Good afternoon. Today is November 6th, and this is the meeting of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's Planning Commission Zoning Committee. Our first item on the agenda today is PLN MAR 2518 Daily Homes. Mr. Young. Jeremy Young for Planning Staff. So our first item, PLN MAR 2518 Daily Homes. It is a 3.267 acre parcel located at 2914 Clays Mill Road. They're requesting an R1B to R2 zone change in the enhanced neighborhood place type, low-density residential development type, and the plan is to construct 41 single-family attached homes. And the residential density would be approximately 12 units per acre. And you can see here the location, and there's New Silver Road here, and then Clays Mill Road, and the subject property is here. The adjacent zoning is generally R1B or R1C zoning. It's a slightly different shade of yellow. The lighter shade is the R1C, and the darker is R1B zoning. I'm sorry, R1D. And the lightest shade here in the center is still the R1B. And here's an overhead view of the parcel. And you can see stub connection here from Loretta Drive, which you'll see in just a minute that the plan is to extend that to the property boundary of the south and then connect another entrance along Clays Mill Road here. And here's the site plan. And as I mentioned, there's this connection. And then here, a detention basin area, the connection to the property of the south. During the course of reviewing the application, we did learn that there was a sinkhole area on this property, according to the Kentucky Geological Survey. You can see it here in blue, and it's maybe a little bit difficult to tell, but here's the connection from Loretta. And then you can see the sinkhole basically covers about the first third of the property there near Clays Mill Road. So that's naturally a concern because that is an area that does show a number of residential units. As far as the place type and the development type and the zoning, staff feels that they're appropriate for the area. The original design that they came with didn't connect to Clays Mill Road. They responded to our feedback, did make some adjustments in the development plan. And for the most part, we feel it's a good fit for the area. And it is a good zone, increase in density, using an infill lot, all the things that we look for in development. But we do recommend postponement of the zoning based on the uncertainty of the sinkhole area. We think that, despite the fact that it does meet most of the areas of the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan does also require being mindful of any environmentally sensitive area. And the development plan does show residential structures on that area. So we're recommending postponement at this time, maybe to gather more information about that sinkhole. If y'all have any questions about the zoning, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you. Jeremy, do we have any questions at this time? Mr. Hughes. Quick, Mr. Young. The properties on Jason Court, are they affected by the sinkhole as well? No, the I'll go back to the slide here. And I apologize, it's a little bit faint. But there we go. Jason Court, the property line is, is very close to where the edge of the sinkhole area is. So basically, the boundary between those two areas is the limit of that sinkhole area. Okay. Thanks. Excuse me. Alrighty, Mr. Young, do we have anything else for you at this time? Okay. Is this the one where we have the variance request as well? That's the next one. That's the second one. Okay, right. Okay. Alrighty. Thank you, Mr. Young. Applicant. Or sorry, Chris. Okay. Nope. Okay, I'll do my best to explain this. Um, so the development plan is depicting, um, the, uh, uh, the residential lots along a new connection to Clay's Mill, um, and then an extension of the stub street into the property and then stubbing into the adjacent property. Um, and again, as Jeremy mentioned, it's not shown on the development plan, but that, um, sinkhole identified areas is roughly this portion of the property. Um, we, it was discussed earlier in subdivision committee that, you know, to know the full extent of where that possibly is, if it's actually a sinkhole versus a depression or something like that would probably require a geotech report. Um, so there was some discussion about the timing of that, when that should be required prior to a final development plan versus during construction. And so, uh, I think we still have some questions as far as the development plan goes about how that should be, uh, addressed on the, on the preliminary development plan. Um, and then because of that, we're still recommending postponement on the, on the DP at this time. So, all right. Thank you, Chris. Are there any questions for Chris at this time? Seeing none, thank you. Ms. McCoy. Good afternoon, Charlotte McCoy, uh, counsel for the applicant. I've got with me, um, uh, Jimmy Ball from Daly Homes over here. And, um, just a couple of things I wanted to address. Um, with the sinkhole, I think we were just talking about it, that it's, it's just a potential area for a sinkhole at this point. It would need the geotechnical, um, survey in order to determine that. And we had some discussions this morning. We're very willing to have a note on the development plan that would require that before we got to the final development plan. Um, I think with the respect to the neighborhood, um, outreach, there is a neighborhood meeting that we are scheduling for Thursday. Uh, notices are going out today about that. Um, otherwise, I think we're here for questions. Thank you. All right, Mr. Nichol. So, is your, um, suggestion, what you're recommending is to remove this from pending and work