest number of trees maybe you can speak to that and then the other question is it doesn't show up as well and in this vision but what we have on our on our computer screens is the development to the west or north of the plan plan plan north there's the the the turnaround is again provided for the new development that I believe it says in here the same developer owns and and would it be possible rather than having a home there to tie the two developments together and put another house say where the turnaround paving paved area is well with regard to the trees I've talked to the urban forester sending emails we've talked about meeting I'm not sure what is what his status is excuse me what his status is but he doesn't seem to have a lot of heartburn about what's going on he seemed to plan I've seen him tree protection so I can't answer you know I know that the what he has said is trees are not the the best in the area so we provided him with what we're going to say and this is where we are so so on the list of trees that are on the on the plan how many of those are saved and how many are taken away I can't answer off top my head but it is on the it is on the chart says which ones are going to be removed and what about the idea of tying it to the development to the north rather than creating a new step out a new stub I'm gonna let my traffic engineer answer though okay come on up mark mark squared commission members I'm mark max hosh with vision engineering the lots at 375 Pasadena the seven townhomes is constructed I believe there's some owners in they're occupying now so I think with a detention area where we have it and with the construction and built townhomes it's tough to make that connection I'm not I'm not understand almost impossible to make that connection it's impossible to make the connection from between them from 363 to 357 yeah I think we reached the point where we've been approved the zoning development plans been approved last year and now we're at this stage with the following development plan and just asking for a waiver today so yeah we have 16 townhomes that are going to be built that can help them help Lexington out with housing so well sure this is just the kind of plan I think that's you know infill and redevelopment that is called for in the comp plan but I guess the the questions are in the details is why can you not I guess consider tying into something that you already have to increase the connectivity and and have fewer stubbed stubbed turnaround area I mean I think would be removing townhomes so I think that's the issue all right okay also I'd like to go back to the connections I don't know if the map is up but in 2004 the Sunseeker Court plat was recorded with a temporary note for I believe it's 2577 Sunseeker Court and it's a temporary says that lot would be reserved for temporary access until Hill and L and or Eastway Drive is constructed and dedicated by plot to the existing Street at such time the temporary access easement shall be removed at the developers expense and the developer is Schneider designs and look at that Lexington PVA their addresses in Hollywood California so there's Snyder designs is still active and still still out there but so they also could close Sunseeker off to Hill and Dale Road if they wanted to whether it's the temporary access to Pasadena and Pasadena doesn't have turn lanes to serve that temporary access so since 2004 that temporary access has been there I'll give the floor to other California all righty thank you very much do we have any other questions seeing none thank you is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this request seeing none do we have any final Commissioner comment or question before we entertain a motion from the staff perspective mr. crumb has pulled up the email evidently there's an IT issue with with the Adobe on your all's computers but this is the email that we received that shows up as comments in Granicus okay we'll take a second to read that was that the only item of public okay you okay do we have any again any further Commission discussion or questions sorry okay to address miss Davis's question I think we looked at the tree inventory plan with mr. McCain there were 54 trees identified and it it looks like about 18 of them are being saved around the perimeter of the property okay thank you I guess this is a question more for the planning department about comments like this it's not with it yes about that it's not within the planning Commission's jurisdiction to take care of concerns like this but when they do happen it seems that there should be a pretty clear way for concerned citizens to express their their problems and issues and I just hope that there can be some some way that it's clear how this person can express his problems I noted on the PVA map he lives at the corner of Hill and Dale and the cross street not east way so he must be subject to construction more than anyone so I just hope that we can you know public comment varies in its in how it comes to us but something like this is a little hard to tell what his real problem is but obviously he has a problem with with this so I hope we can do something to give him a clear way to make his concerns known because we aren't the right body to take his concerns I think all right do we have any other commissioner comment or questions before we move on okay thank you applicant floors open for a motion thank you staff for getting the public comment and we will I