# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - August 25, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 25, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4046 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4046?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-08-25 - **Last revised**: August 25, 2016 - **Length**: 25,053 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on August 25, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with William Wilson presiding as the presiding officer. The commission addressed three agenda items during the session, focusing primarily on zoning map amendments and development plans for local projects. The meeting included five motions and votes, with commissioners approving two development projects and referring one zoning text amendment to the full commission for further consideration. Two public comments were heard during the proceedings, allowing community input on the matters under review. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on August 25, 2016: • William Wilson • Will Berkley • Patrick Brewer • Mike Cravens • Karen Mundy • Mike Owens • Carolyn Plumlee • Joseph Smith David Drake was absent from the meeting. No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included five motions, all of which passed unanimously. **ZOTA 2016-3** [timestamp: 00:02] - Frank Penn motioned to postpone the Zoning Ordinance text amendment that would allow recreational facilities as principal uses in the B-1 zone, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The postponement was approved unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays. Voting in favor were William Wilson, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, and Frank Penn. **MAR 2016-19** [timestamp: 01:30] - Mike Owens motioned to approve the City View Investments, LLC zoning map amendment for Kimball House Square, seconded by Carolyn Richardson. The motion passed unanimously with 10 ayes and 0 nays. All members voted in favor: William Wilson, Will Berkley, Patrick Brewer, Mike Cravens, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Carolyn Plumlee, Joseph Smith, Frank Penn, and Carolyn Richardson. **ZDP 2016-71** [timestamp: 01:45] - Mike Owens motioned to approve the Kimball House Square (AMD) zoning development plan, seconded by Karen Mundy. The motion passed unanimously with 10 ayes and 0 nays, with all members voting in favor. The approval included 9 total conditions, with condition number 9 deleted and findings noted for compliance with Article 28-6(b-g). **PLN-MAR-16-00004** [timestamp: 02:30] - Patrick Brewer motioned to approve the RML Construction, LLP zoning map amendment for RML-Citation, seconded by Joseph Smith. The motion passed unanimously with 10 ayes and 0 nays, with all members voting in favor. **PLN-MJDP-16-00007** [timestamp: 02:45] - Patrick Brewer motioned to approve the RML-Citation zoning development plan, seconded by Joseph Smith. The motion passed unanimously with 10 ayes and 0 nays, with all members voting in favor. The approval was subject to 10 conditions. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, both focusing on zoning ordinance text amendment ZOTA 2016-4. Jacob Wallburn spoke first [timestamp: 03:30], expressing concerns about the limitations of the current ED (Economic Development) zone. Wallburn advocated for increased flexibility in supportive uses within the zone, arguing that such changes would help stimulate development in the area. Dennis Anderson followed [timestamp: 04:00], discussing the need for more diverse uses in the ED zone. Anderson emphasized that allowing a broader range of uses would be essential to attract development and create a more vibrant community within the designated area. Both speakers' comments centered on the same zoning amendment, suggesting coordinated interest in expanding the permitted uses and flexibility within the Economic Development zone to encourage greater development activity. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that generated substantial debate among participants. **ZOTA 2016-4 - Economic Development Zone Supportive Uses** The primary point of contention centered on determining the appropriate percentage of supportive uses permitted within the Economic Development (ED) zone. The discussion became heated as stakeholders presented conflicting viewpoints on how much flexibility should be built into the zoning regulations. Developers present at the meeting advocated strongly for increased flexibility in the supportive use percentages, arguing that more lenient requirements would help stimulate economic development in the zone. They contended that overly restrictive percentages could hinder their ability to attract tenants and make projects financially viable. The debate highlighted fundamental disagreements about balancing development incentives with zoning integrity. While developers pushed for greater accommodation of supportive uses to enhance project marketability, other participants appeared concerned about maintaining the primary economic development focus of the zone. The heated nature of the discussion suggests that multiple parties had significant financial or policy interests at stake in the outcome. The percentage of supportive uses directly impacts what types of businesses and activities can operate within ED zones, affecting both development costs and the character of these economic districts. The extracted data does not indicate the final resolution of this contested item or whether a consensus was reached during the meeting. The debate over ZOTA 2016-4 represents a common tension in zoning discussions between promoting economic development through regulatory flexibility and maintaining clear zoning standards and community planning objectives. ## CITY VIEW INVESTMENTS, LLC, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT & KIMBALL HOUSE SQUARE (AMD.) Z [timestamp: 01:00] The commission considered a petition from City View Investments, LLC to modify conditional zoning restrictions for the Kimball House Square development located at 275 S. Limestone. The proposal sought to amend the existing Mixed Use 2 zoning development plan to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 22 to 30 units. Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade and Tom Martin, who presented details about the proposed modifications to the conditional zoning restrictions. The amendment would allow for additional residential density within the existing Mixed Use 2 zone designation while maintaining the overall development framework previously established for the property. The petition represented a relatively modest increase in residential capacity, adding 8 additional dwelling units to the approved development plan. This type of amendment to conditional zoning allows developers to adjust project parameters while working within the established zoning framework and maintaining compatibility with surrounding land uses. Following presentation and discussion of the proposal, the commission approved the zoning map amendment and modified zoning development plan for City View Investments, LLC. The approval allows the developer to proceed with the increased residential unit count at the Kimball House Square development on South Limestone. ## RML CONSTRUCTION, LLP, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RML-CITATION (HILLENMEYER INTEREST, LTD.) ZONING DEVELOPMENT PLAN [timestamp: 02:00] The commission reviewed agenda item 2, a petition by RML Construction, LLP for a zoning map amendment from Light Industrial to Wholesale and Warehouse Business for property located at 2551 Leestown Road and 745 Greendale Road. The petition involved property owned by Hillenmeyer Interest, Ltd. and sought to rezone the parcels to accommodate wholesale and warehouse business operations. Key speakers during the discussion included Traci Wade and Tom Martin, who presented details regarding the proposed zoning change and development plan. The commission examined the merits of converting the Light Industrial zoning designation to Wholesale and Warehouse Business zoning for the specified properties on Leestown Road and Greendale Road. The discussion focused on the appropriateness of the proposed zoning classification for the intended use and the compatibility with surrounding land uses in the area. Following their review and deliberation of the zoning map amendment request, the commission approved the petition. The approval allows RML Construction, LLP to proceed with their wholesale and warehouse business development plans for the properties under the new zoning designation. ## ZOTA 2016-4: AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES 23A-10 TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (ED) ZONE [timestamp: 03:00] The commission reviewed zoning ordinance text amendment ZOTA 2016-4, which proposes modifications to Articles 23A-10 governing the Economic Development (ED) Zone. The amendment focuses on expanding permitted land uses within the designated Expansion Area. Bill Sallee presented the proposed changes, which would introduce new supportive uses to complement existing economic development activities in the zone. The amendments also seek to provide increased flexibility regarding building height restrictions and floor area requirements, allowing for more varied development options within the ED zone boundaries. The text amendment represents an effort to modernize the zoning regulations to better accommodate evolving economic development needs while maintaining appropriate land use controls. The proposed supportive uses would expand the range of activities permitted in the zone beyond the current restrictions. Following the presentation and discussion, the commission determined that the zoning ordinance text amendment required further review and consideration. The item was referred to the full commission for additional deliberation and potential action at a future meeting. The referral allows for more comprehensive review of the proposed amendments and their potential impacts on economic development activities within the affected zone areas. --- ## Decisions - **ZOTA 2016-3** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Zoning Ordinance text amendment to allow recreational facilities as principal uses in the B-1 zone - **MAR 2016-19** — passed (10-0): Approval of City View Investments, LLC zoning map amendment for Kimball House Square - **ZDP 2016-71** — passed (10-0): Approval of Kimball House Square (AMD) zoning development plan - **PLN-MAR-16-00004** — passed (10-0): Approval of RML Construction, LLP zoning map amendment for RML-Citation - **PLN-MJDP-16-00007** — passed (10-0): Approval of RML-Citation zoning development plan --- ## Full transcript Comic-Con, Disney Princesses. There is a variety of food available at No Charge as well. This year we'll have Papa John's giving out a slice of pizza to participants. Culver's will be there handing out frozen custard. Noodles and Company will be giving out fresh fruit. We will have pastries from a variety of local businesses. Dean's Food will be handing out chocolate milk. So there's a variety of food to take in as well as games and activities. So it's a great way for a family to come out, pay one price, and be able to spend the entire afternoon taking part of something that not only benefits our community in CASA, but allows a great time for the family. That sounds fabulous. I really am excited about this event, and I'll make sure that I send it out to my constituents, too. So tell me about the sponsorship with the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government. So we are blessed to have the support of Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, and they are a sponsor of this event. But they also offer a health initiative for Lexington Fayette Urban County Government employees. If an employee signs up when they register, there is a question that asks, are you a Lexington Fayette Urban County Government? And you just click yes or no. But if you sign up and participate in the 5K, you can walk it, you can run it, you could really get across that finish line anyway. You receive a $25 Speedway gas card for Simply Participating. Tell me about the location again. So we are actually located at the Kentucky Horse Park. This is our second year being out here. This is the fourth year for the Casa Superhero Run and the 11th year for the Casa Run in general. But the course is at the horse park. It starts and finishes just south of the Old Tech Arena and the festival is also at the same location, so it's a beautiful area and there's horses to see as you're running. So that's another feature of Lexington that your constituents as well as people from outside of the county can come and take advantage of. That's fabulous. Now, tell us about the details. If I wanted to sign up for this, where do I go? Who do I call? What's the website? Great questions. So the CASA website for this event is www.lexsuperherorun.com. If you go there, you can register today. If you do not have internet access, you can contact the CASA office and we can get you a hard copy paper registration form. The phone number to the office is 859-246-4313. We're happy to answer any questions anyone might have, and there are a variety of frequently asked questions on the website as well. But the date of the event is Saturday, September 10th, with the 1K kicking off at 8.30 a.m., followed by the 5K at 9 a.m., and the festival runs until noon. Again, to participate in the festival, all you need to do is register for either the 1K or the 5K, and you'll wear your race number to allow free access to the festival. All proceeds do benefit Casa of Lexington. 100% of all funds go straight back into the community to provide advocates, Casa advocates to abuse and neglected children in the Fayette County Family Court System. Again, registration rate. Thank you. Thank you. So you all missed all that, huh? Good afternoon again, and welcome to the August 25th, 2016 Urban County Planning Commission meeting. We have no minutes for this meeting, so we will move on to postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy on page 4, item C1, ZOTA 2016-3, amendments to Articles 816 to allow recreational facilities as principal uses in the B1 zone. I represent Transylvania University. The zoning committee recommended postponement, and we have had a couple discussions with the staff on that, and we'd like to continue those. So we're requesting a one-month postponement at that. Okay, that's ZOTA 2016-3. Anyone in the audience would like to speak to this particular request for postponement? Anyone on the commission? If not, we'll entertain a motion for a one-month postponement. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of ZOTA 2016-3. What would be the date of that, Mr. Selle? September 28th. September the 28th. Second. Okay, it's been probably moved in a second that we postpone Zoda 2016-3 amendments to Articles 8 and 16 to allow recreational facilities as principal uses in the B-1 zone. Any other discussion on motion? Chairman Wilson, the meeting's actually September 22nd. It's 22nd? Yes. That is the correct. Okay, then we'll make that correction. It's September the 22nd. I have the information there, Mike. Motion still holds. Second still holds. Any other discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the postponement as stated, let it be when it comes up on your monitor. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, say nay. Ayes have it, thank you. Okay, what's next? Any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay, then if that's the case, then we'll move back to the first item on the agenda, which is the City View Investments, LLC Zoning Map Amendment, and Kimball House Square Zoning Development Plan. That's MAR 2016-19. Yes. They have two different development plans. A second with a record of approval. Yeah, yeah. There's no variances within the ground. Yeah, that's what I understand. They need to tell us that. They need to tell us that. I remember earlier. Yeah. Well, actually, the thing is supplemental. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. Our first item. Oh, wow. I was on autopilot there for a minute. Chairman Wilson and members of the Commission. I apologize. Our first item today is MAR 2016-19, and it's a request by City View Investments, LLC. The subject property of this zone change is 275 South Limestone, and they are requesting to rezone property not from one zone to another, but to instead modify conditional zoning restrictions within a mixed-use 2 zone. It's the mixed-use 2 neighborhood corridor zone. I do have one letter that's been submitted to the staff in opposition, and then something that came up earlier in this application's life was the lack of consent from the condo association, so I do have a copy of that that I'll pass to the commission to review. There was also originally a variance associated with this zone change request that has also been withdrawn by the applicant. And then another issue was resolved related to the legal description related to the application. So originally the staff had recommended a postponement in July, and the applicant has modified or corrected their application enough that the staff made a different recommendation than the August Zoning Committee. So we'll proceed today with that hearing. The overhead shows generally the vicinity of the subject property located on South Limestone. It's a short distance to the northeast of the intersection of West, and I don't have my pointer today. It's West Maxwell and South Limestone. The subject property is, again, kind of shown in white. In this regard, it tends to look a little gray. It has a hatch over it, which actually designates that the subject property is also located within a local historic district. In this case, it's the South Hill Historic District. The property does stretch over to South Upper Street. The applicant is asking to modify the conditional zoning restrictions on this property. Those restrictions limit the density of the property, so that's what they are hoping to modify. This area of South Limestone is generally zoned in a B1 zone, which you can see with the red along South Limestone here between University of Kentucky and downtown. As South Limestone approaches downtown, B2 zoning is much more common, our downtown business zones. This area accommodates a number of mixed uses in addition to the university. There are also retail establishments, professional offices, bars and restaurants, and a number of multifamily and single-family developments within this general vicinity. The subject property is actually a reuse on the subject property as a reuse of several historic structures. The property was rezoned in 2007, I believe, to modify or change the development of this property from a hotel use to a mixed use. At that time, they intended to have both R4 and MU2 zoning with the MU2 fronting onto South Limestone. and the intention or the idea at that point was that the first floor and basements would be utilized for commercial space, offices or retail space, and that the upper level floors, second and third, and then properties to the rear would all be residential. So it would create this front on South Limestone that had the more mixed use with the residential behind. Unfortunately, as the applicant has found over the last 10 years, these front entrances and even the back entrances have not been able to be leased out for commercial or, I guess, non-residential purposes. It could be offices as well. And the applicant contends that that is a change in the immediate vicinity or on the subject property that is an economic change, basically. The requirement is in KRS 100, and the zoning ordinance is that the Planning Commission or the Council can amend conditional zoning restrictions only if they find there has been a major change of a social, physical, or economic nature to the subject property or within the immediate area that was not anticipated at the time the restriction was put in place, and also that it has altered the basic character of the area, making the restriction improper or inappropriate. The applicant, when they drafted their proposal, originally wanted to modify the amount of residential to commercial to fall below what the ordinance requires in terms of an 85-15% split. However, they've adjusted their development plan and have agreed to meet the 15% requirement of the zoning ordinance. But that still leaves a good amount of square footage available in the first floor and the basement that they want to use for residential purposes rather than commercial purposes. And the conditional zoning restriction specifically limits the density of the property to 22 dwelling units in this building and then a rear building that faces south upper. So their proposal is to change, leave the south upper property, which is already completely occupied with five dwelling units, but to allow 25 dwelling units in this building rather than, I believe it's 17. So currently there's 22 permitted. They would like for there to be 30 total available to them in terms of density. The reasons or the justification they have cited has to deal mostly with change in economics of South Limestone, of what happened or what was likely they felt to work in the early or mid-2000s 2000s and has over time, they've realized, did not work to what they projected basically. There is a stronger demand for residential uses in the South Limestone Corridor than commercial demand. In addition, mixed-use projects in Lexington have generally been primarily residential and much less commercial, even though the ordinance could allow the opposite or a much greater mix. The applicant cited nearby Center Court and the Lex developments, not just Kimball House Square, that has had that same issue of commercial being occupied. And then the reality is that the South Hill area is a popular area residentially for students as well as professionals and even retirees because it is between the university and downtown. And generally, there's been a higher demand for office and non-residential uses in downtown or in other parts of our community like Fayette Mall or Beaumont or Hamburg. So the staff did agree with the applicant's justification that there's been a change for this property or in this area that was not anticipated when the original restrictions were put in place, and we do recommend approval of their request. And the zoning committee likewise recommended approval three weeks ago of this proposed change. It is still contingent on the development plan being certified, and the staff recommendation is under number three in terms of a new conditional zoning restriction that would replace the existing restriction. So instead of a limit of 22 units, the staff recommends that the density shall not exceed 25 dwelling units in the mixed-use 2 zone on South Limestone Street, which would encompass these five buildings on the development plan, and then five units in the mixed-use 2 zone on South Upper Street, which is on this building. And the restriction remains necessary to limit the density in order for it to remain compatible with the adjoining uses in the surrounding neighborhood. I'd be happy to answer any questions about this proposal. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you very much. Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the final development plan that is associated with this request, you can see here is South Limestone. This is the MU2 area here in red. It extends back in to include this building on South Upper. This is your R4 area on the plan. You can see the circulation pattern that comes through like this with the parking all in the interior of the development. This is one of those development plans that doesn't change a thing physically to the property. I do believe they located three parking spaces that weren't originally on the plan that have kind of evolved on the site. But they aren't, again, changing the buildings, the parking, or anything to the site or to the building. So there's no physical changes. It's one of those types of development plans. Staff had originally recommended postponement on this plan. We are now recommending approval as things have moved through and have been clarified with the zoning. And with the submittal of this revised plan, staff is recommending approval. We would recommend that you strike number nine. That's on the top of page three. That refers to the variance that is no longer being requested. and we have also passed out to you a finding that is required under Article 28-6 of your ordinance and that is your mixed use ordinance and every mixed use proposal is subject to this finding and it is a finding that addresses the site and building criteria under 28-6 B through G. It addresses things like parking, parking location, building articulation, lighting, those types of issues that are relevant to the design of a mixed-use project. And that is always subject to your finding with a final development plan. So we have given you that, and we are recommending approval of that finding. This property was rezoned in 2005, and a final development plan submitted that same year, ultimately certified in 2006. So it complied with your mixed-use zone at that time, and this plan does as well. And I don't want to disappoint Mr. Brewer or others, so I will add that they didn't apply to the monkey house. But the funky house is gone. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Owens? Ms. Martin, one letter that circulated around here had problems with proposed parking. They felt like parking would be a problem. What are the numbers, recommended numbers and actual numbers? That's a double check. We've got Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin, you forgot your mic. Okay. There are 74 spaces provided according to the development plan of which seven are off-site. And, of course, they were granted a reduction in their overall parking originally as it goes through, but they are meeting their parking. No doubt there can be issues in a development like this with parking and interior movement at times. You said three parking spaces failed? They found three on the property. This plan doesn't reflect that very well other than there's one over here, and they found some over in here that weren't originally on the plan. You know, usually there's a recommendation as far as needed parking. Is there a... We generally evaluate what is required, what is provided, and there are times when we will point out that we think they're under-parked, and we'll evaluate that. That was not the situation when this was originally approved. Thank you, sir. Other questions? Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, staff, thank you very much. My name is Nathan Billings from Billings Law Firm. I represent the applicant. City View Investments. Let me begin, instead of with my formal remarks, to answer your question, Mr. Owens, regarding parking. Specifically, you ask about parking on site with respect to the one objector's letter regarding parking. During this process, I discovered something that I've never seen before. This development plan, which includes two zones, an MU-2 and an R-4, is part of a condominium association. A condominium association is created by a document called a master deed, and that is where parcels of land are submitted into what's called a common property regime. As a stroke of illogical consequences, there's an additional parcel of land next to this that is part of the Condominium Association. So while it's not on the development plan, it's not required to be, it is part of the Condominium Association. That document includes seven parking spaces here and one here. And so as a matter of law, all of these owners benefit from the additional parking here. What that results in, there's actually a net gain of seven additional off-site parking spaces. It's similar to sometimes the Commission will approve off-site leased spaces to comply with parking, but this is better than leased spaces because a lease can expire in a year or two years and won't be renewed, and you all are then left without a remedy. In this case, it's created by a deed of restriction that every owner in here has bought into so they can never be taken away. The three spots that Mr. Martin was talking about is there's one here, there's one here, and there's one that's actually halfway on the property line of this and halfway on the property line of that, and there's seven additional spots here. A copy of that parking drawing was submitted to the staff during our proposal, and we've updated the plan with a note to show the additional off-site parking spaces. And so currently, under the ordinance, 69 are required, and we have 74 total. you all have heard us through the committee meetings that essentially this is an unusual proposal because although it's called a zone change it doesn't really change the overall property it changes nothing on the exterior of my clients units which is from the unfinished drywall in except that they can now use more of those units for residential and less of it for office commercial. Specifically, they still have to comply with 15% of the square footage to meet office or retail or related uses that are allowed by the ordinance and the master deed. Although it's not within the Commission's approval, the master deed is actually more restrictive on the use of these units than even the zoning ordinances. The essential background of This is, the client approached me in 2012 with owning the five units on the first floor and the basement unit, unit 10 on the far left, and said, we bought this in 2007 and we haven't been able to use it. We need to find a solution. We hired an architect, developed some residential plans and thought about an application. We met with staff at that time. and because we recognized that it would be a zone change to change the conditional use restriction and the attendant issues that can sometimes accompany zone changes, they decided to wait to continue marketing the property to see if coming out of the recession at that time, they could have more luck. Earlier this year, they approached me in January and said, we're three and a half years later, we haven't been able to do anything, let's move forward. So we started this process, and that's where we are today. Technically, this is a legal issue and nothing more. There is not a single thing outside of their unit that is going to be changed by this plan. And that is what Mr. Martin talked about last with respect to the certification under 26.6BG. That is that nothing outside of my client's drywall will be affected. There were some things we have to do with the condominium association in this process. because then they have residential and commercial units for paying dues and assessments, but it doesn't affect anything outside of their units. We've walked with staff since this process originally in February or March, I think we started. We originally sought a variance. We have withdrawn that. We have walked in detail through parking. We have walked in detail through the calculations of the square footage analysis. And so our request is that the Commission today would approve a zone change by modifying the existing conditional zoning restrictions to allow us to increase the number of residential units and to approve the associated development plan and to continue keeping a modified conditional zoning restriction on the property. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Any questions for Mr. Billings? Thank you. I guess that's it. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address this particular plan? Okay, then in that case, I'll turn it back to the Commission then for additional discussion. Mr. Chairman, I do have proposed findings as well, if I could pass out to the Commission for our findings with regard to the zone change. And Mr. Martin has passed out to you proposed findings regarding the development plan. Okay. We'll take that. Thank you. If there's no discussion, we'll entertain a motion then for, we're going to take it in two motions. The first, and then we'll go to the zoning development plan second along with the findings for compliance. Mr. Chair, are you ready? Tracey, did you see the findings? Yep. I guess Mr. Chair, one question as far as legal. Are legal okay with the findings that's been presented by staff? You can rely on the ones that have been presented by staff if you'd like. We've seen those. They're fine. I have not seen the ones you just got. I was getting ready to say the ones we will rely on are the ones that were provided by staff for the official. This guy is the same. I'm just talking about the same thing. Okay. That's good to know. Thank you. Thanks for the confusion. You ready? Yeah, we're ready. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MAR 2016-19 City View Investments, LLC, for the reasons provided by staff. Second. Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Owens and seconded by Ms. Richardson that we approve MAR 2016-19 City View Investments, LLC. Any other discussion on the motion? Bearing none, please vote when it comes up on your monitor. I hope it does. Okay. Motion carries. That's been approved now for the ZDP 2016-71. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of ZDP 2016-71. Kimball House Square amended with the now nine conditions deleting the original number nine that said provided the Planning Commission grants the required waiver. Also, just noting the findings for compliance with Article 28.6BG. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved by Mr. Owens and seconded by Ms. Mundy that we approve ZDP 2016-71 with Kimball House Square with the nine conditions provided by staff and with the findings for compliance with Article 28-6BG mixed-use project. Any other discussion on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on your monitor. That motion carries. Thank you. Next. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, members of the Commission. Our next item is on the top of page 3, and this has our new case number. It's also in tab 2 of your notebooks. PLN MAR 16 lot of zeros and four and this is a request by RML Construction LLP and for property with addresses of 2551 Leestown Road and a portion of 745 Greendale Road they are requesting rezoning from both a light industrial and a planned neighborhood residential zone to wholesale and warehouse business which is our B4 zone the subject property is located although the addresses are Greendale and Leestown Road is actually located along the new Citation Boulevard the subject property fronts on to Citation Boulevard for a majority of its frontage but it also has what is planned to be a continuation of Sandersville Road through the subject property which will continue across Citation Boulevard and this aerial might show a little bit clearer what that will look like. Citation is intended to come through this residential property and connect here where there's some curb cuts from Citation and then continue across to the existing Sandersville to the east. So the large tract that is 2551 is about 12 acres here is currently zoned I-1, and then about two, two and a half acres to the north of that is currently zoned residential, which is R-3. The I-1 parcel was originally rezoned in 1994, and the R-3 parcel was rezoned by Bell Homes in 2004. So both of these tracks or parts of these tracks have remained vacant for more than a decade. and that has, I guess, now that Citation Boulevard is complete and has provided this access, a wonderful access, between Leastown Road and Newtown Pike to the northeast, there's been some interest by landowners in the area in offering other services that aren't directly available to the residential areas in this vicinity. The area to the south of the subject property is already zoned for light industrial. If we go back one, you'll see that I-1 actually borders the property to the south and the east, and then R-3 borders the property to the west and north. So generally, residential is planned across Citation Boulevard and to the north of Sandersville, And then the more jobs land is on the south side of Sandersville. Currently, again, the property remains vacant. So just a nice green hill at this point. The applicant is asking to rezone it to a B4 zone in order to construct about 64,000 square feet of either office and warehouse space or on one lot they're depicting an automobile service station. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan, of course, generally focuses on land use policies now rather than a land use map. The applicant contends that it is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan based on land use change considerations developed by the staff following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner mentions that they believe the existing combination of I1 and R3 is inappropriate at this intersection and that B4 would be more appropriate at this location along a minor arterial and a collector street. In terms of the comprehensive plan, the applicant opines that the proposed zone would be compatible with and enhance adjoining land uses, enable the development of a critical vehicular connection, being Sandersville Road. We'll redevelop underutilized land for greater utility or function, or develop in the first place. We'll utilize the existing infrastructure, that is citation, that's already open. and the proposed use will not impair any existing environmental conditions of the site and then lastly the use will provide for neighborhood oriented business and amenities in the area and the staff generally agrees with the applicant's contention that it's in agreement with the comprehensive plan at this location for those generally for those reasons We did note in the staff report that the B4 zone can accommodate some neighborhood-oriented businesses like an animal clinic, garden centers, automobile service centers, and even the office warehouse projects, some of which the applicant is proposing. And the B4 zone would act as a step down between the light industrial and the residential. The staff was concerned when we reviewed this application about the buffer between B4 and residential on the north side of Sandersville where it would be adjacent to single-family residential. So the staff suggested conditional zoning restrictions at the zoning committee, which generally the zoning committee was agreeable to and agreed with the staff in terms of making a recommendation of approval for the proposed zone change. The findings are on the staff's report as well as on the agenda for today's hearing. The conditional zoning restrictions are also listed there. There are a number of prohibited uses that the staff believes could be inappropriate adjacent to residential use. and then there are also a few buffering restrictions that would require twice as many trees along that line and then require a 15-foot buffer rather than allowing the applicant to reduce to a 5-foot buffer along that residential boundary. Staff would be happy to answer any questions about our proposed recommendation or the conditional zoning restrictions. Any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you very much. Thank you. Is Mr. Martin around? Oh, you're hiding. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan is on your agenda on page 4. It is Plan MJDB 16-7. We have also distributed for you on a pink sheet revised recommendations for this plan because you do see before you a revised preliminary development plan. Here is Citation Boulevard. Here is Sandersville Road as it comes through the property or will come through the property when it's constructed and intersect with Citation. As you come back this way, it is curving back and we'll come back through the residential areas that are being developed here. And you may recall we had a waiver for a cemetery back in this area for the road to curb and come around. They are proposing an access point into this section of the development with these two office buildings, 9,000 square feet and 9,800 square feet, again with associated parking in the rear. Here you have the 15-foot buffer, as Wade was referring to, next to the R3 zone. They are proposing the gas station in this location, along with an office warehouse here of over 11,000 square feet. And again, the parking is to the rear and internal to the site. You may recall that originally there were some concerns about the property, including the fact that we didn't have any development proposed on this lot. And this revision, of course, addresses that concern. One of the reasons of concern that exists on this lot and the applicant's concern was there's a sinkhole in this location, and that will have to be dealt with at the final development plan stage with a geotech study and determine the extent of that sinkhole. It may or may not have a significant impact on the development of the site, but that is a final development plan issue and will be addressed at that time. Here we have a 100-year FEMA regulatory floodplain that runs through the property. This little area was part of the discussion we had, and that, too, access to that will be determined at final development plan. It may or may not prove to be a developable site for this particular proposal. But again, those issues are being deferred to your final development plan stage. The revised conditions that you have are pretty typical. There's a few cleanup conditions. There's one item that is number eight to clarify the parking generator. Office warehouse has a 60-40 square footage breakdown, and that parking generator has to reflect that difference use. One is one per 200 and the other is one per 600 square feet. And this little convenience store station has its own generator as well. There's a slight math discrepancy with this submittal, and that resulted in the condition that you see about them clarifying the parking or adding 17 parking spaces. And they have plenty of room to do that if they want to adjust it and add those parking spaces, but that would be necessary for this plan to be in full compliance. And, again, that's just a result of a small math discrepancy on the plan. Staff is recommending approval of this particular revision, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Mr. Penn. Mr. Martin, I know this is a preliminary development plan, but as we go forward with the final development plan, Is any consideration being given to where those buildings will face, citation or back up to citation? This is an opportunity for us to make citation a little better looking boulevard. My question is, is that a concern? Could that be developed? I know I can ask Rory that question, but I'm asking from a staff's perspective. That is an excellent question, and as a matter of fact, staff often brings that up as well. And I think at final development plan, we should ask, certainly in review, the building articulation and appearance that it presents to Citation Boulevard. Yes, sir. I think that's an excellent, excellent recommendation that that be done, and that can be done at final development plan. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Bruce Simpson. I'm substituting today for Nick Nicholson in this particular matter on behalf of the applicant. We, of course, agree with the staff's recommendation on the zoning. And also on the development plan, we agree with the conditions for the zoning, the conditional zoning provisions, as well as the provisions about clarifying and denoting at the final development plan stage the issues that Tom raised and that Mr. Penn has raised here today to deal with those more specifically at the final development plan stage. otherwise we would ask for this body's approval of the zone change and the preliminary development plan. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone in the audience would like to address this agenda item? Okay. Seeing none, what about the commission? Wow, this is going along very smoothly here. In that case, if there's no further discussion, we're ready for a motion. if the commission is ready. I think I had to do that. Mr. Berker. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for recommendation of approval of PLN MAR 16-4 RML Construction LLP. Second. For the reasons cited by staff. Okay, it's been properly moved that we approve RML Construction LLP Zoning Map Amendment Citation Hill and Meyer Interest LLTD Zoning development plan, and it's been seconded by Mr. Well, actually, we'll give it to Mr. Cravens here for any other discussion on the motion. Seeing none, please vote when it comes upon your modisters. Okay. Move for approval of PLN MJDP 16-7, RML citation, subject to the 10 conditions. Second. Excuse me, is it 10 or 9? 10. 10? Okay. Mr. Barclay is moved. Do I have a second? Mr. Brewer? Joe. Joe. Joe did. Oh, good, Mr. Joe. Smith, second. The motion is approval appeal of the preliminary plan MJDP 16-00007, RML, citation, Helen Meyer, interest, LTD. Any other discussion on the motion? Not. Please vote when it comes up on your monitor. Motion carries. Thank you. We move to, well, item C, full public hearings on zoning ordinance, text amendments. The first one, as you remember, has been postponed, so we can move to the second one, which is Zota 2016-4. I think this is one that's been in discussion for quite some time, so looking forward to seeing what you have to say about it. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. This item appears on page 5. It's number 2 on your agenda. It is ZOTA 2016-4, a proposed amendment to Article 23A-10 of your zoning ordinance regarding new uses in the Economic Development ED Zone. This is a text amendment that has been initiated by the Planning Commission. You are the applicant for this technically. Copies of the actual text along with our staff report can be found at tab number 4 in your notebooks. We also have copies of the text and a PowerPoint presentation that we'll have this afternoon in the back of the room for anyone in the audience that is of interest. The staff has received one communication about this text amendment. It is from Walt Gaffield, who is the president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, and he does express some concerns about this proposed ZOTA. We'll circulate this to you at this time. What tab was it? As Chairman Wilson said, this is an item that has been on the Planning Commission's radar for some time. That is because the ED land. Excuse me, Ms. Sally, you said it was under tab 4. I thought it was under tab 4, yes, sir. A few of them don't have one. Some do, but some don't. Okay. We will pass out the information to you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I would say this is the same staff report that we presented to those of you on the Zoning Committee three weeks ago, and I cannot recall whether we had this staff report completed by the end of your subdivision committee where we could share that with those members as well, but I will assure you the staff report has not been altered in the three weeks since we reviewed this last. economic development land is a recommendation for two general areas under the expansion area master plan which is now 20 years old and it is part of the conference of plan this is a map that we show you at one of your work sessions identifying those two primary locations for economic development land One in Expansion Area 3, that is bounded generally by the Urban Service Boundary, by Newtown Pike, by Interstate 75 and 64, and by Russell Cave Road. The other general area that's recommended by the EAMP, the Expansionary Master Plan, is Expansion Area 2, generally bounded again by Interstate 75 to the west, by Winchester Road to the north, and by Polo Club Boulevard to the west. We'll have a little more detail on these areas for you as well a little later in the presentation. Because these are part of the comprehensive plan, we do have a task, if you will, that was put into the 2013 comprehensive plan when it was adopted by the Planning Commission. And that was a specific goal to evaluate barriers and opportunities in order to promote economic development within these lands in the expansion area. It was known by the Commission in 2012 and 2013, when you last reviewed the comprehensive plan in a major way, that these areas had not yet been developed. And now, three, four, five years later, we can still basically say the same thing, although you have approved a few development plans in these areas intervening. The intent of the ED zone is shown in our zoning ordinance in the section that is proposed for amendment. The purpose of the zone is to provide land within the expansion area for employment opportunities compatible with the overall character of the expansion area. A little closer look at those two areas recommended for ED and the existing zoning. In Expansion Area 3, about 90-plus percent of that area is zoned, all but approximately about 25 acres in the staff's estimation. and over 350 acres is recommended in that area for economic development land use. In Expansion Area 2, we have a smaller area and also a smaller area that currently has been zoned to the ED zone. It is approximately 200 acres, just slightly over, with about 60 to 70 percent of that having been rezoned to date. A work group was established a couple of years ago by the Commissioner of the Department of Planning, Preservation, and Development to evaluate the current restrictions in the ED zone. Sixteen members were named to this group, and they met almost ten times over close to a calendar year, a 12-month period. Several major issues were discussed, but there are two relevant to your consideration of the ZODA today. First, why has this particular zone developed at a slow rate compared to other developments in the expansion area? And then secondly, what changes can be done to increase the pace of development in this zone? I think those were the primary issues related to this ZODA that were considered by this work group. The reason this is important is the land in the expansion area comprises about 50% of our available and vacant employment land in the community, as shown by the red on this map. You can also see the other areas that have employment zoning, but those areas that are not red are largely developed, so we're looking at infill or redevelopment of those sites. So about half of our vacant land is in areas either zoned or recommended for the ED land use. The work group made several recommendations at the conclusion of their work. That was to increase the number of permitted uses in the zone, to allow supportive uses, that's a new term that accompanies this ZODA, to accompany the other cache of uses either existing or proposed in the ED zone. There were recommendations to consider increases in residential density. Residential use had not been suggested in ED areas prior. To increase allowable floor area ratios, or the amount of building that is possible on properties in these areas. To increase the height of buildings in these areas. and also to consider decreases in open space requirements. All those four, last four, were identified to be considered in more detail by the Planning Commission, and the Commission has done so over the past few work sessions where we presented the Committee's work and had discussions over several scenarios with you about these very issues. There was one unresolved issue, and that was how much of this land should be considered for supportive uses. And we'll get into what supportive uses are in just a moment. But the idea of supportive uses are that they are lesser uses in terms of job creation that can help and augment other parts of a development that would be job creating in nature. Several new permitted uses were recommended and are part of this text amendment. Breweries, wineries, distilleries, nursing homes and assisted living facilities, flex space projects, that is a term already in our zoning ordinance in some of our commercial and warehouse zones, as are office, warehouse, mixed-use projects, agricultural research and experimentation facilities, and the use I mentioned a moment ago, supportive uses. Supportive uses are considered principal permitted uses under this text amendment, but they are limited. And as I proceed, you will begin to see the limitations there are for these supportive uses. One limitation is that they may only be provided either concurrently or after other principal economic development zone uses are provided in a development. It is commonly thought that the development plan process will be utilized to ensure that this concurs. Supportive uses are probably the bulk of the change that is proposed in this text amendment. All supportive uses are limited under this text amendment, and as was discussed by the workgroup, to a maximum of 15% of the allowable floor area allowed for development in ED zones. But this is a long list of new uses allowed for the first time as principal uses in the ED zone under this text amendment. I'll briefly cover them. food service and restaurants, libraries, museums, beauty shops, barber shops, hotels and motels, investment company offices, pharmacies, retail sale of medical supplies, banks, nursery schools and child care and adult day care centers, service stations and convenience stores, vehicle refueling stations, TV and radio studios, animal hospitals and clinics, community centers and private clubs and fine arts studios, all of these would be permitted uses under this text amendment in a limited fashion. Also, as I mentioned earlier in my presentation, residential uses would also be permitted under this text amendment for the first time in the ED zone. They would be supportive uses, and they would also have other restrictions tied to them, meaning that they are limited to only 15% of the allowable floor area for all supportive uses. So yet another restriction on the allowable floor area for residential uses in ED zones. Those new uses would include multifamily residential, which would be buildings that are either three units or more, Dwelling units above the first floor of a building, similar to what we talk about sometimes in either mixed-use zone developments or B1 zone developments. That is a use that would be permitted for the first time under this text amendment. And also townhouses, attached single-family dwellings, attached with common walls side to side. This text amendment is not only about allowing new uses, but as was requested by the workgroup, also addresses floor area ratio, building height, and open space. Under floor area ratio, this text amendment that you've reviewed and has been initiated does allow an increase from a floor area ratio of .75 to 1.0. And what that means is, for instance, a 40,000 square foot lot in an ED zone, 40,000 square feet of buildable area would be permitted under the zoning ordinance for that property. That's what a floor area ratio of 1.0 means. In terms of building height, this text amendment proposes a major increase to the allowable building height. The current ED zone is limited to a maximum of 90 feet for a single building, provided the average of the development is at 48 feet. This text amendment will increase both of those numbers, eliminate the averaging requirement, and allow buildings of up to 120 feet in height. As for the open space requirements in the zone, there is no change from the current 25% minimum requirement. However, the text is being modified to allow that to be clustered on a number of lots and reviewed in a development plan basis rather than being required on each and every lot in an ED development. So it can be, I think, honestly thought of as a much