on the possibility of a sinkhole, um, identification through a, I guess a geotechnical report? Um, is that where you are with this? You're less concerned about the fact that it could be a sinkhole, but understanding that you do need a report to prove that point? That's correct. And I think that was the discussion. I cannot see. I'm going to need more glasses. But, um, there was a revised development plan that did have a note regarding the, the, um, sinkhole area. And, um, that was in agreement. And I think this morning we talked that it needs some tweaks, but, but essentially that the geotechnical, the determination of the sinkhole would be done before the final development plan. Okay. And that would, you're doing that understanding that if it does, if it is identified as a sinkhole, you either need to remediate it or totally redo your development plan? Yeah, it would, it would definitely affect the development plan. I think the depression area is, is perhaps the area that is shown as the open space. Um, we just wouldn't know until we get that back, but it would, we would be proceeding with the understanding that we might have to address the plan should that bear out. Okay. Thank you. If I could just sort of add some extra kind of detail to that as well. There's also kind of two layers when we're looking at things, both from a zone change side as well as the development plan side. So, all of the time that you, you know, you all see things that get sort of addressed on the development plan that may come back later, but still we have to make that work on the zoning side with the comprehensive plan. So, where, while a note on the development plan, like nothing is going to be built on this site until a final development plan is approved and it goes through that process. But as we're considering whether this zone is appropriate, if that road is not feasible and suddenly, for instance, you're adding 30 or 40 homes at the end of a one way in one way out neighborhood. You know, when we're talking about meeting kind of complaint goals, but connectivity and what's the actual density that's develop on the site. On the zone change side of thing, our recommendation of postponement was, yes, this could sort of be addressed in some aspects with the development plan notes so that nothing is actually built that has issues. But as part of actually getting to is an R2 appropriate here is an understanding of, can we actually have any connection to Clays Mill Road, or is it all going to have to filter through this existing neighborhood. So, that's part of staff's desire on our end to get a little bit more information of that a little bit earlier in the process. One clarification is a footnote. What's the difference between a sinkhole and a depression? Our engineering staff would love to fill you in on any specifics of that. But suffice to say that a sinkhole is an environmentally sensitive area. And to miss McCoy's point, it's highlighted as an area, a potential sinkhole area, but we do have that information. So, we're basically looking for that sort of to be more concretely addressed. So, we know, yes, this is going to be a problem and what we are proposing really isn't going to work there or not. This is just a depression and we can work around it. A depression is just a low spot on a piece of property and it might be depicted on a contour. But then we talk about a closed contour, which indicates that there may be a void underneath the surface layer, which obviously is an issue if you're trying to build homes or offices or anything really, any buildings. So, we have to know if that is the case and that's what a geotech study would tell us from an engineer. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Miss McCoy? Seeing none, thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application today? If so, please approach the podium and state your name. You could also pose any questions that you would like to have answered, perhaps either today or at a later date. You're welcome to do so. Phillip Tinsher? I just wonder if you could clarify what you define as low density, mixed low density housing. What does that qualify as? That's probably a larger question looking at the comprehensive plan as a whole rather than just this application. We're here today to discuss this application. Okay. I didn't know if the city actually had a definition of the qualified number of homes or units on a set. Sure. It's all on our website, but Daniel, do you want to give it a ten second? Yeah, yeah. So, typically when we're looking at the lens of something like a place builder, it's really speaking more to the form than an actual this is X number of dwelling units per acre. So, things like single story or rather single family attached and detached, we have always viewed as lower density residential when we're looking at things from a place builder perspective. And then from there, it's based on, you know, multifamily. You start getting into the different stories and that really dictating it. But, yeah, lower density is how we evaluated the site. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. Daniel, I got a quick follow up question for you. So, when we're plotting out new residential developments such as areas we're going to start looking at in the expansion area, my understanding is that we're leaning towards residential being R3. Is that correct? I think actually R4, which will, once again, at the higher levels, R3, R4, R5, let you do just basically the whole gamut of single family detached townhomes and multifamily. It's just nuance on how tall you can build and some of the setbacks and restrictions. That's great news to hear. And so also that's going to, we're going to see more of that in infill redevelopment areas in order to maximize the density possible. So R2 is a zone that is limited that we're using in already established neighborhoods, it looks like, depending on what the concerns are with the neighborhood or the existing conditions, connectivity. So I think what I'm trying to get to is that R2 is probably not the maximum zoning that could occur. Thank you. All righty. Seeing no other comment or questions. The floor is open. Mr. Chair, I move that we postpone PLN MAR 25-18 Daily Homes LLC for the reasons provided by staff. Okay. Second for Mr. Forrester, recommendation for postponement. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? And this is for the zone itself, correct? Okay. All those in favor? Raise your hand. Good. That's unanimous. All right. Do we need a motion on the plan? No. That's all right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, applicant. Our next item on the agenda is PLN MAR 25-19 Anderson Midtown Apartments. Jeremy Young for planning staff again. We have Anderson Midtown Apartments, and they're requesting an R3 to R4 zone change. The property address is 401 Woodland Drive, and it is .585 acres, and they're suggesting a second-tier urban and medium-density residential as place type and development type. The plan is seeking to add a second 24-unit structure, three stories, on the property. There's already an existing structure with those same parameters, 24 units, three-story, multi-family structure currently on the property. That would bring the total to 48 units, 82 units per acre on a corner with good transit, good walkability to the university, as well as other retail services. There's also a variance associated with this that we'll address after the development plan. And to give you an idea of the location, this large area here, that's the university. That limestone here, Euclid Avenue, and then Woodland that connects the university to Main Street. Adjacent zoning, the orange is R2 zoning. The brown, that's R3, which is what this property is currently zoned. And then the yellow is R1E, I believe, and the red is B1. And you can see overhead aerial view of it. And there's a commercial area here. And then this is all university, sorority row, fraternity row here. And then to the northeast, you've got Aylesford and the H1 associated with that area. And, again, they're suggesting second-tier urban and medium-density residential, and staff feels that that's appropriate for the area. They're removing a portion of a parking lot to replace it with residential housing that's needed in that area. Like I mentioned before, it has good access to transit, walkability. It's only a block or so from the university. We provide opportunities for students to live closer to campus. And we do recommend approval of this zone change. We feel that it meets several requirements of the goals and objectives, policies, and development criteria that are set out in the comprehensive plan. As far as increasing density, rezoning underutilized lots, making better use of them, adding residential in a parking lot area is pretty ideal, in our opinion. And this recommendation is based on the approval of the development plan associated with this request. And I'll turn it over to Chris to walk through the development plan, and then we'll get back to the variance. Okay. Mr. Young, one very brief question I had before we move on. Yes, sir. They have not indicated any public outreach or engagement. How much does that weigh in your judgment, recommending approval? It does. It's certainly something that we support and we promote. We'd like to see it done before the application is submitted. It wasn't done in this case. I do believe that the applicant can clarify this, but I believe that they've got something scheduled. I believe there was some scheduling conflict with some of the individuals involved that didn't allow it to take place previously, but they can certainly give you more information about that. Okay. I know it's cited frequently when we have a recommendation of postponement that there was no engagement, and I just noticed on this one there was none, but yet we still had approval, so I thought I'd clarify. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Okay. Nothing else from Mr. Young? We'll head to Chris. Good afternoon again. Okay. On the development plan, so there's an existing site, the existing residential structure, three stories and 24 units that's kind of out here on the corner with the associated parking lot that exists now. The parking lot goes back to the rear property line or close to it. The existing dumpster is back here currently, and so they're proposing to reduce some of the parking and build a second three-story, 24-unit structure. Initially, they were showing a drive lane coming off Euclid to allow access for the dumpster in this location here. After the tech committee, they provided a revised plan that removed that drive lane and at the recommendation of waste management moved the dumpster location down here near the entrance to the parking lot. So that was one of the big concerns early on was this drive lane was going to be narrow, and then the spacing to the intersection, the geometrics trying to get in there, and then also the need for a pedestrian connection out to Euclid. So by removing that drive lane, they've put in a sidewalk out to Euclid, which connects both buildings. So the proposed building connects down here. In the existing building, there's an entrance here, and so the sidewalk goes out, connects to Euclid, and then they have an existing pedestrian connection to Woodland here. And then they've also changed some of the parking spaces to