suppose we need two motions one for each waiver mr. chair yes sir mr. Evans comment and then a motion if it's okay being in the subdivision committee last week and with this being the first plan that came to us after our wonderful house bill and changes there was more questions about process really as then the plan itself recognizing it's not without some considerations but the reason for this being referred to the Planning Commission as a whole without a recommendation is simply for that purpose is to to just simply let the process work and everyone see it and flush out any questions that may have may come up during that time so with that I will move for approval we have two waivers yes we do have two waivers I'll move for approval where are they actually I think there's just one with with the two with access easement and terminus I'll move for approval of the waiver associated with plan MJ DP 25-4 41 Vernon Roxy Harris properties for the reasons provided by the staff noting the two conditions highlighting the two conditions as far as no parking on the access easement itself second okay thank you mr. Owens thank you mr. Jonathan Davis for seconding so this is approval of both the access easement waiver and the terminus of the public street okay do we have any discussion of mr. Owens all right okay that passes unanimously thank you thank you thank you thank you applicant okay next item on the agenda if I'm correct is on page 4 PLN MAR 25 7 Anderson campus rental properties yes ma'am do we need to I think it would make me feel more comfortable if we voted on the plan I didn't think we had to approve the development plan here well since there is a waiver for that you're approving the waiver and then the plan as it includes that waiver I will stand corrected and move back a minimum motion to say that the motion would be for approval of you just want to do a new motion Mike well second motion yeah just for the plan let me get to it here so new motion would be for approval of plan MJDP 25-41 Vernon and Roxy Harris property with the 8 noted record yeah moving down to the bottom it'll be for the 14 did you say 14 noted conditions sure okay which some page 3 and page 4 of the agenda all right thank you mr. Owens seconded by mr. Worth yes this new format can we'll get it we'll put that to a vote all right do we need to go back to the waiver I don't believe so because we passed all that's all right all right now we are moving on to Anderson campus rental properties yes of variance yes good afternoon Jeremy I'm planning staff this is the only zoning application on the agenda today it was submitted it was submitted by Anderson camp campus rental properties LLC and the request is for three properties 122 Simpson Avenue 1 1 0 4 Fern Avenue and 1 1 9 Burley Avenue they all three properties together total about a half acre the request is for rezoning from R1D and R1T which are single-family dwellings and townhomes to R4 medium-density residential and initially the applicant requested a variance subsequent redesigns of the development plan render the variance unnecessary so I would suggest the applicant withdraw that the applicant has indicated place type enhanced neighborhood and development type of medium-density residential and you can see here along the there we go there is Broadway and Harrisburg Road sort of to the northwest you have Nicholasville Road here to the east and Virginia to the north and Waller there to the south so it's located basically in the middle of all those roadways and then you have the Norfolk Southern Railway that runs directly adjacent to the properties and as far as zoning this area is basically split fairly evenly between R4 shown here in the brown R1D here in the lighter yellow slightly darker yellow indicates the R1T townhouse zoning and then you've got a mixture of B4 in the purple here R2 B6P up here in this slightly different shade of orange and then one little pocket of R3 down here and in this view you can see a little bit better subject properties here outlined in yellow and then the existing multifamily development that this application intends to expand and the entire area covered by the development plan which Cheryl will talk about here in a little bit will be generally this area here and this is 119 Burley Avenue you can see in the background the existing multifamily development which is right here in this area and just above that you can see in the horizon there the fifth third building and this is a different view of the same lot just on the other side of this tree line that's the Norfolk Southern line and then this is the Prospect Avenue and this is Burley and this leads toward the tracks this is a view of 122 Simpson it's currently vacant and this is the last property it's 1104 Fern it has a residential structure that is obviously slated to be removed if this plan is approved this is 1104 Fern Avenue this this particular property is 109 Simpson Avenue it's not part of the zone change request but it is part of the development plan and there will be some discussion about this later this is one of the areas of concern for staff that it took some discussion with the engineering department the applicant but I think that we've we've we've got a path forward for the zone change so as I stated before the applicant indicates that a enhanced neighborhood place type and a development type of medium density residential and you can see by this chart that the both the medium density residential and