You were standing at my front door, but I came home tonight. And I could tell by the look you gave me, you were needing my advice. You say you want more out of life than he can give you as a tear rolls down your face. But girl, I've seen the way he looks at you And I know someone who'd gladly take your place If I were you I'd run back home tonight Tell him everything's alright Yeah, I know what I'd do If I were you, I'd never let him go. I'd have someone to hold my whole life through. If I were you. You shouldn't think you're missing out on something Because you wear a wedding band Cause I can't seem to find somebody who wants more Than just a one night stand You know this single life I'm living Ain't all it's cracked up to be So you've come to the wrong place If what you want is sympathy If I were you I'd run back home tonight Tell him everything's alright Yeah, I know what I'd do If I were you I'd never let him go Good afternoon, everyone, from wherever you may be. To get things started, I do need to read this. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Rashear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting has been held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150, as signed by the Governor on March 30, 2020, and Attorney General Opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61-826. because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for this meeting. So with that said, good afternoon again and welcome everyone. I will call this meeting to order. And before we get into the agenda, I'm going to ask Stephanie Cunningham to lay out the laws, so to speak, on the Zoom teleconference meeting that we're having. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we move through the agenda today, there will be an order of presentation for each case that's presented. The staff will present first, then any applicants that are present. When we ask for applicants, if you could please raise your hand electronically, we will promote you to panelist. panelist. As you're promoted to panelist, please mute your microphone and only show your video as you're ready to speak. You will be kept as a panelist through the duration of that case to answer questions. When the time for any public comment comes, we'll ask anyone who's interested to speak to please also raise your hand electronically, and then we'll let you know when you'll be allowed to speak. That will happen for each case on the agenda. We do ask that you give us patience as we work with the electronics and the technology. Things tend to move a little more slowly. And if you have technical issues, there is a chat function included on Zoom. Please only use that for technical issues and not for any type of other communication as we need to keep that open. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Stephanie. So we will get started and as she said, especially when we come to each application, we will ask for anyone that's wishing to speak on this to raise your hand electronically so that we can get you up and running so you may join us on that. First and foremost, we've got an approval of minutes. Those minutes are from March 12, 2020. They were emailed to everyone. I have heard of no changes or corrections. If there are any, please let it be known now. Tracy Wade is raising her hand. Those minutes actually were not emailed out. and that's my fault. We've been going in 12 directions here in our office. They will be mailed out next week for review and to allow you to vote on them on July 9th. So we have no minutes to approve. No minutes today, I'm sorry. So we'll move on to postponements and or withdrawals. Do we have any postponements and withdrawals today from the agenda? Mr. Chair, I'm promoting Brandon Gross. Mr. Gross. Mr. Gross, you can unmute and show your video, please. Yes. Sorry, Kimmy. Trying to get one second. I have, unfortunately, this week had my computer has been the subject of malicious malware, and so I'm using my phone for everything right now. So I apologize for that. But this is for PLN MAR-2020-02, Juby LLC. I don't have the agenda in front of me, but I think it's maybe the second case. Yes, sir, it is. It's Juby LLC zoning map amendment. It's plan MAR20-2 at the bottom of page two. Yes, I'm happy to report that we've had some really good meetings with the neighbors. I think we're close to getting a resolution to many of their concerns. I'm still owing a number of items to staff for their review. So at this time, we would like to postpone our hearing to the July 23rd date. Okay, thank you. Commission members or anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement. I see no hands, Mr. Chair. Okay, so no hands from anyone. So I'll ask for a motion for postponement of Juby LLC until July 27th. Carolyn Plumlee. Can we get her unmuted? Ms. Plumlee, you're still muted. Okay. Okay, here we go again. Thank you. Am I hearing now? Yes, you are. move postponement until July 23 of PLN NAR 20-0002. Thank you. Motion's been made by Carolyn Plumlee and seconded by Larry Forster, sitting next to the chair, for postponement of Juvia LLC NAR 20-02 until July 27, 2020. and that would be the associated development plan as well. So we need a show of hands. All those in favor, I'll postpone. Please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Gross. I just wanted to say, if you're in competition with Chairman Wilson on beards, I think you're losing. Oh, Mr. Wilson has laughed me and then some. He also has more hair on his head, too, so it's a double whammy. Thank you all very much. We'll see you next month at the hearings. Thank you, sir. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Mr. Chair, can we take a moment and identify our phone caller? Yes, ma'am. We do have a few phone callers, so we do need to identify them. if you are calling from phone number 1-812-345-0176, you'll be allowed to talk right now. We just need to get your name so that we can add that to our list here. I'm allowing you to talk. Go ahead. Hi, this is Stephanie Schultz with a tour group, and I'm joining on Zoom conference very soon. Yep. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Your ability to talk now, and then I know you can't raise your hand when your case comes up, but we'll note that and add you when the time comes. Okay, thank you. She's with the VO Acquisitions. Sure. Any others? No, that's the only phone caller we have right now, Mr. Chair. So that's the only phone caller we have right now. We'll proceed on. And I think we're going to go to Ms. Tracy Wade to sound the agenda today to see if any of these remaining items can be heard as abbreviated. Thank you, Chairman Owens. Members of the commission, there are three items that remain on our agenda that are available for an abbreviated hearing, meaning they are recommended by the planning staff for approval and the applicant has agreed with all of the conditions associated with those approvals and is waiving their presentation to the planning commission the planning staff still makes a an abbreviated presentation but there's not an extended hearing with the public speaking so i will go through the agenda on the items that we are aware have agreement. And if there's anyone from the public who wishes to have any of these items have a full discussion, a full presentation. The first item appears on page four of the agenda and it is at the bottom. Item number three, the application is for PLN MAR 20-4 Centennial American Properties and Associated Development Plan for Sharkey property unit 1 lot 10a and a portion of section unit 4 section 2 the amended development plan and the properties associated with this don't change are 132 and 148 Louie place to see if there's anyone present a on our teleconference who wishes to have this item heard in full or if we can proceed with an abbreviated hearing. So at this time if you do wish to have it heard and you're a member of the public if you could raise your hand. Just wait I see no answer. Okay great. Our next item appears on the tip of the agenda and it is also an application by Centennial American Properties but this property is is associated with a development plan on Eastland Parkway. It's Eastland Parkway subdivision track one, block B, lot three for their zoning development plan. The property address associated with this request is a portion of 1540 Eastland Parkway. See if there's anyone present who wishes to have this item heard by the Planning Commission today. And again, raise your hand digitally if you wish for it to be heard. I see no one. Okay. And our last item that qualifies for an abbreviated hearing today is on page 7. The application is for PLN MAR 20-6, MBO Acquisitions, LLC, and their associated zoning development plan, which is for Madison Station Center, also known as Citation Village, and that's an amended preliminary development plan. property associated with that is a portion of 2679 Lee's Town Road there is a dimensional variant that has also been requested see if there's anyone present today that wishes to have that item presented in full to the Commission oh we do have oh miss Schultz as an applicants representative you'll be allowed to speak if that's necessary or answer any questions. Do you wish to have the item presented in full? Mr. Simpson may be able to answer as well. Go ahead, Mr. Simpson. You can speak. No, we do not want a full public hearing. This was always scheduled for a, our goal was always to get an abbreviated hearing and that's what we request. We're in compliance with all of the staff recommendations and have received unanimous approval from the technical review committee and both of the subcommittees of the planning commission. Okay, I just wanted to make sure before we moved on. So, Chairman Owens, that is three of the applications today that qualify for abbreviated hearings. and we will get started in just a minute. Let the staff pull up our presentation and Mr. Bailey will start on item MAR20-4, which again appears on page 4 of our agenda. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Sorry, Carolyn, would you mind muting yours, Carolyn Plumley? Hello. Would you mind meeting yours while this presentation? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Owens, we are actually starting with PLN MAR 20-00001. I'm sorry, with our abbreviated hearings. I apologize. We are starting with PLNMAR-0002 or 4, pulling that up right now. And I will be sharing my screen. It's been a couple of months since I've done this. So bear with me. It's probably the first time you've done it in this fashion. This is the first time that I've done it on the Zoom application from this end. So bear with me here. We are starting with Centennial American Properties, PLNMAR 20-4. This application is for a zone change from a few different zones to the wholesale and warehouse business zone. What we have are two properties, one located at 132 and the other located at 148 Louis Place. With these properties, there are two different zoning types associated with them. The light industrial for the property at one 30 or one 48 Louis place and neighborhood business or B1 zone for the property located at one 32 Louis place. We also have a small portion of planned neighborhood residential R3 zone that is associated with the right of way at this location. So that is why when you see your the acreages here, you have that zero right here. The applicant is seeking to develop a four-story climate-controlled self-storage warehouse associated with retail space. The applicant proposes no exterior storage or exterior access to the individual storage units, but will have an access point in which someone will drive in, drop off their goods that they would like to store, and then bring them up to a storage space that is dedicated to them. If we move forward, the subject property is located within the Townley Center or what is known as Sharkey property. You have your two properties located here. What we have in this area is a mixed type development in which you're seeing P1 zoning located along Louie