compacts and allowed this sidewalk to be widened to the necessary width. I think previously it was maybe two or three feet. So they responded to a lot of our concerns from the initial submittal, and this seems to satisfy a lot of the conditions that we had had initially when we did our first review. And we're currently recommending approval on the development plan based on the changes and what they're showing now. Great. Okay, that's great. Do we have any questions for Chris at this time? No, thanks. Thank you. Mr. Young? So there is a variance request associated with this application, and this is where it gets somewhat complicated, but I'll try to walk you through it as best I can. So the applicant is requesting, the application requested, there's a buffer required for the vehicle use area. It's eight feet in this zone. They're requesting to reduce it to 1.5 feet at 466 Euclid Avenue from eight feet to six feet five inches along Woodland, and then from eight feet to five feet along 415 Woodland Avenue. With the redesign, we feel that possibly the second two are not required or, I'm sorry, the first two are not required. And so our suggestion is to have the applicant withdraw those. We feel that the third one is appropriate, and we support approval. But then there's another issue that's a little bit more complicated. They also require a zone-to-zone screening between the R4 and the R2 zones, which has not been requested. So due to the fact that that would need to be advertised in order to be approved, we think that a postponement is in order, but we also approve the existing requested variance, if that makes any sense. Okay. So to clarify, the item that you would recommend postponement on is not in our report today. Correct. And the reason that we request a postponement is because we'd have to do proper notification in order to have that item be heard. And we do think it's appropriate. It just has not been requested, and we haven't gone through the proper procedure to approve something like that. So we are suggesting approval of what has been requested. But we also, in addition, need another variance request. That's sort of where we land with that, and I hope I explained that sufficiently. It's a little bit messy. Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Young? Well, we can't vote on it. If Mr. Young is telling us that they do need something, of course we'll hear from Mr. Barrett, but if that is necessary, yeah, it would have to be a further amendment. That's right. Yeah, I'm sorry, postponement, yes. Right. With the understanding that it's not necessarily about the lion's share of what it's that one thing that is holding it. Okay. No, you're right. I appreciate it. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing none, we'll hear from Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Good afternoon. Tony Barrett on behalf of Anderson Midtown Apartments, LLC, Anderson Communities, Dennis Anderson. And Dick Murphy is the attorney of record, but he's out of town, and so he's asked me to fill in for his absence. And I'll address the outreach. Greg Gantner, the Aylesford Neighborhood Association representative, we've reached out to him. He's been out of town. He's back in town now. Dick's out of town, so a little bit of coordination, but we just received notice since this morning that they have scheduled a neighborhood meeting for Tuesday, November 11th at 6 p.m. So they've got that squared away, and that will occur. Chris and Jeremy and Daniel, you didn't present, did you? No. It's fine. Yeah. Why were you going so quickly? Yeah. Covered the highlights, so I don't really need to go into any other detail with regard to we'll have to address that other variance for the zone-to-zone screening and get that taken care of. I guess technically you could recommend approval, and we'd just have to adjust the plan to meet the eight foot at this point, but I don't think we're wanting to necessarily do that. I think we'd rather delay and get what we want on the development plan. So I think we prefer approval, but probably wouldn't proceed without that variance that Jeremy pointed out today. So if there's any questions, I'm happy to help. Just to clarify, Tony, approval on the zone change and then postponement on the plan or just overall? Yeah, just postponement of any of it. We'll postpone it from our perspective. I mean, we're going to postpone. Oh, okay. I see what you're saying. But just from a feel-good perspective, I always like to walk away with an approval so I can tell Dennis we got a recommendation of approval. However, because I didn't make note of the variance, I'm always looking for cover. I would say you're practicing law without a license. I just want you to know. Well, I appreciate, Tony, you and the staff working through what sounds like is the lion's share of this. So it's almost a 98% approval, but I understand what you're saying. Okay, do we have any questions for Mr. Barrett? Is that other variance something you think we can work through or the other? Yeah, I'm pretty sure. It's basically the same as the landscape buffer. It's an eight-foot buffer to five feet. It's really more of a due process thing. It is technically a distinct requirement that applies to mostly the same areas, but there is a basically the rear portion of the property. Between the buildings. There isn't any VUA there, but that is an area that they need to shrink down in order to make their building work. So being just different requirements and slightly different justification needed, and needing to meet the legal deadlines to notify everyone by mail when you have a variance is what we wanted to do there. But I think the justification is going to be