the R4 zoning are recommended in the enhanced neighborhood place type and the applicant has supplied has indicated that the the new development will resemble the existing development with which this is an example of what's currently on site on the adjacent property so the initial staff report it listed a number of items that were of concern to staff one was the the parking demand mitigation study which was not included with the initial submission once this was pointed out to the applicant they provided a study that did meet the requirements of the ordinance public engagement which is is highly recommended the applicant did hold a public engagement event where they invited all the neighbors or all the properties on the notification list and they indicated that they did not have anyone attend that event another area of concern was connectivity the original design did not have any connections to Burley Avenue subsequent redesigns of the development plan provide both vehicular and pedestrian access to Burley and staff feels that that satisfies the connectivity component and the stormwater concerns the area has been known to have some stormwater issues and that was obviously a concern when we saw the development plan where there was a proposed structure on top of an existing detention basin as I mentioned before staff has had a meeting with both the applicant and the engineering department and they indicated that they are comfortable with the applicant moving forward with the understanding that prior to any kind of construction that they would have to have the design for controlling stormwater approved by the engineering department and as I mentioned the redesigned development plan there was a request for a variance for a screening and that's no longer necessary and staff does recommend approval and for the following reasons obviously the development will greatly increase the density of the housing in the area which is mentioned in numerous places in the comprehensive plan it's making better use of underutilized parcels it does make it will have accommodations for a certain number of units that will be accessible to those with disabilities it meets the policies of the comprehensive plan where it meets the multifamily design standards as I showed in the slide before the applicant intends to construct multifamily housing similar to what is already adjacent to this proposal and the development criteria that they place the parking to the rear and they provided open space and some green space amenities for the residents and so this recommendation of approval is contingent on the planning commission approving the associated development plan which Cheryl will talk about here momentarily and if you have any questions about the zoning component I can certainly answer those. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions on the zone change? Thank you. Good afternoon. We are looking at PLN MJDP 2526 South Broadway Place in Linn Grove addition. You should have received a blue copy for revised conditions for this plan. The development plan shows this is Simpson Avenue and then Fern the railroad tracks heading up towards Virginia Avenue. This is Export Street. This is currently the existing portion of the apartment complex at the current time. Now they have shown an additional 220 dwelling units so that the overall whole development will include just over 500 dwelling units on the property. As you can see there was an access point to Burley Avenue and they had taken that off and we asked for them to return that access point to Burley due to the fact of adding an additional 200 dwelling units to the development. So the area that they are looking at for rezoning and then here in this area here. With that we have the conditions as you see on the blue sheet with engineering, traffic, forester, green space, environmental quality. You need to note the location of the common open space per Article 20 of the zoning ordinance. There is a small park located down Burley Avenue and to meet the minimum requirements for the open space for the number of dwelling units. They can make reference to that because it is within the distance that is required. And the condition provided the Planning Commission grants approval of the waiver which I'm going to explain here in just a moment. And then the ninth condition is discussed place bidder. Jeremy has already discussed that information so that can technically be removed off of this list of conditions for approval. They are asking for a waiver of a terminus of Simpson Avenue. They have Simpson Avenue coming and stopping here at this location. And as we said they need to have some type of a cul-de-sac or hammerhead for the terminus. But they are now leading this into their development and they are showing a break here so that you can define what is the public right of way and what is part of the development. They proposed to come in here and they are calling this, I had a term that they used, there's a traffic, I want to get the right word, huh? Okay, mini roundabout. They called it a mountable traffic island on their development plan which looks like a roundabout. It will allow you to come in to the property, go to either direction on the property. It's shown it's large enough, it's understood to be large enough for large vehicles to be able to come into the property to be able to unload for college students or other students all their belongings and then be able to exit off of the property. We