more flexible approach to providing open space in an ED zone without allowing a wholesale change to the concept that originally created this zone, which was to allow and recommend that some open space be provided in these developments. After your hearing today, the staff, of course, will record all the comments that are made. And when I step to the podium, I notice there were a number of people here to speak to this matter. And we will forward your recommendation, should you decide to make one today, to the Urban County Council, where then the Council will begin consideration of this text amendment. The staff, as we concluded in our staff report three weeks ago, is recommending approval of this text amendment for the three reasons that appear on your agenda. They are, firstly, the proposed text amendment to Article 23A-10 has been discussed and considered by a committee who agreed that additional uses and greater design flexibility were needed in the ED zone. Secondly, the relaxation of building height and floor limitations in the ED zone will provide more flexibility for future ED developments while maintaining the intent of the zone to foster future job creation. And finally, new principal and supportive uses will allow the necessary mixture of uses that can contribute to successful developments in the future. We shared this recommendation with your zoning committee, and there was some discussion at your zoning committee meeting three weeks ago by not just staff, but also others who attended that meeting. Your zoning committee members at the time recommended referral of the text amendment to the full commission. Before you hear from others here on this topic today, I'll be glad to try and answer any questions you may have about either our presentation, our staff report, or our recommendation on this text amendment. Thank you. Ms. Mundy has a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill, in my recollection of the area that is out by Winchester Road and Polo Club and that area near the Costco and Cabela's and that, there was to be a CC area in there, if I remember correctly. In changing this, are we eliminating that CC? No. The CC zone in this general area of Polo Club and Manowar Boulevard, which is just off the map here, the CC zone has in essence moved to be oriented more to the interstate interchange, whereas the expansion area master plan had shown that land use for a number of years on the opposite side of Polo Club away from the interstate. The general acreages are very close to the same. The zone that has been eliminated there, I believe, is the transition area zone. That initially at one time was on the opposite side of the road. And was that eliminated or just reduced? Do you remember? That was my recollection as well. Over the transition area zone was eliminated. Okay, so hit me with that again. Where is that CC now? You are seeing it adjacent to this ED area. This area is zoned CC. Okay, all right. Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome. okay any other questions for mr sally okay thank you we'll now open it up and ask if there are any anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment related to this karen to to your question too i believe there is also a cc zone across uh bryant road from this as well. It's not developed, but it was a part of the Blackford property. It's about 30 acres. Yeah, I know where that one is, but this is the one I was wondering about. Thank you. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Jacob Walburn today on behalf of the Cowgill family. I'm actually glad this was up on the screen. We are number 86, reflecting the 86 acres. that is the Platt that is owned by the Cowgill family. I'm going to repeat a story that I told some of you in zoning commission, but this case and this ZODA has particular importance to me because it's actually the first thing I learned as a planning attorney. Think about how many times you've had to see me between now, and then you can see how long this has gone on, and I can tell you the work group had already started when I became a planning attorney. So this is a ZODA that has been in the works for a very, very long time. And I have to say that this is a very tough case to cut your teeth on when you're trying to learn land use. Because many of you know my mentor, Chris Westover, advised this body for many years, representing neighborhoods and developers alike. And she started to explain to me one day that there's really this magic line in Lexington. And inside it, a certain set of rules applies. And outside it, there's a whole different set of zones. And they don't cross and they don't overlap. And after about an hour of her trying to explain to me, I kind of wondered, what have I gotten myself into? But she finally was able to distill it to a point, what was the controversy about the ED zone that was very easy for me to hold on to, and it was simply this. What do you do about a failed zone? And that's what the ED zone has been. It's a failed zone. You've seen zero development in the economic development area since the expansion area master plan was adopted 20 years ago. Zero jobs, zero contribution to your tax base. The ED zone has failed, and the work group's goal was to try to fix it. Now, I did not get the privilege of attending all of the workgroup meetings, but I attended many of them, and I can tell you that it really centered on two key points. There were two issues that stood out more than any other about why the ED zone had not taken off. One had to do with cost. This is expensive land. It's subject to some very high exaction fees. It's frankly very expensive to develop. While that's a concerning issue, I'm not sure it's an issue that's really within the Planning Commission's wheelhouse. The urban county government, to their credit, has tried to create a fund available to help offset some of that cost. I'm not sure that it's going to be enough, but we can, as my mother would say, burn that bridge when we get there. The issue that is more relevant to the Planning Commission and what I want to focus my remarks on today is about diversity of uses that are available in the economic development zone. Now, I'm a very visual learner. I can drive around town and look at what an R1D neighborhood looks like. I have this theory that my visual learning is why I insist on showing you all so many PowerPoint presentations. If that's how I learn it, that's how I think others would learn it. But I can't show you any pictures of ED land. I can't go out and see what ED looks like because nothing's ever been there. Sorry, I've gotten off my notes here. So let's talk about that use issue. We can't go out and see it, so we have to kind of think about it. What about this zone hasn't worked out well? I would suggest to you there were some bizarre recommendations that were reported out of that work group. I think there was a half a percentage recommendation at one point, and I'd like to explain where that came from. The work group really kind of ultimately broke down into three groups, a group of interested parties, a group of landowners, and a group of people that were interested in preserving what was termed in that group the jobs land, that we could not give away any jobs land. and ultimately on the issues that were deferred to the commission where you all have increased floor area ratio and looked at open space requirements and things like that, it wasn't that we didn't consider those issues. It's that those were not the two crucial issues that had been identified about use and cost. We deferred those issues, frankly, because we spent so much time arguing about those other two issues. The developers, and I do want to make a clarification that I have made at other points, We're talking about a fairly substantial portion of land here. We're only talking about three owners. The entirety of the ED land, as it is called for in the Expansion Area Master Plan, is held by three interests. Anderson Community owns the one labeled 346. Mr. Anderson controls that property. My client, the Cowgills, have the 86 acres that are closest to Winchester Road. And Central Baptist Hospital actually owns the 129 acres to the south of my client's parcel. Dennis and my clients obviously have a very significant interest in this. I will give Central Baptist credit. They participated in every workgroup meeting. But Central Baptist interests are not as implicated here today. Why? Because I think we all know what's going to be going on Central Baptist land. The use they want, the use that will ultimately develop their parcel, is already permitted under the regulations today. There are things that can help them. Increasing the Florea ratio, for example, helps their development. But Central Baptist is in the health care business. Health care is a permitted use in the ED zone now. We're really talking about two individual parcel owners that really have a substantial stake here in seeing this land develop. Now, that discussion went on for some long time in the work group about what to forward in the way of recommendations. At some point, you just split the baby. So that's how you got those bizarre recommendations. At some point, you just take the two opposing viewpoints, divide it down the middle, and that group had been meeting for almost a calendar year. They needed to move something forward. They needed a resolution, and that's what they did. But I want to tell you what the owners had proposed. The owners had requested roughly what you see in front of you with two exceptions. Instead of 15% supportive uses, they had asked for 30% supportive uses. And instead of 15% of 15% for residential, they had asked for 50% of 30% of residential. There's a little fuzzy math here. I just want us all to be on the same page. 15% of 15% is 2.5%. That's how much residential use we're talking about here. If you look at the size of these parcels, you see that that's not a significant amount of land that we're talking about. Two and a half percent of 86 acres is actually just slightly over two acres. That's a very, very small use for my client's parcel. So these were the proposals that had been put forward by the developers as kind of our last, best, and final offer of what we thought this land could support. Of course, that then got cut in half and moved forward. But I just want to be clear that there really was not a consensus on this point in the work group. The developers have consistently maintained that we think successful development can come to the ED land at 30% supportive uses, of which half of which could be residential. Now, we all appreciate the intent of this zone. Jobs are important. We want jobs. But the fact of the matter is we haven't created a single job in this land. movement as this has gone through the process to fiercely protect the zone that we have. We want to keep that jobs lane, but this hasn't created jobs. And I think the proposal that you see in front of you today is a little like being diagnosed with pneumonia and then taking an aspirin and hoping it'll all work out. These changes are just not substantial enough to spur the kind of growth and spur the kind of change that you want to see in this area. If we keep fighting so hard to preserve this failed zone that hasn't done anything with only minor changes. I just don't think you're going to see the kind of progress that we want to see in the ED zone. We're absolutely appreciative of the work group, of the planning commission, of planning staff. We've taken the time to study this issue and think about it. We just think the results that have been come to are far too conservative to support the kind of growth and the kind of development we want to see in this land. This is some of the only vacant land in Fayette County, period. It's not just the only vacant jobs land. We're running out of land generally. The land is filling up. Here's a prime location where we could start contributing to the tax base in form of occupational license taxes, in the forms of increased property taxes. We want to contribute to the government coffers. How many times have you ever heard anyone say that to you? We want this land to be more valuable. We want this land to develop because it means we'll be successful too. And what helps the developers will also help the government and will also help the community. I don't think the change that we're asking you to make in this recommendation, as it's forwarded to the Urban County Council, is really all that radical. If you look at the difference between 15% and 30% for us, 60 acres approximately would still be available on our land for these economic development uses, non-supportive uses. It's a substantial area of land that can provide jobs. And let's not discount that jobs are created by these supportive uses, in addition to the people that are employed to build them. Many of the uses that you've seen listed here employ people. They may not be the significant kinds of employment in the manufacturing, I-1-style developments that we're used to, but those people still positively contribute. They're still making money. They're still paying taxes. They're still seeing development on the land. We're simply trying to ask for a little bit of a bigger bite on the supportive use to try to stimulate that economic development use, because what's on the books now just has not been successful. we sincerely believe and i'm speaking only for the cowgirls but i believe mr anderson's council may echo this comment that 30 is essentially the bare minimum that we can ask you for that will enable us to do the kinds of developments and contribute positively to the community in the way that we'd like to in zoning committee i asked those of you that were there to consider a question you know what was the problem that we were trying to address and does the present text Amendment address it. And I would submit to you that while it's an admirable effort, it's just not the kind of substantial change that's needed to take a zone that has never once succeeded and turn it into a success with such a small change. So I would respectfully ask you to consider increasing the allowable supportive uses to 30% of the available floor area ratio, rather than the 15% that is proposed here today. I would be happy to answer any questions that you have but I actually have two members of the Calgo family here that I'd like to give themselves an opportunity to introduce themselves to you and make very brief remarks. Hello Chairman Wilson everyone else on the committee my name is Christy Harris I am one of the property owners of number 86 my sister is behind me Cindy Brumley. We own this land since 1999. It's a family-owned piece of property. My other sister and my mom and my dad, the five of us, we own it together. We have a strong desire to develop this property together, and we have not had anything viable come to us since we purchased it in 1999. And I actually was one of the members that sat on the committee and went to the 10 meetings. So Just a little bit about our family. We are from Lexington. Our roots are deep here in Lexington. My four of us were born and raised here, went through Fayette County Public Schools, went to Transylvania University. My mom went to Transylvania University. She graduated. We all five graduated from Transylvania. So anyhow, our roots are strong, and we love our community. We have a family business called Calgwell Properties. We've provided 1,300 apartment units in Lexington. We provide housing for the community. And anyways, we've all served on numerous boards. We really love Lexington, or we wouldn't still be here. All of us are here. So because of our love of Lexington, we would really like the opportunity to develop the corner of I-75 and Winchester Road and the Polo Boulevard. We have tons of different ideas. tossed around but we can never move forward with any of our ideas and it's frustrating so i just ask that you think about our recommendation and maybe give us a little bit more than was recommended from the committee because really the like jacob said the committee was more um just kind of we just came up with 15 i don't think it was like yes this is great from our standpoint and from Mr. Anderson. So again, in the past 15 years, since we've owned the property, we haven't had, you know, any with these regulations, anything that we can do to provide and give back to Lexington. So thank you. Thank you. So we'd be happy to answer any questions. But with that, that concludes my prepared remarks. Mr. Cravens. You said the change of supportive uses to 30%? Yes, sir. What did you say about the residential part of that? We had asked for up to 15% of the overall, so half of the 30. So right now it's 15% of 15%. We'd be asking for 50% of 30% or 15% overall. Does that make sense? No. I mean, I'm working on it. Yeah, well, keep it that way in case you want to do it. Any other questions? Okay, well, we'll get back to you a little later. Anyone else like to speak about this particular Zoda? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm here on behalf of two clients. And most of my presentation is going to be on Mr. Lee Sims. I did want to speak on behalf of Dennis Anderson just a minute because Mr. Walburn very well set up the facts and the lack of success of the ED over the last 20 years. We've been struggling with this for 20 years about coming up with a viable use for the ED property. I want to give you a little background because I served on the, it was an open committee 22 years ago. Mr. Seaman had been hired by the city. Mr. Charlie Seaman, who was a planner and zoning attorney out of Chicago, Illinois, conducted a big community committee right here. I'm coming out of the horseshoe. They had set up tables, and I was on that representing the person who was then the owner of the property up there, Nancy Neely. And we went through all those hearings for a year. All those plans had shown the southern half of the 346 as being residential. We'd had plans coming through a year showing that as residential. And the northern part would be more commercial or ED. We went through all those committees, and my client was happy with that result, until one night, the night the vote was going to be taken, we came into this meeting room right here. And before the meeting started, I noticed there was a new map up on there. The Sasaki and Associates out of Boston, the famous landscaping and architectural firm, had done plans showing the residential where I said it was on the south and the ED on the north. But Mr. Seaman had done a new plan and put it up there, and it showed all this being ED. Just before the meeting I started, I went up to him and I said, what happened? This has been shown as residential for the last year on every plan that this committee has done. And he told me that when he went to bed last night, he thought that it all ought to be ED. And if Ms. Neely didn't like it, he'd take the whole thing out of the urban service area boundary. And I'm saying that just to tell you how much thought and effort went into the plan for this property being ED. We have dealt with this for 20 years. We have dealt with the uses. Now, we accept it. We understand where we're at. But when we went through the Planning Commission the first time, I remember, too, we mentioned that to Dale Harper, who was then the chairman at one of these meetings, and Mr. Harper's comment was, we can always change it in five years if it doesn't work out. We'll be looking at this thing back in 2001 if it doesn't work out. Well, it hasn't been changed, and the inertia, the lack of inertia has carried forward. So we heartily agree with what Mr. Walburn had said about the developers' plans for this. They know what will work best. And it's been 20 years, and it's time to give a little more flexibility because people build communities now. they don't build industrial here lets everybody drive up new circle roads in the northwest and go to industry and let's all right down drive down to Nicholasville Road for commercial here there it's better to put it a little bit together which is which is what we propose on that so we agree with those proposals that mr. Walburn put forward to you I'd like to change hats here just a minute and I'd like to I'm here on behalf of the potential fourth owner of ED land in this community, a very small owner, and that is property right there across the street from the Cowgirl property, right at that location where my pointer is. I have just a couple little things to hopefully refresh your memory on this. I've got a little handout for Mr. Lee Sims, who is the representative of the Miller Family Estate. I'm going to hand these out. Just to refresh your memories, I've got a couple pictures. We filed a zone change two years ago for two and a third acres of land right at this location. And if you could put up the first photograph there, this is the land that is sandwiched between two uses that weren't totally anticipated in the comp plan. This is the sewage pumping station on the north side of Winchester Road, and the second one is immediately to the west of us on the other side of our property, if you go to the second picture there. It is the, that's, by the way, a very good-looking sewage pump station, but it is a sewage pump station. This one is the KU substation on the immediately other side, and what's happened since the comp plan was adopted 20 years ago is that those uses, in addition to greatly impacting the marketability of this property for residential use, which is what was proposed for this two and a third acres, it has cut us off from the other residential uses, too. We'd have two and a third acres sitting there in the middle. We applied for a zone change to the CC zone two years ago, and because we said we just can't do anything in the EAR 1, 2, or 3 zone on this property, we need a commercial zone. And Mr. Brewer, I'm glad you were here because I still remember what you said at the zoning committee, and that was you said, Dick, I think you've convinced us all that residential isn't appropriate for this property, but you haven't convinced me that CC is the zone for it. We need to look at some other things. So we talked to the staff, and we continued this generally, and it's been continued generally for two years, and it was awaiting the results of the ED study committee to see if there was a solution to this through the ED zone, because in discussion we've had the staff, you know, some of us thought maybe ED might be a better zone for this property. It's the only other alternative for the property. And unfortunately, the committee got involved in the issues for the bigger tracks, and the smaller ones, the potential this one just wasn't addressed. So the smaller zones weren't addressed on this one. And the issue we have is that it doesn't really address the smaller tracks that are not attached to one of those big three tracks. All of them assume there's going to be a development plan for the big tracks, which there are on these, or at least on Dennis' and the hospital now. And there will be one on the Calgill one, a development plan showing here's this use, here's this. Now, this one across the street, I think the future for it is something that serves the ED, the 86 acres of the Calgill property and the 139 acres of the hospital property immediately across the street. And the small size of the property makes it impossible for this property to be used as a factory, which is the biggest use in EDs, factories, or a medical center like Central Baptist. That's not going to go there. Maybe some offices might. But we need to open up the potential uses for this property. And by having the 15% rule on this, if you will, you can see two and a third acres, 15% of that, we've done the math, it's .3 acre, one third of an acre, which would be eligible for commercial type uses. what we're proposing to you and what I handed out to you was two potential simple solutions to this which go to the section I think 12d or 12 which is the very last one on the draft which you have before you and on the first page which says principal use what I've done there is simply say that for these smaller tracts of less than 10 acres if you're adjacent to or across the street from one of the ED parcels and you're under separate ownership, separate development plan, the supportive uses would be principal uses without the 15% limitation on it because this is only two and a third acres. And all of them would be under 10 acres because something that small you can't really chop up 15% this and 15% of 15% that. Now, as an alternative, because people may say, well, we need to review these things more, page two is conditional use, making all the supportive uses conditional uses on these small tracts of 10 acres or less with the same conditions you're across the street or whatever from ED's own land. But this would allow, if we have a restaurant coming in, it would be a conditional use. So you or the Board of Adjustment could have a specific hearing to determine if that restaurant was appropriate for the property in this particular site. Again, it would be supportive uses as proposed in the existing text amendment, but it would lift the 15% limitation for small tracts. The first proposal would make them principal uses, which would still require a development plan from you all. The second proposal would make it a conditional use, which would allow you to impose additional conditions if you felt it was appropriate for that. So that's what we're proposing for what we feel was probably an overlooked issue on the ED Study Committee. And I've drafted this up so it would apply for all tracts under 10 acres. You may not have another one like this because this is a – I'll be honest with you. I've been doing this work for 35 years or 40 years. This property has more issues on it due to the expansion area, the boundary going through it, Hume Road potentially going through it, than any other I've ever encountered. And I know it's driving Mr. Sims crazy. Mr. Sims is the husband of the executor of the Miller family estate. And since he's an architect, he's the one that gets designated to deal with this piece of property. And so that's what we're requesting. We think it's appropriate for very smaller tracts of land. And we ask you to adopt one of those alternatives as an amendment to this proposal. I think Lee is here and would maybe like to say a couple remarks to you. Well, Lee Sims, as Dick has described me, you have a visionary in Mr. Anderson here, a developer. He wants to bring a nice community development to Lexington. I think he's very much doing that. You have the Calgal sisters that are wanting to do the same thing. My role in this, I have a head on the chopping block. I've got 31 family members that want me to figure out what to do with a family farm. So we thought it might be special to put a personal face on what's going on out there. We have 10 acres right across from the cowgirl development. 60 years ago, Dr. Adam Miller and Louise Miller bought the property to raise their kids and have a play farm with horses. Over that 60 years, we've watched Lexington grow tortoise. We've all had a finger in development. A controlled, slow burn, if you will. And this 10 acres has been a wonderful place to grow up and watch and be part of a wonderful Lexington family. 60 years of roots plus. I'm married into it. And as Dick said, by hook or crook, I've got volunteered to just explain or try to do something with this property. So two years ago, we started out looking at it. And if you will think along with me, Winchester Road is one of the last arteries to develop. We have a sewage pump station that sprung up on one side of us, and we have a KU substation that sprung up on the other. You can imagine old Ms. Miller on the front porch sitting there saying, my gosh, what is going on and coming next? Well, unfortunately, she passed away before she got to maybe take this role on. You would have loved her. Her family calls her Sarge. We still call her Sarge. She's a wonderful lady. But she would like to see something purposeful for this property take place. Two years ago, we looked at CC's own Bill and Tracy and Brother Martin who escaped. There he is. He's in the back where he can hit the door quickly. We looked, and we just couldn't find a fit for this acreage. It's 10 acres right on the edge of what's coming. So we were advised to wait, and it was recommended to wait, see what happens with the ED zone. I have been through about eight or nine meetings myself. It's an unbelievable process how Lexington grows. It's very controlled, very organized, very impressive. But also for someone like me, and possibly Mr. Anderson-Will, it's overwhelming to understand how it works. You make it easy. Bill's been wonderful to work with, and Tracy and the staff has been just super. And I have to commend them on that, to allow someone like me to come through and try to figure out the process and work with Dick. It's been enlightening. But it also has given me heartburn, like he just said. The first piece of property in 35 years has probably scared him. So anyway, that's where I am. I'm in between 31 family members. I'm in between 35 years of a crazy piece of property coming to a head, and now it's time to do something, and we can't do anything. The CC zone wouldn't work. ED zone is not a fit for a small landowner. We need more flexibility, and this was designed for flexibility and wiggle room. Development plans are going to be presented. You've got control of what can happen, but I would hope that little guys like the Miller family, and there's going to be more infield development in Fayette County. As it grows and grows and grows, there's going to be little parcels. We would like to have the opportunity to develop it and be creative and put something on it that gives jobs, helps with tax base, and can help move forward with the county. Most of the folks that have come to talk to us are hotels, business, that would like to buy the property, but we just can't do anything. We're scotched. So I think based on two years of trying to understand the process and hearing things like 15% of 15% is nothing, we're scared. And we need your help. And I come before you with Dick's recommendation, just ask for your help. Take care of the little guys. Keep us in mind so that other parcels can grow, not just the big parcels of 80 acres and 300 acres. We need room to wiggle, too. I think my three minutes are up, but we'd like to thank you for this opportunity. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, my name is Rob Gabbert. I'm a commercial broker with the Gibson Company, and I was tasked with this easy project we have here to find some commercial viability with the front 2.38 acres that were allowed inside of our boundary there. But I've been marketing this for about a year now and a little over a year. And like he said, a lot of hotels have been checking it out, some C-stores. Sir, will you step closer, a little bit closer? Yeah, we're recording. Okay. Mainly the people who have been approaching us are hotel developers, C-stores, a lot of B3-type users. but I guess just the back of the area there's some planned retention there with the city and then I guess Polo Club potentially could go through Hume Road. So we've got a lot of issues going on there, but with the 15% and the green space allotments, it's going to be very, very hard to get a viable project. So that's all I have to say. Okay, thank you. Thank you. It's fall. I've been out doing pasture restoration this morning. Do you understand that? Or it's almost fall, I should say, getting ready for fall. I have Dennis Anderson. I live here on Main Street. I'm the principal owner at 346. We've owned it a long time. And the major hurdles to developing it have been the limited amount of uses. We need more uses. The other difficulty is people don't understand exactions. I realize that exactions are in place. We can't unwind them. But when we try to explain exactions to people, they get confused. And a confused man will always say, no, I don't think I want to do that. And they go on down the road. So those have been the two big ones. 20 years, no jobs. I'd hate to be here 20 years from now standing before you again. and hopefully I'll be here, but not for that reason, saying, gee, still no jobs. It was supposed to create jobs. Why didn't it create jobs? Not enough uses. Uses are too narrow. We need to expand the uses. During the time I've had it, we've had people want to locate distribution there. I never came down here and asked you for distribution. I didn't want distribution. That isn't the right use for this property. We had people want to do a farm implement dealer on that site. That wasn't the right use either. I didn't want that. I want to build an office business park, research and development, finance. I want walking trails. I want townhouses. I want fitness centers. I want a mixed-use development that's a fun place to work and live. And I want it very high-end, very upscale. This property can afford that. In Lexington, we have not sprinkled zones enough. We've piled zones. And piling zones like pile manure, it kind of stinks. When you pile a bunch of apartments together, you're guaranteed a ghetto of the future. If you look at this, Eastland Parkway, Cardinal Valley. If you sprinkle them, Park Hill on Yellowstone. We bought that. It was one property. It was headed to ruin prostitution, drug dealing. We went in there and bought it and refreshed it, returned it to the community. It's a nice, safe place to live now. So I'm saying we need to sprinkle our uses. We've had a bad problem of piling uses in Fayette County since zoning started in the 60s. We put all of our retail on Nicholasville Road. We put all of our jobs on the north side of town. We put most of our housing on the south side of town. And we wonder why we have traffic problems. Because you can't do anything without getting in a car. The people say, well, Dennis is just here wanting to sprinkle some residential in there because it's a big money. Every use on this property, every use on this property that we've asked for and we have is worth at least three times as much as what I can get out of residential land. I am asking for it to let us to build a community on Newtown Pike that will contribute to the Lexington community. It is not a greedy, selfish ask. With CalGo on 30% of it as supportive uses, I think will help us get this property going, of which 15% we should have the option of using as residential as we see needed. We have one large user coming to the property. I cannot disclose who it is. Y'all approved the development plan. And I've talked to him about the fact that we need townhouses there. He says, I don't want apartments. I said, I'm not asking for apartments. I want townhouses. Two-story townhouses couched up next to the street with a wide sidewalk. You know, the front porch, wide sidewalk, opportunity to say hi to people. A place where at 5 o'clock everybody doesn't go home. A place that has energy and vitality after 5 o'clock. food, restaurants, bar, housing, minimal housing, minimal housing. In my side of town, or this side of town, there isn't adequate services. There's nothing really going on out there. There isn't adequate housing. In order to stimulate the growth of this property, we need to have these support services. People just don't want a place to work. They want a place to live. In Fayette County, we have not done a good job of providing residential housing. We have 1.3 months residential houses on the market. If no one brought new product to the market in the next 1.3 months, there would not be a house for sale in Fayette County. The surrounding counties are like 2.8. A lot of our people are going to the surrounding counties. We have developments in Georgetown. We have a lot of people coming from Lexington going to Georgetown. That's not good. You talk about leapfrog development. That is the ultimate leapfrog development when people are driving from county to county to get to work. Anyways, the steady market has like five months inventory on hand where supply and demand equals. As a government body, you can limit supply. You cannot limit demand. and you're going to find prices go out of sight. For the existing person who already owns property and owns, that's very good. I own a lot of property in Fayette County. I can feel assured I have a bright future. But for the young person or the new person to our community, it says there's going to be a tax on them. They're going to be charged extra to be a part of our community. I ask that you support 30%. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Oh, yes. Dennis. Can you tell me mechanically how this would work, this 30% supportive uses? The way I think we've proposed it is that can only be built at the time of the use it's supporting. Can that work? I don't like to time markets. several years ago when we did Townley Center and Townley Center is when we created our community centric design we decided we were going to do things differently and we came and I stood before you and had worked with the Meadowthorpe neighborhood and assured them the first thing we would build were office buildings where the Walgreens, my office urgent treatment center and community trust bank was They were worried about having a residential look from Metathorpe from the Leastown Road that kind of married theirs. I told them we'd build brick structures with gabled roofs. So it spoke in the same vocabulary. It was a commercial use, but it had a kind of residential context. The time we got through the process and started building, the office market was gone. And it was the last piece of land we developed. so time in markets nobody can do it you know if we could time markets everybody rich everybody I know that tries to time markets they call them day traders 98% of them go broke I'm not interested in trying to time the market I'm just trying to bring to the market what it needs when it needs it so you know I think there's no problem I think I'm going to have my ED in there so that I can go ahead with my supportive uses as they come. But I don't think that is a good policy to have. I don't think there's anybody smart enough to time the market. Mr. Penn. Yeah, Dennis, while you're up there, let me ask you a question. I support Townley Center very well, but it's not ED land. It never was intended to be ED land. I don't want to take ED land and turn it into a Townley Center, and I know you said that's not what you want to do, But if the principal uses aren't done first and the supportive uses are done first and then the principal uses don't come, effectively you've done that without a zone change. So my question to you is, it's kind of like opening a barn door from the other end of the barn. If this land needs to be rezoned, then get up here and talk about rezoning it. But to try to take an ED land, use the supportive uses, and say, oh, well, at the end, the other didn't come, and that very easily could happen. And that's why I have to support the supportive uses of it after the principal uses, because if we don't, we ought to just do a zone change. Does that make any sense to you? I want to respectfully remind you of one thing. Yes, sir. Town was zoned I-1, okay? It was zoned I-1, and we converted it to the mixed use. I had an economic impact study done. I wish I brought it with me. But the amount of taxes and the amount of jobs and everything that's on that property today versus what it was when I started is pretty phenomenal. And the same thing with this, 20 years, and we've not created any job. 20 years, no jobs. I understand that. My question to you is, if the problem is that our land is too expensive and we can't compete with other industrial places, those kind of lands, then let's not address it by putting in other uses other than ED land and call them supportive uses. Let's just change the zone. I never said the problem was price. The problem isn't price. The major problem is the amount of uses we have. The uses are too narrow. I haven't had no price objection. Okay. I've had confusion over exactions, but I've had no price objection. Well, we can't change the exactions. The planning commission can't change the exactions. I agree with you. And the principle of exactions is good. We've just got to get people comfortable with it. We have to explain it in such a way they're comfortable with it. I understand that. But my concern is that we're taking ED land and making a zone change, just not calling it that. We're expanding the uses in ED. 85% of it's still remaining economic development. Okay. What we are proposing still keeps 85% of it in jobs. Okay. Okay, Mr. Cravens. Yeah, so these uses that we've expanded to here in this document, you're okay with those? Yes. You just want 30% instead of 15? Yes. I'm just glad to see hotels and restaurants come in. You know, it's hard to have the people I'm working with. They're like, well, what about restaurants? And I said, I think we're going to get the ability to bring you restaurants. We don't want to eat at Cracker Barrel every day. We want a little bit more choice than that. And today, it used to be when we were young, we worked to live. Young people today live to, or we live to work, they work to live. And they don't just want to go to work. They want to go to lunch. And they want a place to go when they get off work. They want things to do. And that's what we've got to provide. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Thank you. Anyone else would like to speak to this? Okay. At this stage of the game, then we'll have a discussion among ourselves. And I'm going to first turn to our staff over here to see what the thought might be related to that recommendations or proposals that have been made. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a few, I think, rebuttal comments. I can assure the commission, unlike Mr. Anderson, I will not be here 20 years from then with this text amendment again. That I'm certain. Let me back up one slide. I think I'm going the wrong way. That's the one. The unresolved issue at the bottom has been a lot of what has been discussed at your hearing this afternoon. As the meetings progressed with the work group, my recollection was that the percentage issue had gotten as close at one point near the end as 20 to 15 percent for supportive issues. The work group was not able to reconcile that difference, and that's why you got the odd percentage recommendation of splitting it in the middle at 17.5 percent. They could not get closer than those two numbers. And then obviously today you've heard the preference is for 30%. Just again to summarize the notes that I've taken, during my remarks I told you the staff's recommendation and the draft that you have before you is that supportive uses would comprise 15% of the floor area. And of that allowance, 15% of that would be allowable for residential. What I heard the Calgill family ask for was 30% of floor area for all supportive uses and half of that allowable for residential. And then Mr. Anderson's comments were 30% of floor area for supportive uses and 15% of that allowable for residential. Those are the numbers that I gleaned from your hearing. If the floor area is increased, as has been proposed on the text amendment, quick calculations that Ms. Wade and I did during your hearing, we're talking about square footages of about 24 million square feet of buildable area in these areas. So these percentages have huge ramifications. Under the staff provision of 15%, some 3,700,000 square feet would be available for supportive uses. That's about three Fayette Malls. And of that, about half a million square feet would be available for residential use. If you assume 1,000 square foot units, that's about 550 dwelling units in this area that you're looking at, or roughly a density of about one unit per acre on the land that you see there. At the 30-50 scenario, 30% supportive, 50% residential, our calculations were about 7,500,000 square feet of supportive uses. Half of that would be 3,725,000 square feet for residential. Again, approximately 3,725 dwelling units. That level of density would be about 6.5 units per acre for this entire acre. I want to compare those numbers to what the staff typically sees and presents to you in a multifamily development plan that you have at almost every one of your meetings on the second Thursday of the month, a typical multifamily residential development plan is approximately 18 units per acre. So at 18 units per acre, even if you're talking about one unit per acre on what you see here, the staff's result, if you follow the staff recommendation, is going to allow pockets of that type of development in these ED zones. So the numbers that you are considering do have great ramifications for that. This is all important because in closing, I want to make full circle to what was discussed at the very first meeting of the workgroup. Commissioner Paulson was very clear to all the attendees that this task was going to be done, but it was going to be done in a way that did not compromise the basic intent of the ED zone. And that is to provide land for jobs in the area. So again, I think the staff would ask you to be very cautious about the percentages. I am pleased that you didn't get a lot of testimony about the uses. That's very positive. But the percentages are very important from the staff perspective. Thank you. Thank you. Hang on, just Ms. Sally. I have one question here. Yeah, Bill, these percentages, they're of the actual size of the building, right? Not 15% of the acreage. Well, that's correct. And with a floor area ratio of one, that makes it easy for the calculation. Well, yeah, I mean, you can't, I mean, it would be hard to build a whole building on the whole site unless you had the other sites. And you can't because of the 25% open space requirement. The only way to achieve a floor area of one is to build a taller building, because you still then have to provide parking and so forth. Those were some of the scenarios we shared with you at your work session. That's right. But these numbers you calculate, that's only on the 30% or 15% of the other uses are based on the square footage of the other buildings built, the actual use, not the supportive. Well, the numbers that are... Not on the gross acreage, but on the buildings that are built. Right. Those were building square footages, not land square footages. Any other questions? They're in essence with a 1.0 floor area. They're almost identical. Okay. Hang on, Bill. This question, I guess I'll ask you and see if others have other opinions as well. It seems clear from the non-development in this area that, as Jason said, this ED zoning with a great intent has not worked. And I was not part of the meeting, so if this was addressed, I apologize for replowing the ground. is this tweaking around the edges of this going to make an appreciable difference in what's left supposed to be job creating area or as Frank said should we not be looking at this from just a change in zone this isn't working it hadn't worked but let's try something different is the sense from the working group that what you're being proposed is going to then create a fertile ground for job creation in the remaining 70% of the space. Is that really enough to do that when it hadn't worked for 20 years? I think the committee that met was very mindful of the question you've asked. It was understood by all that the zone was one contributing factor to why the land hadn't developed. I think Mr. Anderson shared some others with you. So I think the committee was trying to balance the need to relax the restrictions in this zone, but at the same time not allow the type of scenario that Mr. Penn was talking about earlier. So, if you will, there was a ceiling and a floor set for the discussion. And for my participation in most of those meetings, that discussion really bounced between ceiling and floor. Over time, they narrowed, but they never did get to the same point, and I think that's what that last line of the one slide indicated. I think Mr. Duncan wishes to add. And Mr. Brewer, also, just to the basic answer to your question, there could be some regulatory problems with seeking a different zone on this than what the expansionary master plan shows. if we weren't able to do a swap like we did with the other CC land, because this is what was designated. So then to do a zone change for something different or certainly something outside of the expansion area zones could be a problem just from a regulatory standpoint. But even if that hurdle could be met, and we could certainly work to do that, what we've heard now for certainly the last two comprehensive plans is the need for hundreds of acres of contiguous jobs land. And if we were to take this out of that entirely, then we would need to identify some other land to take its place. And we don't really have that option in the urban service boundary. We would have to expand the urban service boundary to come up with 300, 400 acres of land of land that's designated for jobs that would be in close proximity to itself. So that's partly why that some of these issues that you raise and others have are going to be difficult to overcome without addressing the regulatory issues of zoning or without addressing the policy issues of having jobs-related land. And the committee just felt that anything much more than the 15% then would start to take away the purpose of this land. And as supportive users, it's still supposed to be an attractor. to other jobs land, not the driving force necessarily, but it's supposed to help entice other jobs land to come here but not take the place of this for jobs uses. Mr. Cravens. Yeah, Mr. Duncan, and that's what I was going to ask. I mean, somebody had said about rezoning this property. It's in the expansion area, so you can only rezone it into expansionary zones. Is that right? Well, or like we did with the CC, if we were to swap this with something else, perhaps, we could do something like that. But we'd have to really look at this carefully to see if we could do anything other than an ED zone. So I guess that would lead me to say these landowners can't do anything but ED with this land, pretty much. That's the way it looks, yes. And the total sum of all of them that own it are here, and they're saying they need a little more, even what we've proposed, a little more flexibility, because they couldn't rezone it to EAR1 or EAR2 or EAR3, probably. That's right, and that's why you all are the ones that actually formally recognized this in the 2013 comprehensive plan and called for this study to evaluate what else could we do with this EDF. land to encourage it to be developed for its intended purpose? Mr. Berkley? I served on the committee and I was at most of the meetings. You know, and my position all along has been that the modern developments that we're seeing of this type, they have the supporting uses. we've got two property or three property owners that are largely represented here two of them I know have the Cowgills had somebody come and present to the group you know a concept plan I believe Dennis has done some concept plans but what they're saying here is that they don't think 15% is going to work and And if we're not going to be willing to listen to that solution, then we're just setting ourselves up to fail. And it will sit here. There was, I will have to say, there was never any evidence in the meetings that 30% wasn't appropriate. or that 25% wasn't appropriate. I mean, at the end of the day, we came up with an odd number. There was no consensus. But I think we need to look at that a little further and consider what has been said here today before we make a decision that may not serve anybody. Okay, let me, Mr. Sall, I had only one question for you related to the, and this has nothing to do with the supportive use, this has to do with Mr. Murphy's recommendation for smaller tracts of land. Where does the staff fit on that? The staff did not take on this issue did come up at your zoning committee meeting three weeks ago, but we did not feel that we needed to provide a staff alternative or a zoning committee alternative to address that. Mr. Murphy obviously has. The difficulty in making the principal use amendment is that it could entice owners of ED land to first create lots and subdivide their property to allow these other uses. That's a possibility. The conditional use route obviously avoids that, but still is not consistent with the general concept of supportive uses. It's a little more awkward in the ordinance to have one set of uses considered principal and another conditional. It's not unheard of. It's awkward for the individual who may be introducing themselves to our ordinance, say via the Internet, from another state or city, and then being confused about the particular use they want, how it's regulated. That's the downside of doing that. And, Mr. Chair, to augment what Bill said, and I agree with every word he said, the committee that reviewed this, the 16-member committee, was asked about the possibility of some sort of transfer so that a property, say, like Central Baptist, who might not participate in the supportive uses, could transfer their 15% to the adjacent Calgill property. And that idea was rejected in that committee. So while not exactly the same thing, but the idea of concentrating the supportive uses in one area was rejected by the committee. I got you. Okay, thank you. Is there any final statement from... Okay. Hurry up, if you would, please. That's right. I'll be exceedingly quick, Mr. Chairman. Two points that I'd like to make. In the spirits of compromise, things get moved. But you've got to remember on a 16-member committee, you had three property owners. So we weren't able to ever control any of the votes. Numbers get lowered, the transfer idea gets rejected. That wasn't the landowners that were doing that. We were outvoted on that particular point. I don't believe the landowners object to a transfer of the supportive uses. I don't believe the landowners object to some of these things. We just got outvoted because we had our interests and there were other interests. But we pretty uniformly, and maybe I didn't get to go to every meeting, but the Calgill family, I can speak for them, and Dennis is certainly capable of speaking for himself, had stuck to 30%. And that's what we had asked for then, and that's what we're asking for now. and if the Planning Commission would like to entertain the transfer of those supportive uses, we would certainly be open to that as property owners. But we think this is what we need to make this succeed. We want to help build a better Lexington. Help us. The purpose of the Economic Development Zone is to create jobs. It has created zero jobs. It is a failure. Let's fix it. Let's not fight so hard to preserve something that hasn't worked. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Dennis Anderson again. I listened to Bill's analysis of square footage, and frankly, I didn't understand it. When I was up here, I was saying, let's have 30% of the property for support abuses, of which 50% of that could be used for residential. The thing I don't understand about the building square footage is these properties never develop as densities at the densities that they could. And so does that mean you get to use the square footage of the maximum allowable or the square footage that it actually develops? These things are confusing to me. I don't know whether we maybe need to defer and have us all powwow again and say square footages or acres. It seems like there's too much confusion to shoot from our hip right now. Well, Ms. Anderson, I'll say that I'm a bit confused myself with the percentage. I do this every night for a little bit. I'm confused. I think we got your point. My mind's saying no. Let's get out of here. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Mr. Murphy. Thank you. I just wanted to say on behalf of the smaller property owners, if you make it a conditional use, you or the Board of Adjustments essentially has total control over what's going in there. Total control. What the use is, how big it is, how much parking there is, everything. And I don't think if somebody's from out of town is reading the ordinance on our Internet and can't understand it, which happens to me reading other people's ordinances, St. Louis and Nashville and Cincinnati are complicated too, you have to call them up and ask. That's what I do when I'm calling another city. You have to call up and ask. And that's what everybody does who's in the business. They call up and ask. So obviously for the smaller properties, I'd hope you'd make it principal. But I know people want to see what's going on there. I know it's a special circumstance. If you make it a conditional use, you all have total control over what goes on that property. But at least it gives them an opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'll close this part of the public. Are you still going to allow questions? Yeah, just a minute. I'm going to close the public part of it, and we'll have a discussion now among the commission members and decide what we want to do here. Okay. Yeah, so I have several questions, and I've listened to arguments that make sense to me on both sides, which always puts me in an awkward position of arguing with myself. But without sounding too schizophrenic, Bill, you mentioned two parties arguing, bouncing back and forth between percentages. We have representatives here, one of the parties he wanted to hire. Who was opposed to that, and who was vying for the lower part? Well, the committee was comprised also of, I believe, a University of Kentucky representative, representatives from Commerce Lexington. Council member was represented. All told, 16 people. The property owners were represented. So I think the assertion that's been made is fair. The property owners generally were asking for more supportive uses than people who were there because they're concerned and interested in preserving the job land. And I think in a very general sense, the comments reflected those concerns and why there was not able to be a consensus reached on what this percentage ought to be. I think that's all correct in the information you've heard. So U.K., Commerce, Lexington. Mr. Duncan, I think, has a complete list. I'll be glad to read that. Dr. Paulson, our commissioners, Skip Alexander, Dennis Anderson, and Buddy Calgill, the property owners, Christy Harris as well, Eric Munday and Melody Flowers from U.K. Finance and Administration, Jenna Greathouse and Kim Rossetti from Commerce, Lexington, Price Bell and Herb Miller listed as general expertise, so based on their past history with economic development and business. Will Berkeley from the Planning Commission, Kevin Stennett from the Council, Kevin Atkins from the Mayor's Office, and then Jonathan Holliger, an assistant from the Department of Planning. That was the committee. And then there were other staff, including Bill, Tracy, and I, that attended all the meetings as well as auditing the meetings. Okay, so that helps with one. Second one, the transfer idea that came up late in this discussion, And what was the rationale for that not being seen as a viable option? I think the discussion centered around Central Baptist having the zone and the uses that they want and then perhaps not needing the supportive uses. But at the moment that that idea was suggested, Central Baptist said, well, we don't want to give up our option on this either. So it really came down to that nobody was going to be transferring the uses anyway, so they just decided not to pursue that as something that was a component of the text. Okay. So I guess the last question is procedural. What are our options from here? I don't want to just kick this can down the lane, but I sure as hell don't think we have consensus or an option that makes sense to all the parties, even with people making concessions. And I hate to – I don't want to send the committee back to work. That's certainly not my intent, but I don't know how I'd vote on this right now, so I'm confused. What are our options? Well, first of all, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. In reviewing the task force with the 16 members, met nine times, and then the commission had work sessions. And the staff has been diligent in preparation of what we have today with the recommendation. So I, for one, would go with the staff recommendation of what we have today. because I think there's been enough work, time put in it already that we have a consensus. Thank you. I'd still like to know what our options are. Would be to pass with the staff recommendation. Well, you've got a couple. I think the other options, if I'm not mistaken, is we could have a continuance, we could do a postponement, or we can either vote it up or down. We would just ask you not to consider a postponement at this point. I'm sorry, we were all talking. You could amend the text. Oh, you could amend, okay. Mr. Penn? I understand the options. What I don't understand is what is the best use of those options. my concern is that we make this land where it can be used but I have the other concerns that I forced earlier in the meeting I don't need to go through them again so like Bill I don't think postponement is the right way to go but is there a middle ground that I don't want to circumvent the work of the committee and if I say I'd like for this group to get together the staff and work this out we're basically circumventing the other people in that committee that worked nine meetings on this thing. So that concerns me. So I don't have a great answer for this. I know postponement isn't the right answer, and I really don't think going on with it right now is the right answer because I think there's some of us on the commission that aren't ready for a vote. What we might want to do, Mr. Chairman, is find out how many are ready for a vote and then go from there. I don't know. Any other? Yes, ma'am. One thing we were just discussing that you might want to consider, I don't know if it will help or not, but you only have one more work session scheduled this year, and it's at the end of September, and as I understand it, the agenda is fairly full. But if you feel like you need some more additional discussion or information and you want to continue it and have a work session on it, that's another potential option that you could do and then bring it back after that. But, you know, I just wanted you to be aware that right now that's the way the lay of the land is on the schedule. Thank you, Mr. Owens. I was trying my button, but I don't know if it's working or not. Trying to grasp all this, hearing from landowners, they've got a concern. Having seen all this take place and been part of it in our committees, I kind of go back to what Mr. Duncan said a moment ago when Commissioner Paulson started this committee. The task was not to compromise the intent of the ED zone. That keeps registering with me. So we are supposed to keep this as job creation type land. But in looking at where we've been, what we're offering, we're increasing the floor area ratio. We are adding, for the first time, supportive uses. I don't know if anyone knows how that is going to play out. We're at what I would call the minimum. Some are on the maximum of 30. We're adding residential to it. I can appreciate where Mr. Murphy is coming from and his applicant. He's got a very unique situation. That, to me, is very new in the scheme of things here. Personally, I wouldn't be ready to act on something like that for wanting to discuss further to try and take care of any unintended consequences. What I see is two options. One is to, and I don't mean to plagiarize here if it's been used in the past, but sometimes if you're trying to get cattle in the barn, you get out of the doorway. Give this a try. Go ahead and pass this, or we need to continue it and take it back to the table and work on it some more. I just don't think we're ready to make changes on it at this point. Okay. I'm sorry. Our CC zone has kind of a mixed-use element to it. What are the percentages of residential and commercial in our CC? That zone requires 40% of the floor area to be devoted to residential use. Okay. Okay, Ms. Craven. Yeah, I should clarify that's non-commercial, so it could include other uses besides residential, but it's a maximum. So do you know the history of where that 40% came from? How was that decided upon? Is this on? Yeah. I believe that dates back to the very first zoning ordinance from 1996, and that ordinance was crafted about three months after the expansionary plan was completed by several staff members. That's my recollection. So it was a staff recommendation of that percentage? No, I believe it was a derivation of the expansionary master plan. It was a provision put in to implement that mixed-use component to the community centers that's in the expansionary plan. But why it was 40 instead of 25 or 50, that I don't know. Ms. Cravens? Yeah. Who was it that gave us these square footage numbers if you changed the percentage? Was that you, Bill? Yes, sir. Yeah. I didn't have time to get all that down. I can give you my notes. I'm trying to divide $43,500 into $3 million. I have a hard time doing that. But I could support the 30%. If you want to vote on that today, I'm ready to vote. But otherwise, if we need to analyze this acreage that you're talking about and how that would affect the total thing, We may well look at that a little closer and get a report from them. And so maybe we continue. I can move a continuance, too, if you want to. Okay, let me give you my thoughts on this, for better or for worse. First of all, I don't particularly mind a continuance if, in fact, it produces a productive outcome. And what that means is that I don't necessarily want to continue. or kick the can down the street if, in fact, we're not going to be able to make a decision. I don't want to run from a hard decision is what it amounts to. What I'm thinking is that there may have to be some compromise here. Now, the question is, are you willing to compromise in order to get this thing done? And if so, then I think a continuance is in order. But if all the parties are pretty much stationary in their position, then I think we ought to vote and let it go from there. Now, what do you think about that? Are you asking the Commission? I'm asking the Commission. In fact, what I'm really asking is, are you willing to do a continuance with the understanding that there would be some information and productivity to end the conflict that we have here or the impasse that we have? but if we do a continuance and all we're going to do is come back here in another month and still have the same discussion, then I don't see a continuance as being appropriate. But if you think that there's some additional information and some things that we could bring to the table that might create a compromise or create an amendment, then I think it's well worth it. Ms. Richardson? I guess my problem is that we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, not this group, but city and other schools and everybody, bringing in experts to tell us what we need to do. We've got the owners of this property who've been trying to develop this for 20 years, and they haven't been able to do it. in my opinion, they are our experts, and that they have had people coming to them, telling them what they want to put on, asking them, what about this, what about that. If there had been anything viable, I would assume that they would have already developed that property. So I'm confused as to why we are not taking into consideration more strongly what the people who own the property are asking for, because they are the experts, and they're the ones that have to make this happen regardless of what we do, whether we leave it at 15% or up it to 30%. Like I said, I feel like we have talked about this and dealt with this for a very long time now, And I'm sure they are, as I think most of us are, ready to move on to something else. And I don't understand why we're not giving them more consideration in this. And I think I appreciate your point on that. We could amend, we could have a motion to amend that 15% as well, you know, if you want to do that. Or if you don't think you have enough information, then that would be a position for continuance. But what's your pleasure? Right. Yeah. Well, wait just a minute, Mr. Smith. I agree with my colleague on that. I hate to see landowners be stifled when they own the land, and their opportunities are limited. I think we need to give them some consideration. I agree with that 100%. Okay. Okay, Mr. Chairman, do you want a motion? Yes, sir. I'm going to move we amend this text to the 30% supportive uses and 50% of the 30% could be residential. Second. I ask a question. Okay, the motion is that we amend the motion to go 30% for supportive uses and 50% of the 30% for residential. And it has been moved by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Mr. Berkeley. Okay, now we're ready for this. Thank you. Well, I'm making this motion. That would be another motion. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. We're ready for the discussion on that. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chair, at this point I cannot accept 30%. I think there is compromise that could happen if we continue it. But at this point it seems like we're going from one extreme to the other. Okay. Any other comments? Yeah, I do. Yes, sir, Mr. Penn. I can't support this time, but I'm more concerned about the principal use being built before the supportive use, because I think that's a really key issue, but that's not germane to this motion. So I'm not going to support it because I'm very concerned about the other people that were on that committee that aren't represented here today. Any other discussion? Yes, Mr. Cravens? Yeah, well, I'm basing that on the only people in here that really have a stake in that, and that's the landowners. And they've asked for that, according to some of the discussion we've had here. They can't do anything else with that land but keep it ED land. I mean, that's it. And so what we're saying here, I mean, the only thing they can do is they're at our mercy to give them the percentages that they asked for. I mean, that's in effect a rezone, but, you know, that's all they can do with their land. And I'm not going to say the words that the lawyers don't like to say about taking, so. I think the other people that were involved in the two years' worth of work on this are represented in the conclusions of the report. So while I agree that the people who come down here have immediate effect on all of our decisions and emotions on votes, I think the other people that were involved that Jim mentioned believe they are represented in the conclusions of the report. So, again, I think we've gone to an extreme when there could be some compromise that would be better for everybody. So I can't support this one either. I think the other people that were involved had very viable reasons for their positions. I don't necessarily agree or understand them, but I think we've gone too far. Okay. Ms. Ploveling. Thank you. I cannot support this either because we've got ED land, and if we turn it into something else, which we will do if this motion carries, and then down the road, not too long from now, they'll be crying for, we need more ED land, so let's expand the boundary. So that's where we're going with this, and I can't support it. I have a, Ms. Richardson. I think we need to remember that the committee turned this back over to the commission because they couldn't make a decision. So I think the work that the committee did, we're aware of, we've considered, we've looked at it, and we want to expand upon it. So they turned it back to us. So I don't think that's a – I think we have the absolute right to go ahead and move on this without having to worry about their thoughts in this any further. Their committee work has been done, it's been presented, and it's been considered. Okay. Ms. Berkeley? I think having a need for more ED land would be a good thing. to expand our boundaries for that reason would be a good thing. That will mean that what we have done here, potentially today, worked. That group never came to consensus about the percentage. These folks have had their consultants look at it and have made recommendations, and we are basically throwing that aside. And I don't feel like their percentages were really ever vented through the process. There was no evidence to the contrary. It was just a general opinion. But there was no evidence that it should be less. So I am in support of a higher number. and I'd like to see us vote on it today. Okay. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Mundy. I also will have to echo my colleagues. I am in support of the higher number only because I go back to my bundle of six, and I know you all get tired of hearing that. But in inhibiting, and we keep inhibiting the landowners who are the ones who are here who are saying, They have people who will come and look at it. They're not moving forward for whatever reason, whether it's the exemption fees or other situations or that. I guess I feel bad that we are inhibiting progress by inhibiting the uses of the land. And I know we have a mandate of what we can and can't do as far as that goes, but we also have an opportunity here to, as Will has said, to maybe move this forward a little bit and maybe create a situation where we may have to expand a little bit to be able to go ahead and get some more jobs in here. I'm all about economic growth as well, so those are my comments. Any other comments? We'll call for the question. And, of course, the amendment, the motion on the floor is to raise the supportive uses from 15% to 30% and the residential portion from 50% to the 30% for residential. Is that correct? Okay, then when it comes up on your screen, either vote according to your conscience on that. One, two, three, four, five. One, two, three, four. Five, five. So the motion fails. With that, will I entertain another motion related to maybe a continuance and maybe doing a pickup at the work session, 29th? Maybe we'll get some additional information at that time. Is that fair enough? I'm sorry, Ms. Wilson, I didn't hear everything you said, but you still have other options for this text if you want to pursue that. Oh, we do? Okay, let's do that then. You could vote on the proposal as presented. You could offer another percentage other than 30 percent. That's where we could. If someone has another percentage, we could do that or, in effect, The question is, for me, would be, is that something that you all could work on and come back with a recommendation with the people in the... Well, let's put it this way. We could go back to the motion as presented. Right. We could take that. If someone would like to make that motion. In other words, if you want to make that motion that we take the recommendation as presented by the staff, we can vote on that if I get a motion. Chair? Yes, sir. If I may, let me give this a try. To try and push this thing forward and not continue it, let me offer a motion. as far as the text for expansion areas and categories restrictions. We have a number. Yeah, Zota 2016-4. For this to cut to the chase, that we add use language changing the adding of supporting uses to 18% and changing the residential component of those 18% to 18% as well. Is that your motion? Second. Okay, it's been properly moved and seconded. So, Mike? Yeah. Without understanding the rationale for that, I feel like we're throwing a dart at a dartboard. Let me say that the committee came back to us having wrangled with it and, as they said, decided to go with 17.5%. I don't like 17.5%, so I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and going with 18%. I personally feel 30% is too much. and as I said in the spirit of trying to move this forward there's compromise. And I appreciate that Mr. Owens because that's what the chair is looking for but Ms. Mundy. I'm sorry. I want to go back to this question about having a need for more ED land. What is our problem with having a need for more of that land i i realize that but it it you know we have we have heard testimony from property owners what they need what they think they need to be successful um and and i don't quite understand i mean like you said we're we're just throwing at the dartboard in terms of of a percentage Mr. Pan. But there's no demonstration that that will work either. And so the question that comes to me is, is this tax amendment broad enough to do what we're trying to do with the supportive uses? And the key to this to me is where the principal use is going to be built before the supportive use isn't. And if that's not the key, then it doesn't matter what percentage you put in because you just come back and say, well, we couldn't get anybody to do the principal, so we're doing the supporting. My understanding is that it would be concurrent or after. Is that not true, what we're saying here in this text? The supportive uses, Mr. Chair, members of the Council or Commission, could not be built before the other principal uses. They could be built at the same time or after, but a principal use, a jobs-creating use, would have to be demonstrated, at least at first or at the same time as the supportive use. And Mr. Chair, also I might say, with all due respect to the potential of compromise for 18, perhaps if we rounded that even just a little bit further, that might be helpful as well. And then to the point about whether this is going to work, whether 15 works or 30 works, we give this a try for a while. and see if it works. And if the number is too big, we can't pull it back. But if it's sufficiently sized, that it gives it an opportunity to work, but we see it could work better if it were a little larger, then we can always go back and expand it. But certainly pulling it back would not be a possibility. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, Mrs. Cravens. Mr. Duncan, let's just say this passes at some number. You're hitting at 20%. And that's not a – say they have a plan. They've got a principle of use, and they draw it out here, and then they've got 25% of people that want to align themselves around that to support it. what mechanism would they have through this commission to change that percentage? Well, I believe we would have to do a text amendment again to change that. So the commission couldn't give them a waiver or something and waiver that percentage off? No. No. So it takes a text amendment. You see, I mean, that's just more my point that they're tying their hands. Mr. Berkeley? Again, I'm going back to this thing of, well, we're going to be faced with that we don't have ED land for jobs. Well, isn't that the goal of having the zone and having the land to develop it? But, I mean, today's developments are not, you know, just a piling, I think, is the way you referred to it. I mean, you know, you have to have these uses in place to attract businesses. And I just don't think that, I don't think 18's enough. I mean, they have done the work. They're the ones that are vested here. And they have a consensus. We don't. So, yes, the flip side of that, I think, is the other parties who, as Bill described it, were on the other end of the bouncing ball, want to preserve as much land as possible for enticing businesses to come in that are going to create jobs. That's the theory behind it. And I support that wholeheartedly. So my vote against the previous motion was not against the economic development aspect. But my concern is the way that this zone has been developed and the history of it is that 20 years or however long it's been in existence have not worked. So I think something has got to change. We've got a group of experts who've worked for two years. I'm completely respectful of that and I'm always hesitant to overturn something that somebody else has invested more time, sweat, and thought into it than I have. I do not, after thinking about it more, I don't think it's appropriate to kick this down. I think we need to make a decision today. I think that we have a suggestion from our experts that if we take this to 20% and 20% it might be appropriate compromise. So I think that's maybe what we're able to talk about. Let me double check that. Is that correct? 20% is what you're thinking? Well, Mr. Chair, we offer that just as a little cleaner. Of course, 20% is an easier number to digest than 18% or 17.5%, as Mr. Owens was suggesting also. And that moves us a little closer to the request of the property owners and perhaps gives us a chance then to evaluate in a few years. If that's not working as Mr. Craven suggested, maybe we need to come back and look at it again. Very good. With that in mind, the maker of the motion, would you be willing to consent to the revision of 20%? How did I know you were going to come back to me on this? That's a pretty good gig. You know, in talking about all this, and I don't want to belabor the point, we're talking about the need for economic development land. And, you know, what I see is if we give 30% of this away, that's 30% less economic development land. Okay, we need some of this to get the economic development in here, but I just feel like that's a little bit too much. But, Mr. Chair, to answer your question, I will amend my motion to 20% supportive uses. And I would like to stay with 15% residential uses on it. Ask a question for clarification. Well, first of all, do we have a second on that? Okay, now we'll get back in the discussion mode. Are you going at 15 and 15 or just flat 15? No, that's 20% supportive uses. Within that 20%, you've got 15% for residential. Yes. No, this is a new motion. Is he amended? Yeah, he is amending. Is he amending this text? Yes, he is. We're not voting on the whole text. That would be on the whole text. He's amending the text. That would just be on the amendment to the text. Yes. Okay. Would you like a whole new motion? What? Would you like a whole new motion? Well, are you moving the whole thing, or are you just moving to change the percentage? I'm going to do a whole motion. Yeah. What's your motion? That's my. And one of them I can vote against, though, but I can't. That's my goal. Let me put it this way. Would it be good to put that in as a total package? Yes. Let me withdraw the original one and come back with a new motion for ZODA 2016-4. In regards to supportive uses, it would be 20% for supportive uses, of which 15% of that would be for residential. I don't worry about it. If this is on the whole thing, don't forget Mr. Steele. I understand that. Okay, so now the motion is to approve Zoda 2016-4 with one of slight amendment, and that is 20% on the supportive, and of that, 20%, 15% on the residential. And that's the second. Are we clear on the motion? Yeah. Okay, then let us vote as it comes up on the screen, please. Okay, the motion passes. Six to three. Seven to three, I'm sorry. Seven to three. Motion passes. Mr. Wilson, if I may, Mr. Murphy, in regards to you and your applicant's request, I just simply think we need to look at that harder. I can, like I said, sympathize with what he's going through, and it is a difficult piece of land. But to tag this on to the rest of this at this time at such late date, I just couldn't do it. Sorry. We have one more agenda. Before we move on, though, let me thank the committee that worked for, what is it, 10? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir. I understand Mike's view on this, but there may be other views on how to deal with this conditional use that's been proposed. Of the two proposals, I don't think principal use is appropriate. I think I can probably get comfortable with conditional use. But, again, I don't have enough experience with this or background like Will or the others who were involved in it. to understand the potential unintended consequences of it. But I don't think we should walk away from the discussion right now. I think we should at least have the discussion before we go on to the other agenda items. I hear you. Let me go back to the staff. As I understood, the staff's position on this particular issue would be, the way I was reading it, was disapproval. But help me out. Mr. Chair, I don't believe the staff has formulated an opinion on this. Did we at committee? Well, I think the issue of the small property was discussed at the committee. I'm not sure we had this proposal to evaluate in any kind of detail as a staff. It did not surprise us that it would be presented to you today. And certainly the applicant could formulate their own text amendment, depending on what the result is at the Council on this matter. All of those are available. At first blush, Mr. Chair, the staff would share the same concern that was mentioned by the Commission, that there would be some subdivision of lots throughout the ED area that this would apply to then, and then we would start to lose the intent of the maximum supportive uses. So the option for the applicant would be to propose a text amendment if they wanted? Got that. For clarity's sake. Sure, why not? We've been here. What I've had on these small lots is that all your ED projects are coming on a development plan. Dennis's property is all on one development plan. You all have that. The Central Baptist is on one, and Mr. Cowgill's, I don't know if they've got a development plan on it yet or not, but I know it's all going to be on one because the staff's going to require to see all the property on one development plan. there's not going to be any opportunity for any of the three lawyers three owners right now to subdivide off little pieces and sneak them through with this amendment the only thing this applies to is properties that are apart from and under separate ownership we put expressly in there from the big tracks nobody's going to be sneaking anything through under this we're trying to we've been trying two years two years to try to find a use for some of this property and this is what we've come up with on it to try to do it because people felt that ed might be the better zone for this property so we've tried to come up with something that accommodates that thinking yet does still does not allow people to sneak things through the back door for the three owners that on all the ED property. And they won't because you have them on one development plan, and this is only for properties that are under separate ownership, different development plan on that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duncan, have you all had a chance to look at this? This is the first that we've seen. Well, then I want to give that back to you, if it's okay with my colleagues here, to give you all a chance to look at it and review it before we take any particular action on it. I think that would be fair at this stage of the game and give you a chance to think through. Yes, Mr. Moore. Yeah, I mean, I'm fine with that intent, but I'm concerned about the process. If they have to go back through it and start a whole other text amendment to do that, I don't think that's appropriate. I think if it's something we're going to assess and can come to a conclusion on, maybe take a 10-minute recess and do it now, but I don't think it's appropriate to send somebody back down the path of an entire new text amendment. I would say, and Mr. Chair, again, we're kind of doing this on the fly here, but of course Mr. Murphy has another pending zone change on this property, and it is not 2ED, and that's been continued, I believe, before you all. And so, and Tracy may not agree with me, but I'd be concerned about us presupposing what the outcome of another zone change might be by doing something like this for a property that does not have a land use for ED. It might be appropriate that we could zone this for ED, but we just want to make sure the process is... Well, I'm back to where I started from. I think you all need to have an opportunity to give us advice and advise us on this. and I'm still thinking that if it's going real for my colleagues that you all take this and study. You may come up with other options. The Texas Amendment is just one of them, I guess. But you've got some – I want to give the staff an opportunity to think through and to come through with a recommendation on this. Okay. This is great. With that, I think that's a good suggestion. Well, I was waiting on them to see if they had any. Are you all comfortable with the referral, or do you have something else to add? We're working on this, Mr. Chair, so if you will give us a few minutes, we'll come back with you with a recommendation from us. Okay, do you want to take a break? We can take a five-minute recess, and we'll adjourn and come back and see you. Thank you. proposal, and then that would give staff the opportunity to formulate a response, work with the applicant, and bring a formal text back to you at some future meeting. It's not necessary that you designate which meeting that you want to hold this hearing, but if you were to initiate today, then we would come back to you at either a work session or at a hearing and talk about the proposal. Thank you. So moved. Second. Okay, it's been properly moved and second that we initiate a text amendment today. Any other discussion related to that? Hearing none, would you please vote when it comes up on your monitors? You having some challenges? Okay, then we'll take a Viva Boca. Aye. Aye. Ayes have it. Motion carries. What else do we need to do, Mr. We've got one other item, I think, on there. Thank you all for that. And before we get there, let me say this to about, and I wanted to thank the committee that worked for, what, 10 months on this, and, Will, we appreciate your representing the commission. That is very difficult work, and I know that they came back to the commission and we even had two or three sessions on it. So this was not really an easy thing to do. If it had been, we would have probably done it a long time ago. But I want to thank the people who put that type of work in and also thank the people who represented the audience who come by and come to us and given us some indications as to what their thoughts were. With that, ready for the... with Commission items. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a request from the Planning Commission. If you all would, we've got the housing market study. I hope you all have heard about that. That's being funded by a variety of entities here in town, the home builders, the realtors, the Fayette Alliance, the Downtown Development Authority, and I believe I've got all of the of the funders in there. And then the Division of Planning is going to be managing this. So what we're going to be doing is updating the 2009 Housing Market Study to look at all aspects of housing in Fayette County, including preference for the type of housing and location. And we want to ask that two members of the Planning Commission serve on the Selection Committee for that and then would continue to serve on the steering committee. The RFP closes on Tuesday, so we would likely next week, either late next week or early the following week, have a selection meeting. So, Mr. Chair, I'd be looking for two volunteers to serve on that committee. Well, we have two volunteers, Ms. Mundy and Mr. Barkley. We had a preliminary discussion. To the volunteers, we will be contacting you probably tomorrow. The DDA will contact you all to set up a time to review the RFPs next week. Okay, great. Any other staff items? Our next meeting is the committee meeting next week, so we just keep right on voting on. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Well, if there's no other further business to come before this body, by parliamentary law, without exception. Yes. You may have audience items, Mr. Chairman. Go ahead. I promise it's merely for the Commission's amusement. I invoked my predecessor and mentor, Chris Westover, earlier. Some of you were aware that her retirement plans included making a 1,000-mile walk from central France to the coast of Portugal, which she trained for several months. I'm happy to report she is back in the United States having completed her 1,000-mile walk. Good for her. Well, good. I wanted to share that with the Commission. Very good. Good for her. I'd be curious. I had another friend that walked from California to New York, and she wore out, I think, about 30 pairs of shoes in that process. I'd be curious to know if she's had a similar experience, but thank you for that information. Without objection, this committee is adjourned. Thank you. you