very similar to what staff is saying is supportable here. Okay, that's great. Thank you, Tony. All right, thank you. All right, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application today? Okay, seeing none. The floor is open for discussion or motion. Mr. Forrester. Make a motion for postponement of PLN MAR 25-19. Thank you, Larry. Second for Mr. Nickel. Any discussion? Yes, Mr. Wilson. From the staff's perspective, I'm a little bit confused about this variance as such as it relates to the thing. Are you comfortable still with the approval of the plan? Should a motion then say approval of the plan depending acceptance of the variance or whatever? Or is it cleaner to do it just as Mr. Forrester has given it to us? I mean, you can go about this kind of in any number of ways. We've only responded to the variances that they've asked for. In that regard, we said, yes, it makes sense in one area. They've changed the rest of the plan, so they actually don't need the two other aspects of that very first request. Where they're running into a little bit, and we're saying, yes, this is an agreement with the comprehensive plan for all of the different sort of intangible things. Where this is running into an issue is they have a development plan that they'll need to get certified in order to move this forward that says, hey, one of our conditions is show or obtain a variance for your zone-to-zone screening, and they haven't asked for it yet. So, you know, if you all want to just roll that into a normal postponement, the applicant has indicated that they would like to pursue getting that variance added and so that they are not seeking to move forward on the 20th. So, you know, you all can phrase that however you'd like, you know, the end result being it just will need to be addressed. I suggest we not make it complicated. I call for the question. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Let's go ahead and put that motion to a vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. That carries unanimously. All right. Ms. Wade, do we have anything else for today? Yeah, I was just going to let you know that although these two cases that have been postponed don't have anything for you to consider today, we do expect one of them to move forward on the 20th, the Basler, Scotty Basler application. We've met with the applicant, and they have prepared revised development plans that generally improve their compliance with the comprehensive plan, and so we just haven't received that yet. They missed the deadline this week, so we anticipate giving that and being able to give a new recommendation to you on the 20th. Great. Okay. Yes, sir. When we met with them, there was still one issue that they weren't 100% in compliance with the comprehensive plan. I can't. I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. It may be a question for the Planning Commission. We'll see. Okay. Do we have anything else? Seeing none, thank you all. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.  Many sorrows I've seen But I don't regret Nor will I forget All who took that road with me Night is now for me So ends this day The road is now calling And I must away Over hill and under tree Through lands where never light has shone By silver streams that run down to the sea To these memories I will hold With your blessing I will go To turn and last To paths that lead home And though where the road then takes me I cannot tell We came all this way But now comes the day To bid you farewell I bid you all a very fond farewell Love and mercy that's what you need tonight Love and mercy to you and your friends tonight I was lying in my room and the news came on TV A lot of people out there hurting and it really scares me Love and mercy that's what you need tonight Love and mercy to you and your friends tonight I was standing in a forest watching all the people there Oh the loneliness in this world, well it's just not fair Oh the loneliness in this world, well it's just not fair Oh Love and mercy that's what you need tonight Love and mercy to you and your friends tonight Love and mercy that's what you need tonight Love and mercy tonight I feel like I've been locked up tight for a century of lonely nights Waiting for someone to release me You're licking your lips, I'm blowing kisses my way But that don't mean I'm gonna give it away Baby, baby, baby Oh, my body's saying let's go Oh, my heart is saying no If you wanna be with me, baby there's a price to pay I'm a genie in a bottle, you gotta love me the right way If you wanna be with me, I can make your wish come true You gotta make a big impression, you gotta like what you do I'm a genie in a bottle, baby, you gotta love me the right way I'm a genie in a bottle, baby, come, come, come on in now The music's playing and the lights don't last One more dance and then we're good to go Waiting for someone to release me My heart's racing at the speed of light But that don't mean it's gotta be tonight Baby, baby, baby Oh, my body's saying let's go Oh, my heart is saying no If you wanna be with me, baby there's a price to pay I'm a genie in a bottle, you gotta love me the right way If you wanna be with me, I can make your wish come true Just come and set me free, baby, and I'll be with you I'm a genie in a bottle, baby, you gotta love me the right way, honey I'm a genie in a bottle, baby, come, come, come on in now I'm a genie in a bottle, baby, you gotta love me the right way, honey I'm a genie in a bottle, baby, come, come, come on in now Oh, my body's saying let's go Oh, my heart is saying no If you wanna be with me, baby there's a price to pay I'm a genie in a bottle, you gotta love me the right way If you wanna be with me