believe at this time that this proposal here can meet the idea of the turnaround. It's not complete to meet our land sub-regs but at this time having it located within the development we believe it can meet the requirements and we believe that it meets all the standards for public safety, health and welfare and we are in agreement with the allowing them to use this as their terminus for the property. So with that I'll leave it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you Cheryl. Do we have any comments or questions? Okay, thank you. Mr. Murphy Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy, I'm here representing the applicant which is Anderson Campus Rental Properties which is an affiliate of Anderson Communities. With me today on the front row is Dennis Anderson, our designer Tony Barrett from Barrett Partners. Second row is Mike Kraft, Development Director, Mike is an engineer as well and Steve Garland also an engineer with Prime Architects Engineers and I'm very pleased to be able to come today before you with a plan in which we agree with everything the staff is recommending to you. It has been a lot of work, we've put a lot of work in it and I know the staff has put a lot of work into this too and with the result though that we have made a number of changes in the plan since you all first saw it and we are now as I said in a position where we are in agreement and we're pleased to have a plan that the staff can recommend approval of. As Mr. Young mentioned to you, we no longer need the variance, we've redesigned so we do not need a variance anymore so I am withdrawing the variance, I don't know if you need to take a vote to accept the withdrawal or just the fact that I'm withdrawing it is enough, whatever you need to do when you come down to take a vote but we're withdrawing our request for the variance on the property. This one little exhibit putting on the overhead, I just wanted to emphasize to you the difference in sizes of what's in front of you. The entire development plan, and I pressed the one with the middle one right, this is the overall development plan and the overall development plan, the pattern on this, this is an older area, the plans are old so when we come in to amend a development plan often we have to include property that we don't even own. On this property it's this up here, phase 2B I believe, Dennis never owned that, never has owned that, that's a set of condominiums. The other part up here is an existing part of an apartment complex that Dennis does own but the overall development plan area is about 12 1⁄2 acres, now of that 12 1⁄2 acres the area that's impacted is in this area here, that's under 4 acres which is actually before you as a development plan and as what's in front of you as part of the zone change is the two areas we're showing in pink here and that's less than half an acre, it's actually five twelfths of one acre which is in front of you for the zone change and the development plan really involves about 4 acres on this. If you were on the planning commission 12 or 13 years ago you probably remember we came in with this basically most of the same area except for the pink areas with an addition to the university village apartments and that was approved but we have not done that, that plan's expired so we needed to come in front of you with another plan but we had sort of similar type development on that one we had 13 or 14 years ago. But we're trying to reorient this complex so that it appeals to in addition to the demographic we have a little older demographic as well and that is graduate students or people who work at UK hospital or people who work in some of the College of Pharmacy buildings which are very nearby us or people who are young professionals may work in other areas of UK or they may work downtown because we're very close to downtown when we're on bus lines out on Broadway or who are interested in the entertainment available, the Red Mile is just across Broadway, downtown is there too so we're trying to reach young professional potential resident here so these units are going to be mainly one bedroom apartment units whereas many of the other apartments in this area that have been done by others and some by Dennis are four bedroom apartment units but we're trying to reach another demographic group if you will and it's sort of underlined by the change in name, this used to be University Village, Dennis changed the name of it a couple years ago to Midtown Apartments to emphasize the location that we are in the middle of town, middle of everything and it's a great location not just for students but other people who may be interested in working here. If we could go back then to the staff's development plan which is on the computer rather than the overhead, there we go, alright so that's our development plan showing the new layout and since you all have seen this in subcommittees we've made a few changes to it as mentioned we've redesigned the entrance off of, well off of, the top one, there we go, we've redesigned the entrance off Simpson so we do have this mountable traffic circle right there before we did not have that so that will make it easy for somebody coming in and if they decide this isn't where I want to go they can turn around easily and come back out. We still do need a waiver for that, partly it's because the circle itself is on private property rather than on public right of way so we still do need the waiver for that. We've restored