# Planning Commission - Zoning Items - January 29, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · January 29, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6677 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6677?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-01-29 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: February 2, 2026 - **Length**: 23,734 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on January 29, 2026, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky, with Chair Davis presiding. The meeting addressed 9 agenda items spanning zone map amendments, a development plan, a waiver request, and the approval of minutes. Of the 9 items considered, 6 were approved — including the Dailey Homes, LLC Zone Map Amendment, the Samuel H Bryan, Tract 8 (Carnes Property) Development Plan, a Waiver for Minimum Intersection Spacing, and both a zone map amendment and development plan for Subtext Acquisitions, LLC — while 3 items were deferred, including the Ball Homes, Inc. and Legacy Trail, LLC Zone Map Amendments and proposed revisions to Article 23A-10 for the Economic Development (ED) Zone. The Commission took a total of 9 votes and heard 18 public comments over the course of the meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present at the January 29, 2026 Commission meeting: - Zach Davis - Ivy Barksdale - Robin Michler - William Wilson - Larry Forester - Judy Worth - Johnathon Davis - Mike Owens - Molly Davis **Absent:** Penn, Nicol No members were recorded as late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took nine votes during the January 29, 2026 meeting, with the majority passing unanimously. - **Minutes Approval** – Mr. Forester moved, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to approve the December 18, 2025 minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0. [timestamp: 0:01:33] - **PLN-MAR-25-00015** – Mr. Owens moved, seconded by Mr. J. Davis, to postpone the Ball Homes, Inc. zone map amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0, with the item postponed to February 26, 2026. [timestamp: 0:02:36] - **PLN-MAR-25-00017** – Mr. J. Davis moved, seconded by Ms. Worth, to postpone the Legacy Trail, LLC zone map amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0, with the item postponed to March 26, 2026. [timestamp: 0:03:41] - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00006** – Mr. Forester moved, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to postpone revisions to Article 23A-10 for the Economic Development (ED) zone. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0, with the item postponed to February 26, 2026. [timestamp: 0:05:17] - **PLN-MAR-25-00018** – Mr. Forrester moved, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to approve the zone map amendment for Dailey Homes, LLC. The motion passed 8–1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Robin Michler, William Wilson, Larry Forester, Judy Worth, Johnathon Davis, and Mike Owens. Voting against: Molly Davis. [timestamp: 2:16:34] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00065** – Mr. Forrester moved, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to approve the preliminary development plan for Samuel H Bryan, Tract 8 (Carnes Property), with an address correction required. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0. [timestamp: 2:17:07] - **PLN-WAV-25-00007** – Mr. Forrester moved, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to approve the waiver for minimum intersection spacing for Samuel H Bryan, Tract 8 (Carnes Property). The motion passed 8–1 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Zach Davis, Ivy Barksdale, Robin Michler, William Wilson, Larry Forester, Judy Worth, Johnathon Davis, and Mike Owens. Voting against: Molly Davis. [timestamp: 2:17:37] - **PLN-MAR-25-00022** – Mr. Forrester moved, seconded by Mr. Jonathan Davis, to approve the zone map amendment for Subtext Acquisitions, LLC. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0. [timestamp: 3:28:13] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00068** – Mr. Forrester moved, seconded by Mr. Wilson, to approve the development plan for Subtext Acquisitions, LLC. The motion passed unanimously, 9–0. [timestamp: 3:28:49] ## Public Comment Eighteen members of the public addressed the Commission during the meeting, with comments clustering around two main topics: opposition to a proposed residential development and, later in the meeting, support for a separately negotiated community agreement. **Development Opposition (Clays Mill Road Area)** The majority of early public comments focused on traffic, density, and neighborhood character concerns related to a proposed development. [timestamp: 1:05:20] **Eileen Lindsey** opened by arguing that roads are not keeping pace with new development. [timestamp: 1:07:03] **John Rollins** opposed the project, questioning the quality of the proposed townhomes. [timestamp: 1:09:06] **Taylor Dunn** raised traffic safety concerns and suggested renaming a street to honor a child killed in a traffic accident. [timestamp: 1:12:18] **Bob Sturdivant** highlighted the particular traffic challenges on Clays Mill Road, citing the high concentration of schools in the area. [timestamp: 1:15:44] **William Burke** raised concerns about development density and the removal of trees prior to the property's sale. [timestamp: 1:18:59] **Mike Harmon** opposed the opening of Loretta Drive and cited traffic and parking concerns. [timestamp: 1:23:31] **Carolyn Elliott** argued the proposed townhomes are incompatible with neighborhood character and could increase rental activity. [timestamp: 1:26:43] **Harry Bird** criticized the development's density and raised concerns about parking and emergency vehicle access. [timestamp: 1:30:00] **Tim Brees** echoed concerns about density, traffic, and parking. [timestamp: 1:33:12] **Philip Tinsher** questioned the need for a connecting street and raised concerns about property values. [timestamp: 1:35:33] **Whitney Payne** requested public access to the traffic analysis conducted for the project. [timestamp: 1:37:37] **Kristen** questioned the integrity of the approval process. [timestamp: 1:39:47] **Michael Burrell** urged the Commission to pursue comprehensive area planning rather than approving piecemeal developments. **Community Agreement Support** Later in the meeting, several speakers addressed a separate matter involving a developer-neighborhood agreement. [timestamp: 2:54:47] **Deval Headley** raised concerns about historical promises going unfulfilled and requested greater clarity on development details. [timestamp: 3:00:27] **Reverend Jacques Wiggington** praised the agreement reached between the developer and the neighborhood, stressing the importance of cultural integrity. [timestamp: 3:03:11] **Amy Clark** thanked individuals and groups involved in reaching a positive outcome. [timestamp: 3:05:06] **Teresa Forbes Lopez** expressed support for the proposal, emphasizing enforceable guidelines and collaboration. [timestamp: 3:08:08] **Rolanda Woolfolk** thanked both developers and the planning commission for their responsiveness to community input. ## Contested Items Two development proposals before the Commission generated notable opposition during the January 29, 2026 meeting. - **Dailey Homes, LLC Development** [timestamp: N/A]: Residents raised concerns about the proposed development, focusing primarily on its density and the potential downstream effects on traffic and the surrounding environment. Community members voiced opposition during the meeting, though the structured data does not indicate that a resolution or mitigation agreement was reached prior to or during the session. - **Subtext Acquisitions, LLC Development** [timestamp: N/A]: This proposal also faced initial community opposition, though the concerns were addressed through an extensive community engagement process conducted ahead of the meeting. As a result of that outreach, the parties reached agreement on specific conditions intended to preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood. By the time the item came before the Commission, the earlier opposition had been substantially mitigated. Together, these two items illustrate differing trajectories for contested development proposals: the Dailey Homes matter remained a point of active community concern, while the Subtext Acquisitions proposal moved toward resolution through pre-meeting negotiation and agreed-upon conditions. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 01:33] The Commission reviewed the minutes from its December 18, 2025 meeting. Mr. Forester and Mr. Wilson were the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. No additions or revisions to the minutes were proposed, and the minutes were approved as presented. ## Ball Homes, Inc. Zone Map Amendment **Agenda Item:** PLN-MAR-25-00015 [timestamp: 02:36] The Commission took up a request by Ball Homes, Inc. for a zone map amendment that would reclassify a parcel from the Agricultural-Rural (A-R) zone to an Expansion Area Residential (EAR-2) zone. Key speakers on this item included Nick Nicholson, Mr. Owens, and Mr. J. Davis. The item was ultimately **deferred** rather than acted upon substantively, as the request was postponed to allow for further plan revisions. No final vote on the merits of the rezoning was taken at this meeting. ## Legacy Trail, LLC Zone Map Amendment **Agenda Item:** PLN-MAR-25-00017 [timestamp: 03:41] The Commission took up a request for a zone map amendment that would rezone a parcel from an Agricultural Urban (A-U) zone to a Corridor Business (B-3) zone, submitted by Legacy Trail, LLC. Key speakers on this item included Lauren Nichols, Mr. J. Davis, and Ms. Worth. The item was brought before the Commission for consideration, though the discussion prompted the need for additional review before any formal action could be taken. Rather than advancing the amendment at this meeting, the item was **deferred** to allow for further internal review and consultation with council. No final recommendation or vote was recorded on the merits of the rezoning request at this time. The outcome reflects the Commission's decision to postpone action on PLN-MAR-25-00017 pending that additional review and council input. ## Revisions to Article 23A-10 for the Economic Development (ED) Zone [timestamp: 05:17] The Commission took up agenda item **PLN-ZOTA-24-00006**, a proposed text amendment to modify the **Economic Development (ED) Zone** under Article 23A-10. Key speakers on this item included **Lauren Nichols**, **Mr. Forester**, and **Mr. Wilson**. The discussion centered on a text amendment that would revise the regulations governing the ED Zone; however, the item was not advanced for a final decision at this meeting. The amendment was postponed in order to allow additional time to finalize language that would be agreeable to all relevant stakeholders. No further details regarding the specific nature of the proposed modifications, the concerns raised by stakeholders, or the points of contention in the draft language were provided at this stage of the proceedings. **Outcome:** The item was **deferred** pending the resolution of outstanding language issues with stakeholders. ## Dailey Homes, LLC Zone Map Amendment **Agenda Item:** PLN-MAR-25-00018 [timestamp: 2:16:34] The Commission took up a petition filed by Dailey Homes, LLC requesting a zone map amendment that would reclassify a parcel from Single Family Residential (R-1B) zoning to Mixed Low Density Residential (R-2) zoning. Key speakers on this item included Jeremy Young, Mr. Owens, and Mr. Michler. The discussion centered on the proposed increase in allowable density that would accompany the rezoning, as well as potential environmental impacts associated with the change. Concerns were raised regarding the implications of transitioning from the more restrictive R-1B single-family designation to the R-2 mixed low density classification, which would permit a broader range of residential uses and higher density development on the affected property. Participants debated the appropriateness of the requested zone change in the context of the surrounding area, with density and environmental impact identified as the primary points of contention during the hearing. The Commission ultimately voted to **approve** the zone map amendment petition. ## Samuel H Bryan, Tract 8 (Carnes Property) Development Plan **Case No. PLN-MJDP-25-00065** [timestamp: 2:17:07] The Commission took up the preliminary development plan for the Samuel H Bryan, Tract 8 property, commonly referred to as the Carnes Property. The proposal centers on the construction of 41 townhomes along with a future road connection serving the development. Key participants in the discussion included Cheryl Gallt, Mr. Michler, and Mr. Owens. The presentation outlined the scope of the development plan, including the townhome layout and the planned road connection intended to provide future access or connectivity for the area. During deliberations, commissioners and speakers raised concerns on two primary fronts: - **Parking:** Questions were raised regarding the adequacy of parking provisions for the proposed 41-unit townhome development, reflecting common concerns about whether the plan sufficiently accommodates residents and guests. - **Environmental impact:** Environmental considerations were also brought forward as a point of discussion, though the structured data does not detail the specific nature of those concerns. Following the presentation and debate, the Commission voted to **approve** the preliminary development plan. ## Waiver for Minimum Intersection Spacing **Agenda Item:** PLN-WAV-25-00007 [timestamp: 2:17:37] The Commission took up a waiver request for minimum intersection spacing, designated as PLN-WAV-25-00007, with discussion centering on traffic flow and connectivity considerations. Key speakers on this item included Chris Chaney and Mr. Michler, who participated in presenting and discussing the waiver request. The conversation focused on the implications of allowing an intersection spacing that falls below the minimum standard established by ordinance, with traffic flow and connectivity identified as the primary topics of debate. The Commission ultimately **approved** the waiver request. *Note: Additional detail regarding specific arguments made, concerns raised, or conditions attached to the approval was not available in the source materials for this item.* ## Subtext Acquisitions, LLC Zone Map Amendment [timestamp: 3:28:13] The Commission took up agenda item PLN-MAR-25-00022, a petition submitted by Subtext Acquisitions, LLC requesting a zone map amendment to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) designation. Key speakers during the discussion included Ryan Boehm and Bruce Simpson. The presentation and debate centered on themes of community collaboration and preservation, which were highlighted as central considerations in evaluating the proposed rezoning. No additional details regarding the specific property location, current zoning designation, or the nature of the proposed use were provided in the record summarized here. Following discussion, the Commission approved the zone map amendment. ## Subtext Acquisitions, LLC Development Plan **Agenda Item:** PLN-MJDP-25-00068 [timestamp: 3:28:49] The Commission took up the development plan submitted by Subtext Acquisitions, LLC, which proposes a high-density mixed-use building. Key speakers during this agenda item included **Ryan Boehm** and **Nick Nicholson**. The discussion centered on the community benefits associated with the proposed development as well as design considerations for the project. The mixed-use, high-density nature of the building was a focal point of the presentation and deliberation. The Commission ultimately **approved** the development plan. > *Note: The available structured data for this item is limited. For full details on the specific design elements discussed, concerns raised, and the complete scope of community benefits presented, viewers are encouraged to consult the meeting transcript or video beginning at timestamp 3:28:49.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of the December 18, 2025 minutes - **PLN-MAR-25-00015** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Ball Homes, Inc. zone map amendment - **PLN-MAR-25-00017** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Legacy Trail, LLC zone map amendment - **PLN-ZOTA-24-00006** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of revisions to Article 23A-10 for the Economic Development (ED) zone - **PLN-MAR-25-00018** — passed (8-1): Zone map amendment for Dailey Homes, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-25-00065** — passed (9-0): Preliminary development plan for Samuel H Bryan, Tract 8 (Carnes Property) - **PLN-WAV-25-00007** — passed (8-1): Waiver for minimum intersection spacing for Samuel H Bryan, Tract 8 (Carnes Property) - **PLN-MAR-25-00022** — passed (9-0): Zone map amendment for Subtext Acquisitions, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-25-00068** — passed (9-0): Development plan for Subtext Acquisitions, LLC --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Today is January 29th, and this is the meeting of the Lexington State Urban County Government's Planning Commission. Today is zoning items. And the first item on the agenda is the approval of the December 18th, 2025 minutes. Those minutes were circulated. Do we have any revisions, or if not, a motion? Mr. Forrester. Mr. Chair, there's not any additions or revisions. I would like to make a motion for the approval of the December 18th, 2025 minutes. Second. Thank you, sir. Motion from Mr. Forrester. I'll take Mr. Wilson's second. Do we have any comments on that motion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote on the December 28th, I'm sorry, December 18th minutes. All right. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Next item on the agenda are any postponements or withdrawals? Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Ball Homes. We are moving for one-month postponement on item number one on page two of your agenda. MAR 25-15 to the February 26th Planning Commission meeting. We are still working on a revised plan to deal with some typography issues that we're running into. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Do we have any questions for the applicant? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, Mr. Owens. I'll move for a one-month postponement of Ball Homes Incorporated's Plan 25-15 until the February 26th, 2026 meeting. Second. Thank you. And that's a second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. Thank you, Nick. All right. Good morning. Lauren Nichols on behalf of Denton's. And I would ask for a postponement of agenda item number two on page four, the Legacy Trail LLC map amendment. And we're asking for a 60-day postponement to give us time internally to kind of regroup and then also go back to council. All righty. So 60 days? Yes, please. All righty. Tracy, where would that land us? Yeah, that is also March 26th. It would be March 26th as well? March 26th. February 26th and then March 26th. Okay. All righty. March 26th. Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicants? Yes, sir. Mr. Jonathan Davis. Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask for a postponement of Legacy Trail PLN MAR 25-17 for 60 days until March 26th per applicant. All right. Thank you, Jonathan. Do we have any comments or questions? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. We'll take a second from Commissioner Worth. Sorry, I got ahead of myself. Okay. Seeing no discussion, with a second now, we'll take a vote on that. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Lauren. Thank you. I have one more postponement as well. Sorry, Brandon sent me today to do all this dirty work. For item C1 on page 10, that is the ZOTA for CalReel development, we are requesting a 30-day postponement at this time. I think that we're finalizing agreeable language with the FADE Alliance and the other stakeholders, but that's still getting worked out. In full disclosure, we may end up needing 60 days, but at this time, just 30 days. Okay. So that would be to February 26th. Yes. Do we have any questions? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. I make a motion for a one-month postponement for PLN ZOTA 24-6 to the February 26th, 2026 meeting. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Second from Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. And that also carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. No postponements or withdrawals from staff? Okay. Then that should. Did the – okay. Catching up. We will look into that. Thank you. Did we hear anything from the item on page 4, number 2? I'm sorry. Did you say page 4, item 2? Okay. That was the one Laura did. Thank you. Thank you. That was the 60-day. That's right. Okay. So our first item on today's agenda then will be on page 7, number 3, daily homes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jeremy, I'm planning staff. The item presenting currently is PLN MAR2518, daily homes, LLC. It's a request for a zone change from R1B to R2, which is a mixed low-density residential. It is for a property zoned – I'm sorry, just under 3.3 acres. They've identified the enhanced neighborhood place type and the low-density residential development type, and they're seeking a zone change in order to build 41 single-family townhome units with approximately 12 units per acre. And the location here is about three-tenths of a mile inside New Circle. As you can see, New Circle right here. And then there's the subject property. And the adjacent zoning, it's a little bit difficult to tell. There are actually three shades of yellow here. They're all very, very similar. The lightest shade here in the center is R1B, which is also what the subject property is zoned. Here to the north, you have R1C. And then the property that's in the darkest yellow, that's R1D. In the aerial view, you can see the subject property outlined in yellow. The adjacent properties, the proposal would connect this stub street to Loretta Drive. It is currently a stub. And the proposal would connect to Clay's Mill. The applicant has provided some renderings of what they are proposing to build, just examples of what the housing would look like, and what type of development they are proposing. And as I mentioned before, they've selected the enhanced neighborhood place type with low-density residential development type. And the recommended zone of R2 is a preferred zone in those place type and development types. The initial staff report mentioned a few concerns. I guess the most concerning for staff was the presence of a possible sinkhole that was mapped on the Kentucky Geological Survey website. We recommended postponement. The applicant postponed for two months to take some more time to study this potential sinkhole. And due to inclement weather, we only received that report yesterday. So I don't know if engineering has had a full review. Fully admitting that I'm not an expert or an engineer, I reviewed it. It appeared to be positive. But if engineering would like to weigh in on it, it would certainly have more technical details than I would. The second was pre-preservation. So our ordinance prevents any type of land disturbance or activity on the site once an application has been submitted. We were concerned that perhaps there was some activity after the application had been submitted. But further investigation, it appears that the trees were removed prior to application for the zone map amendment and development plan. All residential zones require 30% lot coverage, and this site would require the same as well. So if this were to be approved, the final development plan would require them to demonstrate compliance with those regulations. The third item was public outreach. At the time of the initial hearing, the applicant had not conducted any public outreach. In mid-November, there was a meeting held. It was well attended by members of the adjacent neighborhoods. I think there were 40-plus people there. Some of the concerns were with traffic, connectivity of the roads, type of development, density, those types of things. And since staff has a recommendation of approval, the request we feel meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan for increasing density on an infill parcel. It's connecting roads that have been intended to connect for 40 years. It's connecting roads that have been intended to connect for 40 years. I think that stub has been there since at least 1980 when most of those houses were built. It would provide additional ingress and egress opportunities for both residents and emergency services. The application complies with the policies of the comprehensive plan. Again, increasing density, providing additional housing choices, different style houses. Not everybody wants the maintenance requirements of a full yard. Sometimes there are some people who prefer a smaller yard with less maintenance. These townhomes provide that opportunity. And again, it continues the sub-street, which promotes walkability, promotes dispersion of traffic. And the proposal, it meets the development criteria for land use. It's a more compact development than what's typically there. You can see, if we go back to the zoning map here, you can see over time, as zone changes have occurred in the area, all this property started off as R1B. And as properties have become available to develop, we had the slightly more dense R1C, and then the more dense R1D, as properties have developed. And this is sort of a continuation of that process. It meets, like I said before, the transportation, the connectivity. It provides opportunities for both pedestrians and motorists to have alternate paths to get in and out of the neighborhood. As far as environmental sustainability, I think they've demonstrated that they did their investigation on the sinkhole. It appears to be inconsistent with the typical core drillings that would indicate a sinkhole. But like I said, if you have any technical questions, certainly the engineering staff would be more equipped to handle those questions. It meets the criteria for building form. It is a slightly more dense proposal than the neighboring properties, but it's not so extreme that it would be out of place for that neighborhood. And this recommendation is subject to the approval of the associated development plan. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Young. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Wirth? Yes, I do, and I don't know if this is appropriately placed for this discussion or the development plan. But in the comments that we were provided, we received a letter from Mr. William Burke that included documentation that there was an agreement between the Carnes, Mrs. Carnes who sold the property to Daily Homes, that 40 or approximately 40 mature trees be removed as a condition of the sale and that Daily Homes would pay for that. Does staff know about that before? I think either way, the only requirement that we can hold them to is the 30 percent lot coverage. So there isn't an ordinance that precludes someone from cutting down a tree on their property or even a property that they plan to purchase. It's only once they file a development plan or a zone change request are they sort of frozen in place at that point and then no development or land disturbance can take place until that process has taken place. But either way, they would be required to provide 30 percent lot coverage or canopy coverage. I understand that. In terms of our tree protection efforts, it seems like that's a huge gap that we need to do something about, that we need some help from council, and I personally find that offensive. Okay, Commissioner Molly Davis. No, the hearing will run efficiently. I'm sorry, Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair. And this may be another question, which I'm not sure who to answer this. Amongst the citizen comments that we received this morning, there were also a number of, it looked as though someone had brought the project to the attention of the endangered species because of concerns about bat habitat being destroyed. There was another concern that there should have been, the geotechnical work should have been done by a second disinterested party. Just things along those lines, which I am not able to evaluate those things, but I'm wondering what staff think about that. We don't have any stipulations on who does the work in our regulations as far as geotechnical work. We just require a report to be submitted, and then we verify that through our engineers. And like I said, we haven't had an opportunity to do a full review, but the initial report appeared to be positive. But like I said, we have not fully reviewed it. Thank you, Jeremy. And just to add on to that a little bit, reminding the audience and the Planning Commission that this is the preliminary development plan in association with this. So when we have something like a stamped technical report that's indicating, hey, we've looked at this, and we believe that there's not any sinkholes, no development would be able to occur on this site without that going through the full final development plan process, including all of the sign-offs on both stages by our Division of Engineering, as well as any of our other applicable groups. With respect to the habitat concern, we did receive that notice, but unfortunately there's no way for us to really weigh in on that on our level here. So hopefully that clears up a little bit. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Owens. Jeremy, one question right now. Just curious, and one of your earlier maps may lead me to that or lead you to that. Recognizing the zone change that they're asking for and the density, it appears that what I've seen, everything in the area is single-family housing, single-family detached housing. Can you show me anything similar to what they're proposing in the nearby area? I don't believe there's anything specifically in the immediate vicinity. I think that, as I mentioned before, as these properties have developed over the years, some were done in the 60s and then the 70s and 80s. As each decade progressed, it got slightly denser, starting at R1B and then going to R1C, R1D, and this being the next step in that process. I think that may be part of the intention and what the comprehensive plan is calling for is to introduce different types of variety into areas that are just strictly single-family. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any more questions for Jeremy on the zone change question? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Young. And before we hear from Cheryl, if anyone present would like to speak on this application or any application today, you're certainly welcome to do so. We just ask that you sign up at the entrance so that we can have a roadmap of how many people would like to speak. Each citizen gets three minutes, and it is the policy of the Planning Commission that there is no borrowing or lending of time. And we will have public comment shortly. Cheryl. I'll just add a quick comment. You asked if there was anything else with the townhomes. We just looked at recently the townhome on Pasadena. Okay. I'm sorry. We just looked at the development plan for townhomes on Pasadena where we had I think it was six, and then they came back in and they added the other piece of property off of Eastway. That's not too far from here, but I'm just – I know that we had additional townhomes in this area, so it's all still single-family homes. So – okay. Here's a copy of the development plan that we're talking about as far as the rezoning, this being Clays Mill Road right here. This is the new street that they're proposing off of Clays Mill, Holland Drive. It'll come back in here, and then it tees into Loretta. So you see how Loretta is stubbed this way. So they're connecting into that. We're also stubbing it out this direction for any future development on the other side of the property. We are showing 41 townhomes. We have an open space and detention area located in this area here. So with that, we received a revised plan, and I hope you all can find that on the green sheet with the revised conditions. With that, we were able to review and remove a few of the conditions, but the requirements still not met. Dimension standard driveway radiuses, addition of existing canopy coverage. We talked about tree canopy just a moment ago. They do have a tree protection area that runs along the backside here and along the backside of these lots here. They're improving the landscaping along the backside of these adjacent to the other residential homes. We also like to see addition of the record plot information. There is a waiver on this, and Chris Chaney will speak about that shortly. Design considerations. We ask, consider addition of traffic calming to the intersection by adding bulb outs to narrow the cross section of the road. A public sanitary sewer tap is required for each proposed lot before subdividing. And questions or concerns. Discuss compliance with common open space and provided open space exhibit. As I said, this area here is also our detention and open space, so we wanted to make sure that it met the distance requirement for these homes in the rear. With the proposal, that's still a discussion, discuss the width of the proposed street and on-street parking. They're proposing a 31-foot wide pavement on the street, which allows for parking on the street, which could allow for parking on the street, but if you notice, there's not a lot of room in between the driveway skirts out here to be able to park a car. So we had talked about possible changing the street width. That was just a discussion. You can remove discuss place builder criteria because Jeremy was able to inform you of that information. Subdivision committee recommended approval with the following conditions. Erie County Council approves the zone change. Division of Engineering, Division of Traffic Engineering, Urban Forester, Open Space, Department of Environmental Quality, provided that the Planning Commission grants the requested waiver and that they correct all the noted deficiencies as required in here. So with that, I will open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you, Cheryl. Do we have any comments or questions for Cheryl on the development plan? Mr. Mickler. Yeah, I had a couple of questions. One was I wanted to maybe discuss a little bit more the sort of on-street parking issue you just brought up, where the driveway aprons, because they're not shared, are sort of double width, and then because they're townhomes, essentially this is a public street, but there's no place hardly for the public to park. And so I was, I mean, I guess I understand that if this were in an expansion area, this would not be allowed at all. Well, it's just the dimension. I forgot about this copy here. As you can see, the sidewalks, the aprons for the driveways, they're very close together. So you have two driveways, and then you have the apron and two driveways. This small area here where in between the aprons is where we don't believe it's enough distance to park a car, so unless you're hanging over the apron. So that's why it was one of those questions. Do we want to, you know, do we really need to have this width of a street if you're not going to be able to park on it because there's not enough room? And I think that's a very valid question, and I guess I... That's up to them. That's the discussion. That's why we wanted to leave it as a discussion as to what other options, you know, if you want to leave it this width, then that's good. That's their design. Yeah, but this is becoming a public street. Is that correct? Yes. So this is going to become city property, and essentially this design has this really wide street with space for public parking that they essentially rob by doing these double driveways. So it seems like as a city we need to kind of not just discuss whether they'd like to maybe make the street better, but it seems like we need to maybe... The double driveways are for two units. There's a 10-foot-wide driveway for this unit and a 10-foot-wide driveway for this unit, so that is why they have one apron in between because we are asking for that too. So it's not a double driveway for each unit. It's just a single driveway for each unit. I understand that. Okay, I wasn't quite sure. So that's why we asked for them to pull them together so that way at least it leaves a little more open space and to combine it to one skirt instead of two, three additional ones. It's just a requirement we have today that driveways need to be matched. To help reduce that. Right, I understand that, but because of the width of the whole lot, they're just too close together still. Yeah. And I guess the logic that you have makes sense to me where you then would either pull a street, but I guess I don't quite understand why we don't have it in our ordinance that there needs to be room for parking or that we need the street to come narrower. I guess I'm maybe bringing this up as... We're trying to reduce the parking in all areas. So they have a garage, they have a driveway. There's two cars right there. If you park one in the garage and one in the driveway. But those are private. Right. And I mean if you have friends come over, I mean I imagine if they can park up here along this area here. That's another street that is at the dimension of 31 feet. So that allowed... And then... It was just a discussion question to ask them. And then... Would you want to do that? Just for my understanding, because we can see by the aerial imagery that this, and then the images that were provided in the comments, that this lot was, aside from a grouping of trees there along the side, this was pretty much clear cut as part of the sale is what we're hearing. That's all before... In a normal process, after they had filed, we have a significant amount of like backyard space. Would this normally, those spaces behind those homes, be asked that those trees be protected since there's no building or street on them? Would that be a typical request at this stage in a typical development plan? Had they submitted this plan showing all the trees before they had cut them down, if they had submitted it, they would have had to put tree protection areas around the trees. If they met the significant requirements, they would have had to protect those trees. The fact that they were cut down prior to us seeing the plan, we didn't see it until after they were cut down. They do show, you can see some circles along here, and they do have noted the size and the type of tree they are on these dark circles that they have left on the property. We would like for them to keep them all, but they were taken down before we even saw the plan, before it was even submitted to the Division of Planning. I guess just for clarification for understanding this process, if they had submitted it with those trees still in place, they still could have taken trees out to build the roads and the houses that they needed, but the trees that are in the current green space would have been protected as part of the process had they not been removed immediately prior to the application. Thank you. Okay. Do we have... Mr. Owens? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, my question, I think it's a clarification. Typographical mistake. You mentioned the green revised report. The heading mentions 25-65 Samuel Bryan, Track 8, Karnes property, located at 2709 and 276... I just saw that. Okay. That should be corrected. Yes, it should be Clay's Mill Road. Sorry. Okay. That was my question. I may have one more in a minute. Okay. We were kind of, I believe, kind of rushed since we lost two days this week. So, I apologize for the... Okay. Commissioner... One else? Molly Davis. Do you have a question? I do. Thank you, Chair. My question is about the depicted open space, space slash detention basin area. I realize that this is a preliminary development plan. Will the fact that a detention basin doesn't really comprise appropriate or possibly an enhanced neighborhood feature in an enhanced neighborhood, will that be addressed or discussed? It will be part of the requirement of open space when you have a certain number of dwelling units. Over 25 dwelling units, you have to have a certain dimensional open space area. So, that is why they're proposing this area here. This meets the front dimension, I believe, of 100 foot. They also are showing sidewalk that continues all the way to the street, and they're showing a sidewalk wrapping around. And so, that might be where they're looking as to meeting the open space requirements. That will be reviewed again at time of the final development plan, and they will have to work out all the issues at that time. Thank you. Yeah, because this is only a preliminary. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess before Cheryl, it sounds like she's kind of finished. Before Cheryl gets away, staff gets finished, Jeremy had mentioned the geotechnical report. Believe me, I'm not an expert either. He was kind of deferring to engineering. I'm just wondering if engineering would like to weigh in on this at this time. I'm not sure. Ms. Bond's up here. We'll see if she wants to come up and speak. She's coming this way. Whether she wants to speak or not, I don't know. You asked me to come up, so I'm here. Yvonne Adkins, engineering. We did just get the report like a few days ago, so I haven't had a chance to review it in detail. I think they probably have a representative that can explain where they're going with what's in here. I have some questions, but again, those could probably be discussed offline, and then it has to go to the final development plan stage, so we can hash those out if it moves forward. And if you need more discussion after they present their plan, I'll be glad to come up and do that. Okay. We can defer until then, maybe. Thank you. Okay. If we don't have any other questions, we will move on to the waiver. Mr. Chaney. Good afternoon. Chris Chaney, planning staff. I apologize for any confusion with the waiver report in your packet. I changed the print setting and allowed unbridled chaos into my day, so we'll try to keep that at a minimum at this point. I'm going to go back to this as we go through the first part of the waiver. In the waiver report, the first page is just the standard boilerplate stuff, but under Article 1-5 of the Land Subdivision Regulations, it does allow the Planning Commission to grant waivers and apply conditions to those waivers that the Planning Commission may feel necessary. Such variances may be granted only without detriment to the public good, without impairing the purposes, basic objectives, and intent of these regulations, and without impairing the desirable general development of the neighborhood and the community. And then the criteria for granting those waivers, exceptional hardship or design innovation, large-scale development, or infill and redevelopment facilitation, or alternate designs for environmental water quality considerations, are a combination of those criteria. This request specifically is in regards to Article 6-8Q2C, pertaining to the spacing of local streets along a minor arterial roadway. And this request for the waiver is submitted under Article 1-5A, an exceptional hardship. The subject property is located on the east side of Clay's Mill Road, which is classified by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet as an urban minor arterial. The property is south of Pasadena Boulevard, which is going to be off the screen to the north, and north of New Circle Road, which is also off the screen on this image. It's located between Nekomi Drive, and I hope I get this right, Gallata Drive to the south, on the west side, and between Cecil Way and Neal Drive on the east side. As you've seen on the development plan proposal, it proposes to connect Loretta Drive through and stub to the undeveloped property to the south, and then also connect out to Clay's Mill Road. The new proposed road from Clay's Mill would be Holland Drive, and it's proposed to connect 123 feet south of Nekomi, which would be the nearest local street that connects to Clay's Mill. The land subdivision regulations do not specify access spacing for local streets along a minor arterial, as it is deemed inappropriate to connect directly to any arterial with a local street. In this case, Clay's Mill Road was not originally constructed as a minor arterial roadway, and the existing development pattern along the corridor includes numerous driveway and local street connections. But for all other roadway classifications for local street connections, it's 250 feet. So that would be the minimum spacing for any local street connection. The land subdivision regulations provide guidelines for determining the proper spacing for street intersections and driveway access for subdivisions in Article 6-8Q. While it's understood that these guidelines will not be able to be adhered to in all cases, especially in areas where existing development is present, the Planning Commission is tasked with applying the access spacing guidelines to the greatest extent feasible in order to create safe and efficient traffic movement. The preliminary development plan was submitted on October 6, and the waiver request was submitted on October 31. And while this proposal doesn't meet the minimum spacing per Article 6-8B, it does provide connectivity, which is something LFUCG has recognized as important to provide multiple connections to neighborhoods for reducing congestion, improving traffic safety, and creating a more efficient and effective transportation network. In the request letter, the applicant opines that a strict application of the regulation would cause exceptional hardship in the development of the property by limiting the site design to a more inefficient traffic design that is not in keeping with the existing nature of the street design in the area and would diminish opportunities to incorporate the design policies of the comprehensive plan. The applicant also posits that the addition of new local streets will improve the transportation network and connectivity to the existing neighborhood and streets and sidewalks. By adding a second connection to Loretta Drive and stepping into the undeveloped parcel to the south, the applicant feels this proposal will add options for traffic flow through the existing streets and provide ease of connection for future developments. There are currently numerous driveway and street connections along this section of Clay's Mill Road. The posted speed limit is 35 miles an hour. Traffic engineering has stated that there are no existing crash issues with any of the adjacent streets. Nakomi Drive or Cecil Way and a new access point will provide meaningful secondary egress in case of any sort of emergency that may inhibit Cecil Way access to Clay's Mill Road. The subject property has 240 feet of frontage along Clay's Mill Road. There would be no way to add a connection to Clay's Mill Road and meet the spacing requirements with the subject property alone. Given the size of the property, the existing development patterns of the surrounding neighborhoods and streets, and the requirement to continue existing streets and adjoining neighborhoods to supplement the collector, connector, and arterial street system, and that's in reference to Article 6-8B, staff has concluded that granting this waiver of spacing of local streets along a minor arterial roadway would not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare. Based on that, we recommend approval of the requested waiver of Article 6-8Q2C for local street spacing on a minor arterial for the following reasons. Number one, granting the requested waiver for reduced access spacing along a minor arterial will not adversely affect public health, safety, and welfare in compliance with the intent of the land subdivision regulations. This proposal increases connectivity and redundancy in the local street network due to existing crash issues that exist for this portion of Clay's Mill Road. Granting the waiver is consistent with the intent of Article 1-5A of the land subdivision regulations for exceptional hardship due to the size of the subject property in the existing street network. Okay. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for Chris on the waiver request? Okay. Seeing none, thank you. At this time, we will hear from the applicant. Good afternoon. My name is Charlotte McCoy. I'm here as counsel to the applicant, Daily Homes. I have with me today Jimmy Ball from Daily Homes and Matt Carter with Vision Engineering, the project's engineer, and we're all here to answer questions. I want to start by thanking the planning staff for all of their hard work on this project. We've really appreciated their assistance as we've worked through it. As it's been shown, this is an application for a zone change that is an infill project to take an underutilized piece of land in a residential area and to add a denser and a different type of residential option, which is one of the overarching themes of the comprehensive plan. I'd like to go on and address some of the questions that have already come up. With respect to the trees, I'd like to apply a little more clarification on that. Daily Homes has a contract with the current landowner, which is TaylorMade Real Estate. They did not get involved with this until, in fact, did not see the property until after the tree removal had been done. It wasn't done at their request. They really weren't a part of it. It's my understanding that TaylorMade made it a condition as part of their due diligence investigation to be able to see the property and investigate it more. We weren't a part of that. The applicant understands the issue and the concerns that have been raised by the neighbors and the staff as well. They've shown some additional trees. They're amenable to more trees. They know they have to meet the minimum requirement. I think with respect to the parking question, I'll let Matt address some of the conversations he's had with traffic about the street. I know there will probably be a lot more questions. With that, I will let Matt speak. I'll let him also address the sinkholes. I'm not an engineer either, but I've read the report. I've reviewed the report. My understanding of the situation is that there's a map that shows that there could be this area. They've done additional boring and testing, and they haven't found any evidence that there is a sinkhole in the area. Of course, if one were to be encountered as the project moved along, it would have to be addressed. That's understood. Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. I'm going to start with questions related to parking. So yesterday, kind of late in the day, I had a lot of back and forth with traffic engineering on parking. Early in the process, we talked about doing some kind of calming to the roads. The one shown on the plan is 30 feet from face of curb to face of curb. And we had agreed with traffic engineering that we would definitely do some kind of calming, but we just didn't know what they wanted. Since then and yesterday, after talking with them, we've agreed to narrow the road, Holland Drive, to 24 feet, face of curb to face of curb. And there will be no parking in front of the townhomes where the road is 24 feet wide. I'll put up something on the overhead. Is that the pointer at the top? Oh, well. I don't see it up there yet. All right. Let me go back to show you this area right there. Okay. So what I wanted to show you is as you come off of Clays Mill Road onto Holland Drive, that first section is going to be 31 feet wide. Okay. When you get past the detention basin, you can kind of see that it starts transitioning down to 24 feet. So what we're going to do is on the side of the road by the detention basin, we're going to allow on-street parking. I don't know exactly how many cars, but I would think for sure you could get maybe 10 cars able to parallel park there. Then as you get down to Loretta Drive, that section is going to probably remain the 31 feet wide since it's a short road section. Along lot 18 and lot 29, there's a lot of area for on-street parking on that side only. So the road will be signed where it will show you where you can and can't park, but there won't be any parking directly in front of any of the townhomes. There just simply isn't enough room between the driveways. As far as parking, I mean, the driveways are all going to be plenty long enough to where a car can park in it, and then each unit will have a one-car garage. So there's opportunities on-site for each to have two cars parking on-site on each lot, and then I would estimate there's at least 30 parallel parking spaces available on the road. So there will be some. Please note the hearings have to run a very specific way, and everybody will have an opportunity to be heard. So I hope that answers your questions on that, Mr. Mickler. It did, thank you. As far as the geotechnical investigation that was provided, our geotech department did the report. It wasn't a second geotech. We did the geotech. We're certified geotechnical engineers, professional engineers. We stamped that plan, and when we stamp it, to the best of our knowledge, everything on there is right. It's not really something that's subjective in that we're taking core samples, making measurements from cores. Whoever gets those cores is going to come up with the same measurements that we do. We don't do the drilling. We have a third party do those, and one of our geotechnical engineers is out there in the field with the third-party drillers drilling it, and then we take the samples back to our lab. So some things I wanted to point out. Everybody's calling it a sinkhole. There's other things it could be, too. It could be a depression, which that's what we think it is. Based on what we found from our investigation, a sinkhole has certain indicators that they all have. They're typically all round in shape. This area is not round. They typically have an open throat. There's no throat on this one. As you get in and start drilling in them, typically what you encounter is inconsistent soils because where it was a depression or a sinkhole, soils are starting to wash down in it. Well, we found the soils were very consistent all through it. We have three different locations within the depression that we analyzed, and it was very consistent. Another thing we noticed is the road, the elevations in the street out there, the lowest spot in this area is only three feet below the elevation of the road. Basically all the indicators, none of them show this as a sinkhole. Some other things we found is we went back and looked at historical mapping all the way back to, believe it or not, 1904. It never showed up as a closed contour until probably the early 50s. Here's what we think it is. There's a sag point in Clays Mill Road right in front of this property. What sags are, it's the low spot in a road, if you're looking at the profile, typically sags are in low areas that they put fill in so that they can make the drainage work. We're almost certain that the depression on this site is the material that was used to fill Clays Mill Road so that it would work properly. We went on the shoulder of Clays Mill Road and did two hand augers, which is drills we can do by hand and put down in, and we went down and we found two feet of fill that's probably been there before we hit what we would call original ground. We're pretty certain it was a borrow area. Another thing we looked at was we took rock cores. Well, one rock core, we found the lowest spot in the depression, which if it was a sinkhole, it would have one low spot. We took a core there. Well, the rock in depth was consistent almost all over the whole site. It ranged from 8 1⁄2 feet to about 14 1⁄2, depending on where on the site you are. The rock core itself, these are graded on their quality, and it's called rock quality designation. And we performed a rock quality designation on this core, and it turned out to be it came back at 83 percent. And I know you won't know what that means, but to relate that 83 percent to the description of the rock quality, there's very poor, poor, fair, good, and excellent. Eighty-three percent is well in the middle of the good category. The good category ranges from 75 to 90 percent. We're at 83. So what does that tell you? It tells you that the integrity of the rock is very good, and it's not weathered. There's nothing consistent about that being a sinkhole. I mean, if there was a sinkhole there, you would see rock dropping off. You would see voids in the rock. Another thing we do is when we do our drilling, we inject water into the holes to make it drill easier. As the water is going down in the bores, they're able to take the pressure on the water, and when there's voids in the rock, the water will escape into the bore and the pressure drops. We have no pressure drops. The reason I'm telling you this, it's all indicators that the rock down there is very good and intact. So it does show up on a map, a closed contour. On the property, it's probably two feet deep, but it's three feet lower than the elevation at the center line of Clay's Mill Road. Engineering has a copy of this report. Like planning said, this is not a final development plan. We've got plenty of time. They can look at this. There are standard notes that go on development plans if you're in a karst known area. Those notes will go on this plan, and they kind of govern what you can and can't do. Our geotech report makes recommendations. The geotech report doesn't say 100% this is not a sinkhole. It just says it's not likely a sinkhole. We go into great detail on what we think it is. If they're putting in a foundation and they encounter something that's unusual, this report goes into what to do. Other than that, I don't know what else to tell you. We really don't think it's a sinkhole. So I'd be glad to answer any questions you have on that or on the parking or anything on the traffic. We did a traffic study. One was not required. We just didn't have enough units to warrant it, but we can answer questions on that as well. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carter. Do we have any questions from Mr. Wilson? Actually, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the attorney to come back up. I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am, I have one. And this is a question for clarification, if I could, to fill in the blank. Your point or your position is that the applicant had no knowledge of the trees being removed before purchasing the property? Yeah, I can let Mr. Ball speak. But just to sort of clarify the timeline here, there was the Carnes estate that Taylor Made Properties purchased the property from. And the agreement about the trees and the due diligence investigation that that was a part of were between those two parties. Taylor Made, my understanding is they talked to several different developers about what they were going to do with the property. They ended up reaching an agreement with Mr. Ball and Daily Homes, and they have an agreement to purchase the property from Taylor Made. So that's the timeline, and I can let Mr. Ball speak, if he would, about when he saw the property, if you'd like. Well, the other part of the fill in the blank, if they did not know that there were trees that had been removed, how did they make the determination that that would be a part of the contract? Daily Homes wasn't a part of that contract. Not associated. They weren't associated with Taylor Made at all. They weren't a part of that. Now, I think when he saw the property, he could tell the trees had been taken down, but he was not a part of the decision or any of that. Okay, thank you. Okay, Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. This is probably more of a question for Matt, Mr. Carter, if you wouldn't mind. So just one more question about the geotechnical report. Okay. Looking at Figure 3, and I have it in front of me, and we see that it shows that the Kentucky Geological Survey say that there is a KGS map location, and then there's a KGS lidar sinkhole, and there's a really far away map sinkhole. Do you know when the KGS made this determination? Does it matter? Why are they wrong? Because you feel like your report says they're wrong? Everybody knows that the central part of Kentucky is just one giant sinkhole. I mean, they're everywhere. So the Kentucky Geological Survey, they take contours, and if the contour is closed, meaning it has no beginning or end, they just say it's a sinkhole. I mean, that's just what they call it. They do have, like, based on soil types and different things, they've got the maps you're looking at probably have all these different color overlays, and a lot of it has to do with soil types. But for the most part, they're looking at closed contours, and if they see one, because it's not normal. I mean, normally weathering from rain and things like that erodes things away, and there's just not closed contours. Okay. But they had some mapping that showed it closed, so they said... And we know it's not a mountain, so it has to be a sinkhole. Yeah. Okay. And I didn't bring this up. It could have been a pond one day. I don't know. But, I mean, that's a possibility. The soil characteristics probably don't lean that way, because the topsoil was very consistent, about 12 inches everywhere you looked on the property. Okay. So the second question is, I assume that before you probably wanted to pursue a zone change to something more intensive, like R2, you might have looked to see what R1B, which is the current zoning, could accommodate. Do you know how many houses you could accommodate on this site if there were not a zone change? Jimmy, did you look at that? I did not look at that, but just, I mean... Obviously fewer than 31. I mean, comparing it to the property next door, I'm going to guess 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, maybe 9. Nine. With the same road configuration. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other Commissioner questions for Mr. Carter or Ms. McCoy? Okay. We will move on. Ms. McCoy, do you have anything further? Okay. We will move on to public comment at this point. If you were not present earlier, it is the policy of the Planning Commission that everybody gets three minutes individually. If you would just approach the podium, state your name, and there is no borrowing or lending of time at the Planning Commission. If you would like to speak on this item, you are welcome to do so now. And if we could, if more than one or two people wish to speak, just form a queue of maybe three people at a time and go from there. Thank you. Hello. Eileen Lindsey, first timer. Do I have to hit any buttons or anything? No. Okay. I don't live in the area, but my son and his family does. And they're on Neal Drive, and we come up Cecil. And I can tell you that Clays Mill Road right there is neither safe or efficient. Somebody said that. That is a two-lane road. There are schools, daycares everywhere. It's actually very dangerous to even try to make a left-hand turn onto Clays Mill because there's also a little bit of an incline and trees. So many times that's impossible, and I actually have to turn right instead of going left. So I think that's a big problem. I don't know if there would be any plans to put a light in there because I know my family and I get stuck for many, many minutes trying to go right or left. So that's one of the issues. The other one I would say is I've lived in four different states, Michigan and Lexington, twice now. And I'm just really disheartened that you have such a, I think, a small plot of land, and you're just cramming, squishing houses in there. We already know, I already know, 20 years ago when I lived here, that the roads are just not keeping up with all the developments. So that's my biggest concern. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, my name is John Rollins. I've lived at 2116 Clays Mill for nearly 20 years now. A couple different items, as was just mentioned. The road was recently widened. We added a third lane, turning lane. There's, what, four schools within a quarter-mile corridor, possibly. That third lane did help with the school traffic, but as I mentioned, living there for almost 20 years, traffic has gotten substantially worse, especially since that got put in. And cramming 41 townhouses in in this little plot is not the answer. It was just mentioned that maybe nine houses could be on there. I went to the UK. I've been doing architecture for 25 years now. The size of houses that are in that neighborhood, seven maybe. And then as far as the plan layout of these things, I think they're 21 feet by 55, somewhere around there with a garage. You know, I could be wrong. I don't think there's going to be luxury townhomes is what's going to be built here. And then as the gentleman was speaking to the geotech report, again, being in the architecture industry, I'm a little familiar with that as well. That all depends on where these borings were taken. Was a boring done right in the middle of this sinkhole? I'm not sure. I don't know where all the testings were done. And then also when you hit rock, how far was rock encountered? Did we just go an inch? Oh, we found a rock in here. We're good to go. Or did we go several feet? Was that rock consistent? Was it a boulder? Was it just somebody throwing a well forever ago? You know, these are just items we don't know. And again, like I said, I've lived in this area for 20 years. I'm very opposed to this. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Taylor Dunn. I'm no relation to TaylorMade. I was under the impression originally that was TaylorMade Farms. Well, not the case. So I've worked remote out of town past 11 years for a financial firm. I've since started a local AI company. I'm a 15-year Neal Drive resident. It's an honor to just have an opportunity because of being out of town for work to stand with my neighbors, most of whom lived there long before me and are the lifeblood of our community. I support the staff's recommendation for postponement. My concern is the density of housing afforded to a rezoning at this location. Just a couple questions for the record. So just, you know, no engineers here, but we all have eyes. And so has anybody inspected whether the debris piles, you'll see the big debris piles if you visit the site, northwest corridor or covering, any cars, features, those are sinkholes. You'd have to move them, of course, snow and so forth. What protections exist for the two 48-inch heritage trees that remain on the property? From a traffic safety standpoint, has a traffic impact study been completed for this development? If the street cannot be built to code without a waiver, should this development proceed? And then the latest proposed development plan mentions 44 units, not 41. But as I'll say in just a moment here, we don't want to get bogged by those details. I have a couple requests. So the proposed street is named Holland Drive. And if approved, I ask that the street be renamed Jacobi Drive. That's after the two-year-old that was killed at the intersection of Dekomi in 2020. And I know it's a small acknowledgement, but a permanent reminder that traffic safety here is life and death. I walk that street to Wellington. And, you know, if you have your AirPods on, which most of us do, you know, you're always kind of in the back of your mind, you know, because cars get going pretty fast. We hear them, you know, the motorcycles and everything at night. And then if approved, I also request that my business be granted the opportunity to purchase 10 units. There's just a great opportunity, cash flow, short-term housing. As well, rezoning is a vote that allows the developer carte blanche development of this land. So that's why I didn't want to be distracted by the details of the PDP. A vote for rezoning is a vote for 40-50 rental units on three acres, Calhoun, Lexington. Commissioners, please support post-moment. Require answers to our questions and encourage a lower-density alternative and vote no to rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. My name is Bob Sturdivant. I live at 2817 Phoenix Road. I'd like to thank you all for volunteering your time. I serve on the Planning Commission. I understand the issues that you face every day. I'm president of the Pasadena Neighborhood Association. I have been for 15 years. I'm speaking on behalf of about 575 households. We are all R1C and R1D single-family homes. I'm not here today to discuss a lot of issues concerning this development, but just the facts and figures that relate to the issue of traffic safety on Clays Mill as it relates to the proposed project. Our Neighborhood Association is bounded on the east by Clays Mill Road, on the west by Harrodsburg Road. We have four streets that provide direct access to our neighborhood from Clays Mill Road. Two of these roads will be almost directly across from the proposed new access road that will connect into the new development. More vehicles that they will produce will have a profound negative impact on our members trying to access Clays Mill Road. Do any of the Planning Commissioners here drive Clays Mill Road on a daily basis? Yes. Are you familiar with this? I just want to hear from you at this time. Clays Mill Road is probably the most unique transportation corridor in all of Lexington. In a three-mile stretch of Clays Mill Road from Keithshire north to Harrodsburg Road, there are 11 schools and two daycare centers. Clays Mill Road serves as the main feeder road for all of these schools. I'm going to name these schools. I'm going to repeat one more time. In a three-mile stretch of Clays Mill Road, there are 11 schools and two daycare centers. There are nearly 10,000 students and support staff that carry their transportation on this road, which doesn't include the parents that take their children to school every day. Traffic in the morning and the afternoon is a nightmare. I've personally taken my grandchildren to Clays Mill Elementary and Lexington Christian Academy and have been unable to get out onto Clays Mill Road, and it's only getting worse. Forty-one townhomes could potentially add 80 new vehicles to Clays Mill Road. Our concern is for the safety of our children and parents and teachers. My wife's traffic engineer told me once upon a time, we can't eliminate Lexington's traffic problems, we can only manage them. One more sentence, please. This is your all's opportunity today to help manage this traffic problem on Clays Mill Road by not approving this zone change. We believe that these additional vehicles, they don't seem like much. We believe that this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Thank you very much. Thank you for hearing us today. My name is William Burke. I live at 2917 Jason Court. I've been at that residence for about 38 years now. My property will border this development probably more than most. I'll have at least six or seven townhomes directly in my backyard now. I'm fine with development. I'm fine with the developer making money. I have issue with the size and the scope of this particular project. As you've heard from engineers, we're squeezing cars in, we're doing everything we can just to try to make this work. If there was just less density, everything would be fine. They can make money, but just a little bit lower scope. My name was brought up as I was the person who brought up the tree situation that's been discussed. So I feel I should use my last two minutes to explain a little bit about what I know about what I believe is deception buying this property. Not saying the developer did it. He may not know. But I know the Carnes family who sold the property. When the trees were coming down, I contacted Mrs. Carnes. She told me she'd sold the property to a developer that was going to build townhomes. And their requirement was that they would cut down a few trees for soil sampling. But that had to be in the contract. I thought that was strange. So she sent me the contract. And it showed that in the contract, the buyer could remove any tree they wanted at their expense, put in escrow before closing. I mean, why would you do that? Why would you close and then cut the trees down? It just seemed very strange to me. But be that as it may, that was in the contract. And after they cut the trees down and paid for it in escrow, they even put the invoice in Mrs. Carnes' name as if she paid to have these trees taken down. She didn't. Mrs. Carnes didn't have the means for that. That was all a stipulation to cut these trees down before closing. You can decide what to make of that, whether he knew, whether he didn't know. He certainly is financially connected to the buyer of that property. Like I said, regarding the trees, that's all I know. Regarding the development itself, like I said, I just wish that Loretta doesn't connect and that we have less density. Because I believe that that particular plan is just too much. Everyone looking at this plan, 41 townhomes and three acres, a little over three acres, that's a lot. I wish him well. Cut the size in half. That's my argument. Thank you. So good afternoon. I'm Mike Harmon, and I have lived on the Cecil Way for 42 years now. I actually grew up on the south side of town and worked on the south side of town all my life. So I kind of know the area pretty well. Obviously the biggest thing that people don't want today is to have Loretta Drive opened up for potential traffic to come through our quiet little neighborhood. That's being selfish, I know, but we've all raised our kids and now raising grandkids in a very quiet little neighborhood. We're worried about that being interrupted. So that's our primary objection. We don't object to development because that's natural. We need more housing. To tag along with Baker's comment, it's the type and the density. You're looking at 12-something units per acre, if my notes are correct, which is up on the upper limits of anything you'll look into. There are some in Fayette County, but most of them are not that dense. So that's the deal. Holland Lane, as it will become, if it stays at 31 feet, which is the same width as Loretta is, If you park on both sides of the road and you take the average width of a car, which is about 6.5 feet, and the average SUV and truck is 7.5 feet. So you can run the numbers. You're not going to park right on a curb. Basically what you're going to do here is have a two-way street and a one-lane road, pretty much. You're just going to be dodging in and out. And we've all been on these streets that we do that with. It's more difficult to get bigger trucks, like garbage trucks, fire trucks, EMS, down those types of streets also. So the contention also to go with that is you've got one-lane driveways, which allows for one car to get off. And I cannot find exactly on the drawings a setback to how far it is from the inside of the sidewalk to the garage door. A lot of these developments, if you'll go around, they're not enough to get the car actually off. It's hanging over the sidewalk, which is against some kind of ordinance, I'm sure. It's been brought up, I won't go through it, but 88 cars or 90 cars or whatever, the parking will be terrible because you've got a 21-foot wide lot. You're going to do a 10-foot takeout for the driveway. You've got 11 feet in front of your house to park. So one car. The gentleman said you could park around the curb. Okay, that's true. But if you look at those dimensions, as much as I could, we're talking 67 cars, maybe, down that side. Which is a fair amount, but if you've got 40-something down on them, that's not a lot for visitors and whatever. Thank you. To be respectful to everybody, I just want to keep this as close to three minutes. Okay, so I'll just make one more comment and I'll get away. This is going the other way. As far as one mile away from us, and they spoke to it, Leland Lane, which had been developed, I think you guys passed that in 25. You've since passed the development plan for the property next door. Okay, so they went and built seven townhomes, and they can't sell them. Okay, thank you. Two of them have been on market for 455 days, and you've got 