Place, some B1 zoning located along Hatter's Lane and over in the other areas surrounding here, and then also some more B1 zoning located along Louie Place. Opposite, along the shopping center side, we have some B6P zoning and then some light industrial and heavy industrial surrounding it. South of the subject property, or if you're looking at it, the bottom left side where the brown, that is more a residential development. And as we get a little closer, you can see just how this is laid out surrounding these properties. It was meant as a mixed-use development in which you would have a neighborhood center and some offices and place of work associated with single-family detached, single-family attached, and apartment complexes. A better view gives you, this aerial gives you a better view of what has occurred over time in this location, which is you have your multifamily residential in this location, your single family attached and detached in this location, and then more of your neighborhood serving businesses and P1 offerings. Nearby this location, you do have the extended stay hotel in the P1 zone, and then your tire shop and a credit union at this location. Next door is the shopping center associated with this development. It's actually connected off of eBody Ware. So moving into the site itself, we get a look into the subject properties right here. The B1 portion of the property is currently vacant. However, this I1 portion has been maintained and utilized as a maintenance facility or a central maintenance place for the owner of the property, Anderson Communities. If we look just below at this other picture here, this is Hatter Lane, which extends opposite the subject properties. You can see the edge of the extended stay hotel and then some of the townhouse units over in this location. Moving into the south of the subject property, you can see the multifamily housing development right in this location, which directly abuts the proposed development. You can also see Louie Place as it extends towards Lees Town Road, and over in this location, more of the Extended Stay Hotel. This picture here gives you a view into the property from the multifamily housing. You can see there's a bit of a great step up from the multifamily housing with the garages over in this area that act as almost a buffer between the two. This was discussed extensively at the subdivision committee and one of the aspects of the staff's original staff report. We'll continue on. From here, we can see one of the applicants' most recently submitted plans, which includes all the tree plantings. One of staff's major concerns along with this development was tying it in between a residential area and into that neighborhood serving business. Typically, staff is very concerned when we're putting a B4 zone or a warehouse and wholesale zone right between residential and neighborhood serving business. The applicant has worked with staff extensively over the past few months to organize their site in a way that both connects with previous properties in this location, has adequate access to the public right-of-way, and is set up in a way that is more business-oriented or similar to a B1-type feel. With this location, they have acted on some recommendations of staff in bringing the building down one story, which this is a comparative analysis that they have provided us. You can see they utilize the Manchester Rickhouse building in comparison to the storage they're proposing. that's less relevant to this location as the one is below, in which they show the height of the State Bridge Suites and the massing of that State Bridge Suites with the townly storage that is being proposed. You can also see that during their work with staff, they have looked to activate that ground level plane. Staff has stressed the need that a B4 use is often overly intensive for this location. They have worked to provide windows to activate the street frontage. As you saw on the previous over in this location, they are providing street trees and interior trees, including some landscaping between the two different areas. So the applicant has gone along and really tried to make the form match a B1 type setting. Now, along with that, staff still had concerns about the intensity of potential uses for this site. The applicant has provided staff with conditional zoning restrictions that they felt brought the intensity of uses down to match what would be a B1 type use. Staff has incorporated that into some of their recommendations. However, we have also added a few things in, and we will describe that here shortly. With the various changes that they have made, staff is ready to recommend approval of this application. This is primarily because the proposed zoning, excuse me, the proposed zoning allows for the development of vacant properties, theme A, goal 2A, while also decreasing the intensity of uses from an unrestricted I-1 zone to a restricted B-4 zone. The proposed development also provides a well-designed neighborhood, theme A, goal 3, by providing safe connections to surrounding businesses, preferencing pedestrian safety along Louie Place, and activating that street frontage that was depicted within their elevation they provided us. The proposed development also will promote, maintain, and expand the urban forest, theme A, goal 3D, by increasing the canopy coverage with their street trees and the vegetation that they're providing on site, while also maintaining the established tree line along the rear of the subject properties. That's the area that is buffered against the shopping center. The proposed rezoning will also assist in maintenance of the urban service area concept, theme E-goal 1, by allowing greater density of business use by maximizing development on a vacant parcel and redevelopment of another parcel in a manner that enhances the existing urban form, theme E-goal 1D. The justification and the corollary development plan are also in agreement with the policies and development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan. This