the entrance off of Burley which the staff had requested us to do so now we have three ways in and out of this, we have the one on Burley which I just pointed out, we have the one off of Simpson and we have the one up north here which is maybe just off the screen. We've redesigned the parking in this area to eliminate the need for the variance which was right in that area and so that's why we can withdraw our variance and I won't go into the plan very much but I like the way Tony's designed it, we have a central lawn right here, we transition, these buildings are four stories, we transition down to our three story buildings away from the railroad tracks and many of the buildings here are smaller footprint buildings than would normally be seen in apartment complex and partly that's to work better with the topography that we have coming up to the railroad tracks. So we're very pleased with the plan that we have to you, we've also increased the sidewalk connectivity but as I said we do agree with the staff recommendation to you so we'd ask you to approve this and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Do we have any, Molly? Thank you Chair. I just wanted to ask if you could tell me again where the three entrances are. I see the one from Burley, I see the one from Simpson but where's the third entrance? The third entrance is up here. If you go back a slide it shows the whole development plan. Okay, if I go back, let me push that and see. There you go. Okay, there we go. So you come up here, around here and this ties in, if you're here, Virginia Avenue is up here, the Holiday Inn Express is right about there, sort of the landmark in the area. This road comes out and hits Export Court and goes up to Virginia Avenue. So that's the third way in and out. Thank you. Will we discuss the concerns that we got from, about the stormwater from the applicant or from, as we read citizens concerns, Chair? Ms. Wade, why don't you discuss what we discussed maybe about that in particular. We're considering a zone change right now. We are looking at a development plan. Ultimately any development plan that is approved has to go through, of course, all of the sign offs and approvals. You're better at elaborating on that than me. Sure. As a preliminary development plan, this is a conceptual plan that the applicant is putting forward with the intention or hope to use underground detention. We did receive some emails early, very early on actually before this filing even went to the technical committee and I shared that with Mr. Murphy about the stormwater because stormwater does come from the other side of the railroad track on much of the UK property and then passes through that detention basin that's currently there and then enters the public system, which is in pipes along Simpson and then heads over towards Picadome Golf Course. So they understand after meeting with engineering and water quality, some of the specific technical concerns about putting the stormwater underground and so they're aware that they need to address that once they are ready to file a final development plan. I think it would be wise to have answers to those questions when they come back to the commission if they're still intending to use underground detention as opposed to waiting to the next phase, which is the improvement plan phase. There are lots of times you see a development plan that gets approved and again, that might be what they intend to do, but they haven't done every bit of the engineering yet. I think if I were to speak for the rest of our staff in engineering and water quality, I think they're hoping that they do some of that upfront engineering before they file the final development plan just so that those conversations can go a little bit more smoothly. Thank you. And I just wonder, would it be possible to show the photograph that were part of the citizen's comments and make sure that we all know what the area is and what it can look like if it does have flooding? We have that in Granicus, so everybody can access that. Alrighty. Do we have any other questions? Yes, sir, Mr. McClure. Well, I had two questions. One was, I just closed the plan that I had up and that one's a little far for me to see, but the one question was that that small house on Fern Avenue, it doesn't look like this plan calls for any significant development there. I was wondering if you could just speak to or elaborate on the removal of that. Mr. Anderson just told me it was beyond repair and has been torn down. Okay, thank you. And then the second question I had, this also ties in with the storm water but is specifically to note 16 and I was just a little curious about that. It says, phase three buildings crawl space is part of detention volume capacity and shall not be altered or obstructed unless approved by the LFUCG engineer. And I'm a little concerned about that because I might be new to this, but it seems odd to use the buildings crawl space as the detention. That's the existing adjoining property, as I'm told. It's part of the issue of having to show existing property on our new plan. So they basically use the crawl space basements as their water detention if that's a flood. It seems like an odd solution. I would agree. I think that is an odd solution. And Mr. Murphy, obviously you've been doing this a long time. So have you seen that before? That seems to be fairly unique from my perspective that they would utilize the crawl space and I'm guessing the storm