11 more scheduled for that. So is there a need? Okay, I appreciate it. I'm sorry. We know you're fine. We appreciate your thoughts. Hello. My name is Carolyn Elliott. I live at 2929 Neal Drive, and Mr. Owens, you and your fellow citizens, council members, have been told a lie. They stood up here, this gentleman, and I use that term, I'll say this man, stood up here and told you all that these houses are very similar to the ones that Mr. Ball is building on that property, 2917 Place Neal Road. That is false. Could I have the picture of the house he's building, please? You see those houses? None of them exist in our community. None. None of them exist on Southview Drive. None of them exist over Pasadena. Not one house like that is anywhere. He wants to put 141, I'm sorry, he wants to put 41 houses. None of us who are willing to claim we're over 50 would want to buy a house like that because that's three stories. The main floor, your kitchen, living room, dining room, bedroom, and bathroom is on the second floor. Bedrooms come off the driveway, garage, two bedrooms upstairs. Those of you all who are younger than 30 and have children, who's going to put a child up on the third floor? This is ridiculous. So what is going to happen to these properties if they can't be sold? They're going to be involved in investor properties sold for people who want to rent them to UK students. Forty-one townhouses, not as homes equaling 82 cars, but four-bedroom townhouses potentially reaching 123 cars or 164 cars if they're all bought and rented out. Where does that make sense? And the last thing is when our neighborhood met with Mr. Ball several months ago, we offered him a compromise. Build the houses but limit it to 15 to 20, maybe 22 on that space of land. That would be reasonable. You have good traffic patterns, and it's not so close. Look how close those houses are. There's no feet between, and when one catches on house, honeys, you're going to have a whole row of houses on fire. We offered him a compromise. Greed takes over. Thank you. Good afternoon, council members. My name is Harry Bird. I live off of Ashley Way in the back of the neighborhood adjacent to this property. I've been there for 22 years now, and I echo a lot of the sentiments of my neighbors that it just seems like an egregious cash grab to try to put that many units on a piece of property that small. And then to hear that they're not only wanting to make the road non-parking but now narrow it as well, I echo some of them. How's trash collection going to get through there? How's emergency vehicles going to maneuver that and stuff? And then, like they said, look at the weather right now. If you're telling people they've got to park down the street and around the corner, how are they going to get to their cars? How are they even going to get out of there? It doesn't sound like this is a decent, comprehensive plan for that area. It doesn't sound like it's been well thought out. It feels, at least in my opinion, that it's a money grab. And I get that we need housing. I understand that. And I don't think any of us are against that at all, of putting more homes back there. We're for putting homes there. Make them affordable homes. They're talking about half a million dollar tiny houses, basically. And here we are in our neighborhood selling houses twice that size. Well, comparable size. They're 2,000 square feet, I believe is what they say. Comparable sizes for $250,000, $350,000, $400,000 for an actual single unit family home. Versus a half a million for what they're proposing to put in there. Like I said, it sounds to me, in my opinion, it's not progressive at all. No part of it. I also wanted to speak about the waiver for the roadway. If we're going to give a waiver for that roadway, when those next two properties come open, what's the outcome there? What's that exit going to do? Is there going to be yet another waiver for that roadway to exit out of that neighborhood? And that's just why have these ordinances in place if all we have to do is say, Well, you know what, I need to come down here and ask for a waiver. And I get it. There's no sense in it. And with the parking issue as well, sidewalks. If you're telling me my driveway is only going to be 15 feet long and I've tried to put two cars in there, now I'm blocking the sidewalks, which is another city ordinance that you're not supposed to be doing. And so, like I said, it just seems like we're doing a lot of things that we're not supposed to be doing to get this done. Thank you all for your time today. I appreciate it. Thank you. Hi, my name's Tim Brees. Sorry, I outburst earlier, but when someone says they're going to get 30 parking behind two houses, I'm going to call you out on it. And I'm going to ask you to please deny this R2 application or the through street to Loretta Drive. The gentleman from Ball Home said the density was consistent. It is not consistent with our neighborhood. There are no duplexes. There are no townhomes. The pictures that he showed up were single family dwellings with space between them. What they have on the plan is 15 of them in a row built building to building to building to building. So that's a big – they're going to be blocking the sunlight out of the people out of my neighbor's backyard. They violated the setbacks on Loretta Drive on both sides of the street. The houses are farther out than the other ones are, so they're not consistent with the setbacks on Loretta Drive. The people on Loretta Drive on my side are going to be pulling in their driveway and looking in the back windows of those 15 houses on the end. Those houses are so far out from the street that they're going to be there at their driveway. The street widths are not consistent with the established neighborhood. On Cecil Way, the mailman can deliver the mail with cars passing in both directions. You're not going to have that with 24 feet, leave alone when the trashman comes. And where do you think those people are going to go? They're going to go down Cecil Way in front of my house and block me from leaving my house. The parking was not planned. There aren't 30 spaces like I said. That's BS. You know that. The proximity to Getting to Comey is too close. The road should be farther away. You know, when there's an accident there, you're going to close that entrance, and then nobody's getting out. If you're going to keep that, move the water collection to my side so at least a couple of my neighbors don't have to have three-story buildings looking in their back windows. The height is ridiculous. There's nothing in our neighborhood that's three stories high with a peaked roof looking in your back windows. I've got neighbors that spent, you know, $500,000 for their house, and you're going to have basically an apartment building behind them the whole street long, three stories high with a peaked roof looking into their bedrooms. I don't think you'd be happy about that in yours. The Lexington in our neighborhood would be better served with a more consistent and established-with-our-neighborhood, a single-family dwelling. I can't stop you from running those people into my neighborhood. I can't stop you from putting a mobile home park in there. Please don't run it through my neighborhood. I have property values, and I've got traffic to be concerned with. We got railroaded on Clay's Mill. Thank you. Philip Tinsher. Many of my points will be echoing what our neighbors have already said. But today, gentlemen and women of the committee, today I bring forth an opinion that is rooted in over 30 years of experience in this community that is currently going to be disrupted by this development, primarily the through street. The additional traffic provided by the added through street will result in a disruption The proposed housing should be consistent with those in the area, and the proposed low-density housing does not align with the established community. Furthermore, there is a concern for the decline in the future value of existing properties. When an entire neighborhood consists of two-story homes, how can we justify the three-story connected units to fit the community's character? People will purchase the homes on the back side of the neighborhood to serve as a solid wall of a structure. This will certainly have a negative property effect on their homes directly behind, and it will happen almost instantly. The added traffic on Clay's Mill, which is becoming a vital vein to our city, is already overwhelmed with traffic. I would like the study of the traffic study, the results of that, to be published, or at least direct us to where we can find that information. Additionally, if this property were to be developed, there is not a need for the connecting street. If there is a need for the proposed property to have two exits, there is enough land on that property to have two exits. The issue of adequate parking for these units has not been sufficiently answered to satisfy the streets. I would also like to bring to the committee's concern about the increased sewage incurred costs to taxpayers, as well as the increased flooding in the area, which in turn affects the neighboring communities. Lastly, I would like to end by saying that presenting the project as a solution for Lexington's shortage of housing is disingenuous at best. This is a money grab at the expense of neighborhoods just like ours. My name is Whitney Payne. I live at 627 Cecil Way. My parents live at 464 Lamont Drive. So we're generationally in this neighborhood and in this area. I live on the side of Cecil Way that is opposite from where this is being built, so I'm going to focus on this traffic. And I would like to concur if we could have this traffic analysis made public, because I am one who is on the other side of Cecil Way, who is battling with the people opposite of me on Cecil Way, for us to try to turn left and right. And we both merge in the middle lane. The middle lane almost hits us. We almost hit them. We do this on a daily basis. Every morning when school starts, we're there from about 7.30 until about 9 once the middle schools end. Repeat again every evening when the schools start letting out at 2.30. We do have a plethora of schools on our street. The traffic has been, our street has been worked on. We've been modified. We've had sidewalks added. We've had curbs. We've done all the things. We still have schools picking up students on Clays Mill Road every morning. We still have traffic dumping out onto Clays Mill Road every morning. And there's nothing that seems to warrant that we can handle more cars than we already do handle. So I'm just asking if the concur if we can make traffic analysis be made public so we can see. Also consider our students who are getting on and off the bus on Clays Mill Road. Our walkers who are utilizing Clays Mill Road. And also for my parents who live on the other side. Southview is a cut-through street. Clays Mill is a cut-through street. Lamont is a cut-through street. Everyone is using all the avenues currently available and we still are inundating the traffic on a regular basis. Just please consider. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak on this? Hello. My name is Kristen. I also live on Ashley Way. I echo the sentiments of many of my fellow community members. But specifically the turn, the traffic. We've hit this a lot. But to the engineer who came up and said she was standing here only because she was required to do so. This is really important to a lot of people in our community. She received something several days ago that she has not looked into. We've all been stuck at home. We've all had a lot. I'm 25 weeks pregnant. I have a toddler at home. It's really hard to get some jobs done sometimes. Coming up and standing and saying that that didn't matter to her. She hadn't taken the time to review any of it. This matters to us on a really, really deep level. So thanks for being present because you were required to be. We should really be giving people grace. This is about our families. My husband and I bought our home on Ashley Way in 2022. Soon after we found out we were pregnant. We bought this property because of the property value. Because of the schools that are close by. And for the ability for our children to not have to worry about a cut through street. It is incredibly challenging even with the merge lanes. To protectively get in and out of those places. Just the last sentiment on the trees. I got it. But if we can't trust you regardless of where you are in the process. To be honest about trees. How can we trust honesty on any level of top to bottom. What's happening below there. What's happening above it. Not just the people who you would be looking to sell to. But to those of us who already live there as well. Thank you. If you would please state your last name for the record. Do we have any other public comment today? On this particular application. I wasn't going to speak. My name is Michael Burrell. I live on Loretta Drive. It's a comprehensive plan that you're doing. You've got all that property that's got to be developed. This is a small section and you're making the density. You're having waivers. The comprehensive plan should be for the whole thing when it gets developed. If you start putting so much stuff in here now. And you make all these waivers. What are you going to do with these other properties? The idea is to have a comprehensive plan. This doesn't go with the comprehensive plan. It doesn't make any sense. The plan should be for all those properties together. The density is very strong. Everyone's told you how it's going to affect traffic and stuff. Loretta Drive is a pretty small street. They have a whole bunch of people coming through that. If they followed the speed limit at 25, you can't drive that fast through there. There's just too many cars on it. It's too close. If you're the planning commission, you have a comprehensive plan. Come up with a comprehensive plan for the whole area. Don't let this happen in a small area. What's going to happen with the other areas? You have to think long-term. Think long-term of what's going to happen. Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak on this application today? Before we go to Ms. McCoy, could we please have a staff clarification on the fact that this is a preliminary rather than a final plan? Yes, this is a preliminary development plan at this point. Since they propose a subdivision, the next step would be a preliminary subdivision plan, which the planning commission would still hear under our current process. Then the last phase is typically a final record plan. Okay. Ms. McCoy? Thank you. There was a lot there. A couple things I'd like to clarify. There we go. Thank you. I think there was a question about the driveways and whether or not they were big enough to park a car in. They're going to be about 25 feet, which will be big enough to park a car in. With respect to the narrowing of the street, that was a change made at the request of the traffic engineering department. It's to be a traffic calming measure. I think it had to do with keeping the speed down through there. The developer is open to the wider street that it originally had. The traffic study is on Acela. The findings found at peak hours that the addition of the 41 townhomes would increase the traffic on Clays Mill Road by about 1.5 percent, which Clays Mill has recently been improved. Obviously it is a busy road, but it is not a giant amount. The size of the backyards is pretty generous for a townhome development. There is screening planned between the townhomes and the development. The addition of the new access to Clays Mill offers another place to take a left-hand road that has a much clearer sight. You can't see it on this, but on the aerial you can see that there are 91 homes back there that only have one exit to Clays Mill. This provides a second exit. The exit that they have has a fence that causes a little bit of a sight issue. I think that the addition of another exit is good for safety. It allows a secondary access for emergency vehicles and a different choice as far as entrance and access. I know nobody... It is hard to have changes in your neighborhood, but the overarching emphasis of the comprehensive plan is to identify and take these areas where we are able to create more housing and to use it efficiently. This is a plan that does that. And it increases the connectivity, it allows Loretta to be connected to the next development because we're required to bring it all the way to the edge of the property. And it offers a different type of housing in an area where there's only single family homes. And that is something that the comprehensive plan also emphasizes as a goal. We are here for any questions you have. We would ask for your vote for approval and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. McCoy at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Do we have any final items from staff? I would just like to add two things. First, there was mention of heritage trees and I will say that's not something that's defined in our ordinance. We talk about significant trees, so I don't want there to be any confusion about that at this point. And then the request or suggestion that the Holland Street be 24 feet wide rather than 31, that does require a waiver of the land subdivision regulations. The smallest street width allowed for a residential street is a 27 foot width. And so that is obviously something that can be discussed between now and the next stage of development. The applicant could modify their plan after today's hearing to make the street 27 feet, but they wouldn't be able to reduce it down to 24 until or unless the planning commission granted a waiver. Thank you, Ms. Wade. And at this time, I would like to give traffic and engineering an opportunity if you would like. We have obviously members of the public here who may not fully understand all of the processes. I'm not sure we understand all of them, but if you would like to clarify any part of your work and how this is being a preliminary versus a final, what difference that makes. And I meant to include fire in that as well. If you would like to make any clarification, you're certainly welcome to. Steven Parker with traffic engineering. And David Filiatro and I have been reviewing this plan together. In October of 25, the applicant's engineer was emailed and David indicated the suggestion of reducing the width of the cross section of the roadway, pointing out that 27 would meet our current regulations, and with no parking being shown on the plan, that 24 may be most appropriate. I've looked at some of the dimensions on the submitted plan. I think 30 parking spots would be very generous, and they might be for smart cars. I think a more realistic number is 12 to 17. There's a hundred foot distance shown on the plan in front of the retention basin. Obviously you can't park to the intersection of Clay's Mill, so there has to be some shift away from Clay's Mill, and that furniture would be adequate for parking, as well as on Loretta. I know that sometimes it's confusing for residents to understand parking in front of my house. The way traffic engineering approaches public streets is, public streets are for parking for anyone in the public. So I just want to clarify that. With the 24 foot cross section, the applicant engineer was notified this morning that increasing the utility strip may be where we would gain the extra distance. It would help in assisting for providing more care and more growth area for trees, and providing additional traffic calming. So that's one thing. I can tell you, I can elaborate on the 24 foot cross section. The expansion area, the first sections that were built, have 24 foot wide roads, back of curb to back of curb. We restricted parking on one side, and for the most part it has helped. We've not seen speeding issues in the expansion area, so some of the concerns that we saw early on with this plan was the concern for speeding and things as such. One of the issues that was brought up with Cecil, and I don't know if commission members have looked, but the Cecil Way and the adjoining streets of Jason Court, Loretta, Neal Drive, Ashley Way, and Cecil Way on the east side, is serving as a giant cul-de-sac. There's only one connection out on to Clays Mill Road. And so from traffic engineering's perspective, we're not a bit surprised in hearing some of the complaints from the neighbors. They've only got one way out, and part of that is the way the area has developed. Neal Drive is stubbed at two ends. It's not connected. It ultimately is supposed to be connected, but we don't know when that would happen. With these numbers and this proposed development, Clays Mill Road does have adequate capacity to handle the additional traffic that would be produced from this development. I think that covers most everything. I'll be glad to answer any other questions that any members may have. Thank you very much. Yes, Commissioner Worth? I don't know if you can answer this, or Mr. Beatty in the back. We've had several concerns about sanitation vehicles and fire vehicles, whether it's 31, 27, or 24. Can one of you address that? He can address fire. I will rely on my experience in the expansion area. Living in the expansion area on a 24-foot wide road, we have restrictions for parking on one side of the street on those roads now. Those being out off Hayes Boulevard and Blackford Parkway is two examples. The 24-foot wide road was increased to 27 to allow for a 20-foot clear zone and a 7-foot parking spot. That's how the 27 became. But there are existing 24-foot wide roads that function. This road may self-regulate itself with the driveway areas. The 31-foot coming off of Clays Mill does provide some parking and then the parking on Loretta as well as the existing roads in the area. Okay. Do we have any final questions for traffic engineering before we move on? Thank you. Mr. Mickler? I mean, just a quick one here because it seems like if we've got a situation where there's no parking on either side, best practices would be to narrow the road. We've got a regulation that sort of assumes there's going to be street parking. Is that something you all expect to look at in terms of our regulations? I think in the future with some of the involvement with Complete Streets and Vision Zero, narrowing of streets and trying to slow down vehicles and provide safety through the designs is the approach moving forward. It would make sense not to have an applicant have to ask for a waiver to do the best practices recommended by you. With the 27, that's why the email, the two scenarios were presented. The thought was the 24, since we don't have on-street parking, may be the way to go and ask for that waiver at the final was our thought. If you didn't want to ask for the waiver, go with the 27. Either way, we would be fine. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Embry Beatty with FIRE. As it relates to FIRE, we will review the plan as it's submitted to us so we can review on the seller. But bear in mind, 30-foot, when I review those 30-foot, I will allow parking on both sides of the street. 27-foot, I will allow parking on one side of the street. We restrict parking on the hydrant side. It has been normal practices. Anything less than 27, no parking on that street at all. And that's FIRE's stance on it. Our trucks are getting larger. We're not driving pickups. We're not in a situation where we can have compact fire trucks. So we need space to get out and adequately perform our job duties. And life safety, I think everybody agrees, is a priority here. All right. Do we have any questions? If not, thank you, Firefighter Beatty. Thank you. I don't necessarily have anything additional to say about the geotechnical report. I did take a look at it. But normally, given a little more time, we would discuss it internally in our division with the Director of Engineering. And then if we had any questions, we would take them to the engineer and make sure that we're all on the same page. So I thought it was beneficial to have the engineer who did the study to actually explain their findings and where they were going to take that from this point forward. I know that every person that works for LFDUCG in their planning process, we take our jobs very seriously. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that your sign-off, your final approval, has to be part of the final. Absolutely. Engineering signs off on the preliminary development plan, preliminary subdivision plan, and the final record plat when it gets to that phase. Thank you very much. Okay. All right. Mr. and Mr. Wilson. Just a clarification from the staff. This is a preliminary development plan, correct? Okay. Will we get to see this again? It won't come back to us again unless it has a waiver connected to it, right? So because they're proposing something that requires subdivision, they need a preliminary subdivision plan as their next step. Those under our current process are heard by the planning commission, all preliminary subdivision plans. Then their final step is a final record plat. Those are not heard by the planning commission. Those are only heard by our technical committee because they are following the preliminary subdivision plan that you approved. So you will hear it whether they need a waiver or not. Thank you. Okay. After hearing public comment and from our departments, do we have any commissioner comment at this point? Sorry. There's been a request for a five-minute recess. Without objection, we will take a five-minute recess. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We will take a five-minute recess. Without objection, we will take a five-minute recess. We will take a five-minute recess. We will take a five-minute recess. We will take a five-minute recess. We will take a five-minute recess. We will take a five-minute recess. We will take a five-minute recess. Please take your seats so that we can continue. Okay. We are now at planning commission discussion questions amongst ourselves. Does anyone have anything? The floor is always open for a motion. Yes, sir, Mr. McClure. Well, I wanted to speak to this plan and just a couple of my thoughts on it. I spent some time this morning reading through the citizen comments, and there is a lot of robust information there and a lot of information was provided here. I think, you know, what is hardest for me looking at this plan is, you know, the 30% tree canopy or the tree canopy that we are shooting for in our comprehensive plan could have been provided on day one after this development was built because they were already there. And over and over we are seeing, we saw it in a development off Parker's Mill just recently. We are seeing the trees come down prior to submittal or prior to coming here before us. And, you know, we are not talking about trees or development. There is a process that they could still build the houses and the roads, but we are seeing the trees removed before they apply, before they come here. And what goes back, let's be honest, we are not seeing that turn into 30% tree canopy. We are seeing small trees planted that after the soils have been largely removed and a few inches of topsoil put back for the grass do not reach full maturity. And yes, we want to provide housing in our community. Yes, we want infill development. Many aspects of this plan are in line with our comprehensive plan, but I just, it's hard to see us going about it in a way that doesn't meet our environmental goals when there is not really a reason it doesn't other than we are just over and over again not being creative or not trying. I really, I have a hard time with that. And then, and so that's really the main thing that I'm struggling with. As far as whether it's appropriate along the stretch of Clay's Mill that townhouses instead of single family are developed. I mean, I think our comprehensive plan is fairly clear on that. But, you know, as these sales are happening in the development community has not just today, but more than once come before us with the trees removed right before they get here. It is, it's a hard pill to swallow. And that's just all I have to say on that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McClure. Do we have any other any other commissioner comment. Commissioner Davis Molly Davis. Thank you, Chair. I, I do feel concerned about what we're faced with. Given that the comprehensive plan. Of course it focuses on more dense housing, because we need more housing, but the environmental considerations seem to have been largely dismissed. So in my, in my hearing from people today and reading all of the citizen comments all 95 pages of them. Thanks, Paula. I think going to, if the, if the only if having a higher density, moving to our two is what gets us here, and all of its concomitant problems I think changing the zoning is what's wrong. Because there are so many other things that affect it if this is the layout. So I would say, I have concerns about changing the zoning to a higher density, if this is the only thing that is possible. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Usually, I've got a little bit of an indication coming down here, which way these plans may go. This one's a little confusing to me as well. A couple of my commission members have already spoken issues. I agree with, but I'm not going to dwell on. I do want to say this to everyone. Not only do we appreciate everyone coming here, because you've got specifically your neighborhood at interest. The commission members here. This is volunteer. So, I mean, we're coming down here to look at everything, not only for your neighborhood but for all of Lexington. And we want to do what is best for everyone, for all of Lexington. And I will say this as well. The staff has their job to do. Engineering, traffic, all of them have their jobs to do. But they're here to work for you as well. If you pick up the phone and have a question, they may not answer right away, but they'll get back to you. I'll put it that way. Some like email a little bit better than others. But they will get back to you. And that's what they're supposed to do, is work for everyone here. So with that said, yeah, my issues more than anything is density on this. And I'm still trying to decide which way I'm going to go. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Mr. Forrester or Ms. Wilson? Yes, sir. I do share the comments or concerns that my fellow colleagues here have expressed. There are two things. First of all, if this was a final development plan, I will tell you flat out right now, the answer for me would be no. This is a preliminary plan, which means there's work that could be done and should be done on this. Because I think there are a lot of gaps and a lot of holes here as such. And I understand the need that we have for housing. But at the same time, it's not housing at no cost. Housing does come with a cost of something. And I'm concerned a little bit about the tree issue. I'm concerned about the parking issue. And like I said, if this was a final development plan, I would pretty much have made up my mind. Now I'm waiting to see what my colleagues are saying, see if they can convince me to go one way or the other. Two things. One, again, is my assumption from what we heard from Ms. Wade earlier, is that we will see this again. And there's potential for changes. We expect that it would be denser than the areas now, but it wouldn't necessarily have 41 units on it when we see it again. Is that correct? I think that's really up to the applicant. But what they present could be different from 41 units if they revise. Yes, it could. Okay, and the street widths could be different. There's some things that could change. They may not change, right? Yes. The other thing I would say, and this is just a comment from me as a commissioner, I live in a house that was built in 1956. Our major arterials are Tate's Creek Road and Nicholasville Road, which is a parking lot, so is Tate's Creek. But I live in an area that has a grid street system. And unlike folks who live on cul-de-sacs close to a busy road, having that grid system, which gives us multiple points of getting places, makes my life a whole lot easier than what some of you all are already living with. I can't guarantee that will be the case for you, but I can tell you from my own experience, I would much rather live with a street grid system than one that is not. Mr. Forrester. We've got three action items. Yes, sir. Zoning, revised development plan, and waiver. Yes. Is that right? And before you make a motion, there's one thing I want to say. Yeah, you go ahead and do it. I just want to change it. I just want to tell the members of the public on behalf of the Planning Commission, thank you for coming. It does make a difference. We do want to hear your thoughts because you are there every day, and it is meaningful to us. Mr. Forrester will presumably make a motion. If there's a second, we may have discussion, and then there will be a vote, three votes. And I would just say at the end of the votes, if you are going to exit the chambers, just please do so quietly, because we have to move on to the next item on today's agenda. Okay. So I'll take the zoning first, make a motion for approval of PLA and MAR 25-18. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Do we have a second? That's a motion for approval of the zone change. Yeah. Second from Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. This is for the zone change. Okay. The zone change carries with one dissent. Okay. And the next one would be make a motion for the revised PLN MJDP 25-65 based on the staff revised recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. So this is the development plan, the preliminary development plan. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second. And I need to make a mention that the address needs to be changed. Yeah. Was that on the plan or the waiver? Right. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. We can include that. Sure. Yeah. I want to make sure that's taken into consideration. Thank you. All right. All right. All right. Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you. Okay. That carries unanimously. And then the waiver. And I'd like to make a motion for the approval of the waiver PLN WAV 25-7 based on the staff's provided information. Thank you. Second from Mr. Wilson. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will take a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote on that. All right. That carries again just with one dissenting vote. Thank you, Applicant. Thank you, everyone who came to speak. Our next item on the agenda today is on page 8, number 4, PLN MAR 2522, subtext Acquisitions. Mr. Young, feel free to go ahead and get started. This is for PLN MAR 2522, subtext Acquisitions, LLC. The subject properties are currently zoned R3 and R1E. That's planned neighborhood residential and single family residential. You might notice the acreage is 0.51 and 0.61 net in gross acres. The actual development plan is for 0.99 acres because a portion of these properties are already zoned B1. The addresses are 545-563 South Limestone, 121-123 Prowl Street, and 118 Montmorillon. The place type and development type are corridor and high-density non-residential mixed-use. The zone request is B1, and it's going to be intended to be a form-based design, which allows the developer a little bit of flexibility if they can make the case that it will integrate well in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed structure is a 90-foot tall structure, eight stories, and it will have 170 units and 491 bedrooms with a density of 171 dwelling units per acre. The screen says 1,000 square feet of first-floor retail space. I believe there's actually more on the development plan. I believe that is a mistake there. The development proposes an internal parking with 215 spaces. The surrounding area here, you can see this large, somewhat blank area. That's the main body of the UK campus. You can see South Limestone here and Upper, where they split and become one-way streets. Then another landmark here is the Red Mile Racetrack. The adjacent zoning is this dark area here. The dark brown is R4, that's UK property. This is R3 here, residential. The R1E is here, B1, as I said before, some of the properties that front on Limestone are currently zoned B1. The remaining lavender color there at the top is B4. You can see in the overhead the extent of the UK campus there to the east and the adjacent Call Town neighborhood directly to the west. The area in yellow is the property to be rezoned and the area between that box and Limestone is currently zoned B1. That's a discrepancy in the acreage that you see between the development plan and the zone change request. This is the current condition of the property. The development would be essentially from this corner here, which is the corner of Prawl Street and Limestone, to this corner, which is Mont Mullen and Limestone. Then, I don't know if you can make out the tree line here in the back, that's roughly the extent that it would protrude back into the neighborhood. Interesting about this particular angle, you can actually see the hub, Limestone, right there, which is on the corner of Virginia and Limestone. This is a view from Mont Mullen facing east, that's the UK campus. Then here is a similar view from Prawl Street. You can see the size and scale of the adjacent buildings and obviously the R1E property that is to the west are all single family homes. This is a floor plan layout of the various stories. Like I said, there's going to be a basement level and then a ground level parking structure that will be contained internally. I believe it's five additional or six additional stories of residential. This gives you an elevation view. The proposed design does include some enhancements of the sidewalk and pedestrian area. It widens them significantly, especially along Prawl and Mont Mullen. Even the area along Limestone has widened somewhat to accommodate the increase in foot traffic. Also, you can see the interior courtyard here that is proposed for an open space amenity, as well as the various levels of parking. It looks like there's three levels, maybe the applicant can clarify. I think there's some discrepancy as far as what building code determines as a level and sort of what we would see from the outside as laymen who aren't as familiar with the building code. This is an elevation provided that would illustrate what the proposed structure would look like. Staff recommends approval. We feel it meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. It's certainly providing an increase in density along a major corridor. I think Nicholasville Road is one of the busiest roads in the city. It's served by transit. It's close to UK. It's well located for non-motorized transportation or using transit service. It would strengthen demand for those services along that corridor. We feel it meets the policies of the comprehensive plan. It creates an active streetscape along all three sides. It provides ground floor retail that would engage the public. It contains the parking to the internal portion of the structure, which enhances the walkability of the surrounding area. Requests would certainly provide additional housing. Much of the area, even the single family homes behind are currently used for student housing, so this would provide another option. And the open space amenity that's provided inside would provide some source for recreation for the residents as well as the adjacent park or the nearby park further back on Prowl Street. It meets the development criteria. As I said before, it's an increase in density along a busy corridor that's served by transit. It is conveniently located to UK to allow transportation to class without using a vehicle. The pedestrian enhancements along the sidewalks would further encourage walking and biking to class versus needing to drive. It meets the comprehensive plan development criteria and the Nicholasville Road corridor study that calls for increased transit and it supports, like I said, non-motorized transportation. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Thank you, Mr. Young. Do we have any questions on the zone change? Yes, sir, Mr. McClure. Was there any sort of look at the existing structures there in terms of especially sort of the older structure in the middle in terms of historic significance? Not that I'm aware of, no. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. One quick question. How tall is the building or the apartment? The proposed structure? Yeah. Or the existing? The proposed structure would be 90 feet. All right. If we don't have any more questions for Jeremy, thank you very much. We'll move on to Mr. Cheney. Good afternoon. Beginning on page nine of your packet, item B, the associated development plan with this zone change request. As Jeremy mentioned, the development plan depicts a ground floor with a basement. I believe this is the first floor, second floor, and then three through seven. I think maybe it would be the basement, then the ground, then the first as far as we're going up. What's depicted on the development plan is the structure along South Limestone. This is Montmullin and Prowl Street. There is an entrance off of Montmullin on the ground floor here into the parking structure. Then it looks like, and I believe an applicant can clarify on this, but I believe there's a ramp to the basement. Then the basement is all parking structure. Then there's another entrance into the first floor parking structure from Prowl Street. There are two exterior entrances. I don't believe the ground floor and the first floor connect in the parking structure. They also depict a leasing office and retail areas along South Limestone. Then on the upper floors, they depict the living units with the interior open space amenity shown above that first floor. As far as the staff report for the development plan, under the requirements not met, number one, provide open space exhibit and include open space requirements in the site statistics as a percentage. Correct note four, changing article to chapter. Denote purpose of plan. Include north arrow on vicinity map. Number six, dimension all driveway walkways and parking areas. Number seven, depict location of cross sections on plan face. Number eight, submit tree inventory map as a separate document. Number nine, depict pedestrian entrances. Number 10, addition of proposed cross section for South Limestone to depict how the proposed street trees will work with the building facade and sidewalk space. There are no waivers requested at this time. Under design considerations, number one, see all comments provided by the Division of Engineering in Acela. Number two, address sanitary sewer capacity. And number three, explain stormwater management plan. And then under plan questions and concerns, number one, provide dumpster enclosure and pad specifications that comply with the DSG at the time of final development plan. Number two, where is the ramp located in the first floor? Number three, where is dumpster location? How will it be emptied? And then number four, discuss the place builder criteria. We do recommend approval subject to the following conditions. The standard, well, number one, provided that the Urban County Council approves the zone change to be one. And then the standard sign-offs, engineering, traffic engineering, urban forest or open space, and Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas. And then finally, as a condition to correct all noted deficiencies listed as requirements not met herein. With that, I'll open. All right. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for Chris on the development plan? Thank you. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Subtext Acquisitions. And I will do you all a favor this month and not really give a presentation. I'm instead going to let the developers kind of talk to you all directly. They've been working really hard on this proposal and working really hard with the neighborhood directly to bring back this kind of revised plan. And so I want to hear you all to hear from them. I did want to let you all know that we have worked out an agreement with the neighborhood through kind of several conversations and back and forth trying to make sure that we address the comments that we heard last time and not just revise the development plan as we have, but also to address the concerns about the vitality of the Prawltown neighborhood moving forward. For the record, I'm putting in a kind of letter that outlines a lot of the aspects of that agreement in order to make sure that that kind of is symbolic in the record itself and will be passed along similar to minutes and everything else that is said here today. Mr. Simpson is here as well to speak on the neighborhood's behalf, so I don't want to put any words in his mouth. With that, I'm going to turn it over to the Subtex development team. Thank you all. Good afternoon, Planning Commission. I am Ryan Boehm with Subtex, and we're excited to bring our revised plan. We have had extensive collaboration with the neighborhood since we were last in front of you here, and I think we've made a lot of progress. We were also fortunate enough to attend the Prawltown Day celebration back in August, and I'll say I was really honored to be there, definitely eye-opening to see it's not just Prawltown, it's all of Lexington that this neighborhood affects and all of Lexington appreciates this neighborhood. Getting into our presentation, this site here for context is located on the Imagine Nicholsville Corridor on South Limestone between Prawl and Mount Mullen. The revised footprint that we're presenting here only covers the commercial properties on South Limestone, so it no longer goes into the residential properties behind it. One of the key items that we want to address with this proposal is just the preservation of housing and addressing the housing shortage that Fayette County and Lexington are experiencing. We know that there's a gap of about 30,000 units in Fayette County projected through 2029, so we want to provide housing to address that. This project will provide 170 units as part of this, but we don't want to impact the single family scale nature of the neighborhood or go back into the neighborhood, and so we're not taking any single family homes, and we're committing to a contribution to help preserve the existing owner-occupied housing in Prawltown so that those existing properties can be maintained and can continue on as owner-occupied. Here on the left side, you'll see our previous plan and the revisions that were made. The project has been reduced to 0.9 acres. There are no existing housing that's taken from the property other than what's on the commercial properties. The length of the building has been reduced to 200 feet, and the revised unit count is 170 units. Here it is in section, so it's a 65% reduction in the building as we've pulled it out of the neighborhood and really focused that density along Limestone. From a pedestrian perspective, we've got a few recommended improvements. Increasing the sidewalk width, so we're committing to a 10-foot minimum on the sidewalk width. It's about a 16-foot setback from the curb line, so we're able to incorporate street trees and landscaping, as well as that 10-foot clear on the sidewalk. And then we're going to work with the City to update the timing at Prawl Street and South Limestone to minimize any impacts to the neighborhood entering and exiting at Prawltown, as well as the pedestrians that use this intersection. To activate this streetscape, we've got 4,000 square feet of neighborhood retail that we're proposing. This is one of the aspects we're committing to with the neighborhood. They're going to collaborate with us on who goes into that space, so it's not us dictating what goes in there. We're going to work together reviewing this with the existing tenants and the types of uses that the neighborhood would like to prioritize. Here's a view of the building from across the street. So from this angle, we can see it's contextual with the properties across the street and satisfying that form-based requirement. We've selected materials to respond to some of those surrounding buildings, but by pulling the property out of the neighborhood and fronting limestone, we're also able to respect the context of those smaller-scale housing that's behind us. Seeing the view here from within the neighborhood, between the tree canopy and the way that Prawl Street kind of drops off as it approaches south limestone, the scale of the building does get minimized from the neighborhood's perspective. So while it is a larger structure than what's currently there, it does get minimized, and you can see in the background how it becomes more contextual with those properties that are across the street. And lastly, with the revised footprint, this is the sun study that shows the winter solstice, so a day like today, we don't block the sun for those neighboring properties, so they're able to get full sun in the midday and afternoon for all those residential properties in the surrounding area. And the community benefits, this just kind of outlines a lot of the things. So we've been working with the neighborhood, collaborating for the last 12 months, and really, they've presented a lot of really great points and really great recommendations on how we can support not just the neighborhood, but even beyond the neighborhood. So some of the things that we're committing to are contributions for college scholarships, preservation of the neighborhood, commemoration of the neighborhood, and the support of events like Prawl Town Day, making sure that the neighborhood is preserved and celebrated in a number of ways. This will all be collaborated through the Neighborhood Association and their efforts. We're limiting the size and scope to what you see here. We're committing that we're not going to pursue any further expansion of this property or redevelopment within the Prawl Town area on any of the surrounding blocks. And then as noted, we're going to collaborate with them on their input for the proposed 4,000 square feet of retail space in the project and selecting those types of uses that the neighborhood would like to prioritize. So that is our revised plan. We're happy to answer any questions. All righty. Commissioner Worth. Don't leave yet. First of all, I want to say thank you and thank you to the Neighborhood Association for all the many hours you all have put in on this to try and work together to come up with some things that work for both groups. When you all presented at the subdivision committee a while back, I asked somebody from subtext, I don't believe it was you, in the context of talking about a development on Delaware Avenue that combines commercial-grade rentals with some lower-cost rentals, and I asked whether that might be a possibility in this development, and I was told it was under consideration. Where are you with that? Through the discussions with the neighborhood, we've chosen other priorities as the benefits, so that is no longer part of the project. Okay. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. At this time, we will hear from Mr. Simpson, and then we will hear public comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of the Prowl Town Neighborhood Association, Incorporated. We have most of the board members here in attendance as well. As you will recall, we had a hearing a little over a year ago in which we were in opposition to then-proposed rezoning of the subject property plus additional property. And quite frankly, we were prepared to object again if the proposal came back substantially similar to the one that was heard a little over a year ago on the basis that it did not comply with the comprehensive plan. However, since that hearing, as has been indicated, subtext, has been reaching out to Prowl Town. We've had numerous meetings, many drafts of various agreements. And the objections that I was prepared to make in connection with the comprehensive plan not being complied with because of the agreement that we have reached with subtext, the goals and objectives, 15 principal goals, objectives, and pillars in the comprehensive plan, critical particularly with regard to gentrification, historic African-American neighborhoods, racial equity, those concerns have been addressed with this amended proposal that's before you today that has been enhanced by the agreement we've reached with subtext. I'm going to file these objections because these provisions of the comprehensive plan because in our judgment with the agreement that we've reached, this is further reinforcement that this application is in fact in compliance with the comprehensive plan. In addition to that, as I mentioned in the last hearing, and that is intimately connected with the goals and objectives that I've introduced into the record about addressing gentrification and racial equity, racial justice, was the fact that a little over six years ago, the urban county government spent well over a year and a half studying racism in Fayette County and came up with a report, Mayor's Report on Commission for Racial Justice and Equality. I'm introducing that report into the record as well in support of this application because this application combined with the written agreement that we've reached helps to advance the specific provisions in the Mayor's Equity Report that will help promote racial equity and racial justice, not just in Prawl Town, but in the broader sense of the community. As subtext has indicated, they have limited by way of a written agreement, which Mr. Nicholson has submitted to you, which we very much have to have incorporated as part of the zoning approval. This is a voluntary restriction on the part of subtext to be bound by the provisions of Mr. Nicholson's letter. That has to be a part of this agreement to ensure the protection of the neighborhood with respect to the agreement and the important terms that have been reached after these many months and hours spent in negotiation. That agreement needs to be incorporated, that letter, as part of any approval of this case. And then speaking now into the record, because I know the Urban County Council is going to get this case and review the record, the Urban County Council is the only entity that's empowered to adopt an ordinance which will incorporate the provisions of these voluntary conditions that subtext has submitted as a part of their application. That needs to be in the ordinance to ensure that this agreement will be carried out, even if subtext, for some reason, and we hope they stick with the project, but just as an insurance policy to make sure that the neighborhood's agreement is protected, that this will be bound on any successive owner or person that seeks to develop the subject property, and that needs to be incorporated in the ordinance. I know that's not something you all can do. I'm speaking now for the record, for the benefit, when the record goes to the Urban County Council. It's important to note that as part of the obligation, subtext has pledged to pay the Prawl Town Neighborhood Association, Incorporated, the sum of $3 million as part of its voluntary condition of approval in connection with this case. The Board of Directors of the Prawl Town Neighborhood Association has directed me to prepare a new corporation, a new nonprofit 501c3 foundation to be called the Prawl Town Neighborhood Preservation and Racial Equity Foundation, Incorporated, that will take charge of this money. The Prawl Town residents will be a principal part of the board, but we will also have community-wide participation. The focal point of this new entity will be on the promotion of racial justice and on anti-gentrification land use policies and public policies in general to deal with the years of vested discrimination that the mayor's report so eloquently illuminates. It's only six years old. So we think with this application and the agreements that have been reached in writing that this application is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, and we're here in support of it. I thank you for your attention. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. It's good to see you. Do we have any questions or any further thoughts before we move on to public comment? Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. Well, first of all, thank you, Mr. Simpson, for the comments that you made about the gentrification as well as the issue connected with all the communities in this city. I think that is important to do. The other thing that's kind of interesting, the Prawl Town Day has been a big to-do about our community, but on the other end of town there's Gym Town, and you get there on Labor Day. Every day, every Labor Day, they have a community event as well. One of the things, and I don't want to steal the thunder of our commission here as such, but I think the commission has appointed an individual, one person right now, to be what we call a community engagement person. Mr. Wilson, you're asking if that's in the mayor's office now? No, I was thinking about what we had done from the planning commission perspective. We were introduced to a gentleman not too long ago who said that his primary objective was to get into the communities, to get engaged. Oh, from planning. That's right. Yes, yes. Staff. Yes, yes, we do have planning staff who are working with all of the communities in Lexington to improve engagement, yes. And I think that's important because what we're saying is we want community engagement not just when we have issues, but we want community engagement developed on a relationship, and a relationship that will develop trust so that we can work through any issues that might come through. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. At this time, we'll hear from anyone from the public who would like to speak on this particular application. If you wish to speak, just approach the podium and state your name, and everyone is entitled to three minutes, and it's the policy of the planning commission that there's no borrowing or lending of time. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm in the 10th Council District. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. Neighborhood Council fully supports what's been presented to you. It's very important to incorporate the documents that both sides submitted into the record and approve it as an amendment to it or a condition. This is an example where I don't have anything negative to say about anybody. In fact, I congratulate staff because this has been very difficult, congratulate the neighborhood, the developer, and the attorneys, and that's about all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other public comments on this application? Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Austin Zinkel. I am a historian living here in Lexington. I do not live in Prawl Town, but over the last year, I have been privileged to see the perseverance, fight, and determination from Prawl Town neighbors to ensure that their historic neighborhood is not harmed. A year ago, I spoke before this committee echoing my concerns about this proposed development. I said that this and other instances of aggressive gentrification in Lexington deeply threaten the history, relationships, and, yes, the lives of human beings that live in historically marginalized neighborhoods like Prawl Town. I was, and still am, deeply concerned about the erosion of this historic neighborhood. I feel compelled to speak today, however, because after a year of negotiations, Subtext and the Prawl Town Neighborhood Association have shown good faith efforts to work not against each other, but with a willingness to acknowledge the real historical harms that have occurred in this community. Today, I ask to encourage members of this committee that it is in the best interest of all Lexingtonians to recognize the historic collaborative efforts of this project proposal and to move to support actions that can still produce growth while still benefiting the human beings living in historical communities like Prawl Town. As we might already be aware, Prawl Town is one of the oldest African American neighborhoods in Lexington, dating back to just after the Civil War. Prawl Town residents encouraged and constantly fought against systems of racism and discrimination, but I want to echo that we must tell a story of perseverance. The neighborhood grew from at least seven residents in 1868 to 26 in 1876, and then 559 at its height at the turn of the 20th century, producing teachers, businessmen, and horse trainers. Despite the overwhelming forces of racial terror and Jim Crow discrimination, the people of Prawl Town endured, but the city was not so kind. By the second half of the 20th century, Prawl Town faced battle after battle against city and university officials to redevelop the neighborhood. This redevelopment was violence against the human beings who called the land home. A 1953 proposal resulted in the loss of 187 residential units. In 1969, the University of Kentucky purchased 30 lots and demolished them into a parking lot. Between 1970 and 1972, 42 more homes were demolished, and this reflects the shameful history where the city and prominent entities have positioned growth at the expense of historically black neighborhoods. It is long time that we let these shameful actions end. As we just celebrated the 250th anniversary of Lexington, of which this city has much to celebrate, it is this historic milestone that calls upon all of us to reflect on the challenges and mistakes of our past. I am proud of this moment where we collectively as Lexingtonians can take a bold stance to engage in cooperative efforts with communities where these projects directly impact, as good faith collaborations can chart a future for historic repairs that all of us can be proud of. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this application? I need to pass these out if you don't mind. Can you pass these to these, each one has got their name on it, or can I get up there and pass them to you? That's fine. Pardon? That copy is for Bruce, he's not here. That copy is for Frank. That copy is for LFUC Legal. That's for Planning, Zoning, and Staff. That's for the Official Record. That's Mr. Duncan's, and all the rest of them are listed. Some of those have notes on them, so I just want to make sure I don't take the part I need. Okay, there you go. My name is Deval Headley, long-time resident of Fayette County in Lexington, and historically going all the way back. What I'm passing out to you is a preliminary back history, back story of early Peraltawn before my lifetime. There's a page in there that has about four or five points of many where we've dropped the ball. We've said one thing, and that's not what happened. And on that page, if you look at the top, it says, I am witness, which means this was not hearsay, this was not third party. I was actually in this room or in whatever council room at the time to witness those things that were promised and not delivered. I'm neither speaking fully for approval or disapproval today. I'm just saying, what do they say? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I'm happy that we're moving forward, but I want to make sure that what we're promised is what is delivered and it doesn't get changed as it has happened many times in the past. With that, I apologize, Nick. I didn't get your thing until I got home last night, and I didn't get a chance to look at it. It's about 30 pages. I haven't had a chance to go all the way through it yet. I know I miscommunicated at the zoning thing on the other building when we talked in person. If that's my fault, I apologize. I thought I made it clear I still hadn't gotten that information. Now that I have, there's about ten points that I would like to bring up that would be maybe conditional going forward just in case. Now that we're moving forward, I want to make sure we sort of hit the nuts and bolts. The eight-page thing that was up here that the staff reported, I just haven't had a chance to really look at it because it was quick, but these are the things I noted. Page number 2.1, 170 units, 491 bedrooms. That's 2.88 or roughly three bedrooms average. At some point, this building will become more obsolete if something else replaces it. If this is a few one bedrooms and a lot of four and fives, I just would like that actually fleshed out when they get to the next point so we know exactly what's going in, so we know how it can be reused maybe 50 years from now, 30 years from now, whatever. The same thing with this, item number 2, page 2, 491 bedrooms, 215 parking. That's two-fifths of a space per bedroom. When I brought this up before, I live over there. Two spaces per bedroom is much more. I keep hearing about this parking study that's done. I have still not been provided with a copy of that. I would really love to see it as a citizen and a taxpayer to know exactly if it's realistic for this or not. Item number 3, the plat had five handicapped parking spaces. I'm not sure if that's enough. I didn't know if that also covers the commercial parking in addition to the residential parking. And as far as I can tell, there is not one ADA-compliant bedroom listed in this entire development. I went to the University of Cincinnati. I used to live in the zoo, which thankfully has been torn down. But the ratio in there, one of my best friends in the suite that we were in, there was four two-bedroom units and one tech bedroom unit for ADA-compliant. That was a great guy, and I was glad to be able to live with him in that facility at college. One point, I would like LFUCG law and LFUCG staff. I'm understanding that settlements of sub-tech projects outside of this area have been between $6 million and $12 million. I would like some sort of analysis from the government, legal, and or planning and zoning staff to sort of compare how we stand. There's one R1. I'm trying not to. I know, I'm trying to go. It's a lot of stuff. I just got it today. That one R1-3, I was there for the down zone. If you would like to communicate with staff, they will answer all of your questions to the best of their ability. R1-E, stay R1-E, because I was there for that fight to keep that R1-E. Thank you for your thoughts. Again, I'm not saying approval or disapproval. I just want these addressed. Thank you. Mr. Davis to the commission, my name is Reverend Jacques Wiggington, and I stand because we stood here before about a year ago. I had joined in and was asked to come as a former council member to be of assistance to many neighborhoods that were feeling like there was not the emphasis on maintaining the integrity, the quality of life, the historical value, and the culture that had been known for much of Lexington the way we do all of Lexington. It is a good day for me to stand because we're not hearing the kind of numbers that we had a year ago, because agreement has been made. Compromise has been made. Advancement has been made. And because of that, we don't have to come the way we came before. If I rise in opposition, then surely we should rise in support. As we say what has gone wrong, we should talk about what's gone right. And there's a lot to talk about today of what's gone right in the right direction. The emphasis cannot be missed in a comprehensive plan that acknowledges a city that has historically had where it has devalued the land when it's in the hands of some while valuing it in the hands of others. When we talk about government, we must also talk about intellectual integrity, but also institutional integrity. And so now the shift changes. We have seen where government has come forward to do virtuous things. We saw it in South End when Davis Bottom was looked to be redone. But the institutional integrity did not follow through, and the dream was deferred and lost. We saw Adamtown where the University of Kentucky had where it made a place that had lots of housing become used for a sports facility. We saw the same thing across from my beloved historic Pleasant Green Baptist Church on South Hill. We saw the same thing happen for Rapparino. We can go through those historical things, but now is the time for us to turn a page, and we're watching to see if that is something that will truly be done in this city. As we talk about housing shortage, we must not just talk about them as units. We must talk about them in terms of quality of life and cultural importance the way we do the rest of Lexington. And I think this is a bold opportunity to do that. My hat goes off to Nick Nicholson and to Bruce Simpson, to the Neighborhood Association, and on behalf of NATO, which stood for and with those neighborhoods that stood up for what is right, we do now applaud this effort. We charge you and the Council to continue to do diligence to make it not just be where it's a presentation, but it's a presentation of our future. We want to acknowledge those that have done well, ask you to continue, and thank you for hearing us, because it was your voice and your bravery in that voice that I think may have turned the page for Lexington. Thank you, sir. My name is Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. I would like to thank Teresa Forbes Lopez for her leadership of the Prawl Town Neighborhood. I'd like to thank Rolanda Wolfork, who's president and founder of the Historic Black Neighborhood Association, if I have the name right. It's amazing what they have done, and the untold hours and the care and the extraordinary leadership is worth noting. I'd like to thank Bruce Simpson for his extraordinary advocacy and his generosity at no small cost. I'd like to remember Betty Boyd and her decades of service to the Prawl Town Neighborhood, collaborating with UK and the city both to the best of her ability, best anyone could. I'd like to thank Reggie Thomas for working closely with the neighborhood and Mr. Simpson to advocate for the best outcome. I'd like to thank even our Urban County Council for voting to deny a zone change and development project that wasn't good enough. And thank you all today. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak on this application today? Teresa Forbes Lopez, Prawl Town 3rd District. We recognize that zoning decisions before the commission must be grounded in the comprehensive plan, supported by sound planning, participation, and protective of the surrounding communities. I'm a little nervous right now because this is emotional. We are supportive of the proposed zone change when it is conditioned upon clear, enforceable guidelines that directly address the impact of the development. The applicant has presented voluntarily agreements of terms, including a commitment of monetary funds to mitigate impact associated with increased density intensity by abuse. This commitment is not intended to influence zone authority, but rather the responsible ability to address infractures, neighborhood compatibility, and the quality of life consideration directly related to the proposed development. Importantly, these funds would be governed by defined guidelines and restricted to uses consistent with the development impact. This ensures transparency, accountability, compliance with the Lexington-Fayette-Irving County Government legal and planning standards. This approach reflects collaboration and good faith planning. It allows development to move forward in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan, while ensuring that existing neighborhoods are not left to absorb the impacts without mitigation. We believe this proposal represents a balanced outcome, one that supports responsible growth, respects neighborhood concerns, and provides enforceable protection that serves the public interest. For this reason, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the Neighborhood Plan and the applicant's volunteer agreements of the terms as conditions associated with this requested zone change. I thank you for my time to let me speak. And I thank everyone that has put their efforts into doing and working together, because it's not just our neighborhood. It's all the neighborhoods that have done what they needed to do. And I'd like to thank KFTC, Rolanda Woolfolk, Regina, Alan, and everyone else. And anyone that I have left, Austin, anyone that I've left out, I'm sorry. But you know from the heart that I'm grateful that we're where we are now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Rolanda Woolfolk. I'd like to thank Ryan and Jack for listening to the community. And poor Nick. We still love you, even though we made you mad several times. Bruce, thank you. But Ryan and Nick came to ProwlTown not expecting to hear what they heard from ProwlTown Day, expecting to hear from the neighbors and the people who lived in the neighborhood. People say, well, it's no longer there. It doesn't exist. It's just a culture. But culture matters to everyone, far in between. But they listened. They came and they respected us. And that's what we expect from our developers. When we hear you say in part of your plan is for you to communicate, developers to communicate with the community, that's how it should be done. We don't always want to be in opposition. We want to make sure that our community is preserved, is loved, and continues in this community. Planning Commission, thank you for seeing our faces once again and hearing our voices. Planning staff, we know we called you too many times, but we will continue to call because we got plenty of questions. Because y'all got plenty of rules for us to understand. So, with that, also, city, when y'all replay this, that $7 million that y'all said y'all can use for that affordable housing fund, please use it. Build it. Get some fundraisers going. We appreciate you all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak today? Okay. Seeing none, we've had a request for a brief recess. So, without objection, we're going to take 15 minutes. And I appreciate everyone's patience. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon again, thank you for your patience. We are going to reconvene. There was no additional public comment when we went into recess, so we will close public comment and ask the applicant if they have any closing thoughts for the Planning Commission. No, sir, not at this time. Thank you all. Okay. Thank you, Nick. Thank you, everyone, from the Neighborhood Association. Is there any discussion among the commission members, or the floor is open for a motion? Mr. Chair? Yes, sir, Mr. Forrester. I'd like to make a motion for the approval of PLN MAR 25-22. Second. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. And that is a second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion? Mr. Chair, can we have a 15-minute break? No, I'm good. You're funny, Mr. Owens. Okay. So we have a motion from Mr. Forrester, second from Mr. Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. And that carries unanimously. All right. Now we will move on to the development plan. Yes. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion of approval for PLN MJDP 25-68, based on the staff recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Second from Commissioner Wilson. Do we have any discussion on the development plan? Seeing none, we will take that to a vote. And that also carries unanimously. Thank you to everyone who spoke today. We very much appreciate it, and we appreciate the good faith demonstrated on all sides. You've got to do the waiver. Oh, is there a waiver? Sorry. No, that's the lay of the mill. Sorry. Oh. All right. Okay. Okay. Now, moving on, let's see here. Are there any Commissioner items before we go to Mr. Duncan? Seeing none, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And it's good to see everyone here. Thank you all for trudging through the week and for getting us through this important meeting. We will see you again at your committee meetings on Thursday, February the 5th, subdivision 830, zoning at 130 in the Phoenix building. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And I do want to acknowledge Dr. Lynn Phillips is with us today and with her students, and she's a former colleague of ours. And it's always a delight to be in her presence. We're glad to have you. All right. If we have nothing else, thank you all. And without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.