water manuals don't allow that anymore. I just don't know what would have gone into putting, we're not putting that anew on this plan. I don't know what would have gone into having that on the plan previously. I don't think we're planning on using crawl spaces for retention on the new part that you're seeing. But it gets into, I don't know if there's an issue of taking the note off because it obviously did affect something that happened before on other property. Dennis just mentioned to me he has owned the buildings, the part of University Village, the old University Village for 20 years and that has never been a problem on those buildings. I don't know if it applies to the one on the far left that Mr. Anderson has never owned or what on there. And Dennis clarifies he was not the builder on those either. Thank you. Seeing no further questions. We got another citizen comment from someone who owns a number of properties in the area who says that they have a church. Where would that church be located relative to this development? If it's the same letter I saw coming in that was more about American Avenue which is to the south of this. It's the next street south. We don't touch American Avenue here on this one. So I know there's a church in the area someplace down there but I couldn't tell you exactly where it is. I guess maybe just for Mr. Anderson's benefit because you might not have seen the public comment. The comments were that they seem to accept that change is going to happen, that development needs to happen, but that the people who live there are quite disrespectful of the church's property and other people in the neighborhood in general. That's I guess my take on it. So maybe I might want to share that with Mr. Anderson just so he knows about it. I might mention too, I think one thing that distinguishes Mr. Anderson's development from others out here is on-site management. And on this development as on others you've had before you, I've always pointed out that on-site management is important. That's what Dennis does. He has on-site management on this property now and will continue to. A lot of the other development in this neighborhood has been people owning a house or two that they rent out that they don't see very often, that they don't come by very often. And I think that's where a lot of those problems occur. And here in University Village you don't have that problem as much when you have somebody there every day seeing what's going on and taking complaints from the neighbors and acting upon them here. I'm just going to add to that comment. This is a sidebar comment. When I read that letter as a former Neighborhood Association President and ran American Avenue, it sounded to me like those people don't know they can petition to have one-side only parking. And it would be helpful outside of this process to let them know that that is something they could do which would help with their traffic problems. All right. Do we have any other questions relevant to Mr. Murphy and this zone change or this development plan? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Murphy. All right. On the variance, do we need to take a vote on or can we just accept the applicant's testimony that they've withdrawn it? The Planning Commission usually acts on accepting the withdrawal, so it's on the record. Okay. Oh, is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application? Seeing none, do we have any commission comment or questions on either the zone change or the development plan? Mr. Chair? Yes, yes, sir. Are you ready for a motion? Yes, sir. I've got a question. We haven't really acted on the variance, so why do we need to make a vote on it? It's just for the record that that's been withdrawn so that there's no expectation that there should have been, you know, some action on it. Just on the record stating that that variance request has been withdrawn by the applicant. That's about it. Oh, I see. Okay. Okay. This is new to me. Okay. All right. So then the first motion would be for the zone change, correct? Yes. I don't have any questions or concerns. I can make a motion for the approval of PLN MAR 25-7 as presented by staff. Thank you, Mr. Forrester, and seconded by Mr. Wilson. Do we have any discussion on that motion? If not, we can take that to a vote. And this is for the zone. Yes. Okay. That carries unanimously. And now we will move to the development plan. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the revised staff recommendations for PLN MJDP-25-26. Thank you, Mr. Forrester, and seconded by Mr. Wilson. Any discussion on the development plan motion? Seeing none. And that also carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Waiver. Yes, sir. Oh, that's correct. Let's move to the waiver. Okay. All right. I have a motion for approval of the findings for the petitioner waiver for PLN MJDP-25-26. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Seconded by Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Any discussion? That also carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. All righty. Now, that takes us, I believe, to Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've reminded you all that one week from today, August 21st, we have a planning commission work session. We'll be in the Phoenix building on the third floor, and we look forward to seeing you all at that time. All right. Do we have anything from anybody else? If not, we are adjourned with objection. Thank you.