is focused on meeting the development criteria or those distillation of the goals and objectives and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan for site design, building form, and location as they create a site or a business site and development that supports pedestrian mobility while also providing cross-access between businesses. Also, the proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for potential users as well as the residents located in the southern portion of the townly development, connecting them through to some of those other businesses along Louie Place and out towards Leastown Road. The proposed rezoning also meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it works with the current landscape and limits the impacts on the surrounding environment. As I said previously, we are also looking at the use of conditional zoning restrictions at this site. The applicant has provided some, and we are utilizing those uses outlined in their application and the supplementary information that they've provided us. Those are located at 1 through 11, which include laundry, clothing, cleaning, dining shops, ice plants, machine shops, kennels, establishments for the sale, rental, sale, display, rental, and repair of farm equipment, contractor equipment, automobiles, truck terminals, all of those are really focused on bringing down those potential nuisance uses and bringing it down closer to a B1 use, something that is neighborhood serving while also not creating any nuisance light, sound, or air issues. In addition to those aspects that the applicant has proposed, which also includes that no self-storage facility on this location shall have outdoor storage. The staff is also recommending that there shall be no exterior lighting around the southwest portion of the building that abuts the residential zoning. When staff was reviewing this, with that change in the elevation, we wanted to make sure that there were no lights, despite how high it might be, that would fall into the residential zone. So with this, we are making it so that along that portion, there shall be no lighting coming from the business side of the development. Staff is also recommending that there shall be a 10-foot landscaping buffer between the wholesale warehouse business before zone and the southwest portion of the property that abuts the residential zoning. This is to provide a landscape buffer that they are currently showing on their development plan on site. This would be particularly important for if some other business were to come in after the storage was put into place, or if the storage was not ever created, that the next development down the line would not have the ability to go right up against within five feet of that residential zoning. The recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of the major development plan, MJDP 20-7, Sharkey property unit one lot 10A and a portion of unit four section two as amended and with that I would be happy to answer any questions about this zone change at this time okay so questions for Mr. Bailey Anyone? No one? All right. Ms. Galtz has the presentation ready for the major development plan at this time. Mr. Bailey, hold on one second. I'm sorry about that, sir. One second. Let me just clarify. You added some conditional zoning restrictions along with the conditions for buffering, no lighting, not the storage. I presume the applicant's in agreement with this? The applicant has spoke with staff, and they have said that they would be in agreement with this. They did have some concerns about the lighting, but since they did not raise their hand during the period in time in which we talked about the abbreviated hearings, we are assuming that the applicant is okay with these. They have seen the staff report, and they have talked to staff about it. Okay, very good. Thank you. You're welcome. Good afternoon. We are with the major development plan 20-7. This is a Sharkey property, unit 1, block 10A, portion. Here is a development plan that they are proposing. As you can see, it is along Louis Place, and where you see Hatter Lane is hitting it perpendicular. Our access is over to the right side of the plan that'll bring us into the parking lot. And it'll also connect us up with the adjacent property where there's a bank located on the adjacent property. We ask for that connection to be between there. As on the left side, you'll see that is the access to the apartment buildings. you can see all the trees that they have along the back part of the property this is kind of flipped 180 from where the development plan is showing you see how to lane hitting louis place where you see the small trailer right now right there and this property here these are the two pieces of property that we are looking at and this is where the development the access will be coming in here to be joining into the adjacent property. With this development plan we only have a few conditions engineering traffic forester and then we have discussed place builder criteria with what Howell's gone over we believe that that discussion question can be now set to resolve place by place builder criteria and we can move forward with that. And I open it if there's any other comments or questions for anyone. Questions from anyone for a scholar? Okay thank you Cheryl. We'll stop sharing of our screen right now and bring it back to the council commission okay don't promote us yet um does the applicant have any comments or are we okay to go on mr murphy you can speak now okay um this is dick murphy and i'm representing centennial american properties we are in agreement with the conditions set forth by the staff and just wanted to mention the development plan you see today is quite a bit different from what we filed and it's a result of the process we've had extensive meetings with the metathorpe neighborhood association the town park neighborhood association and with the staff through all this and we thank everybody for working with us on this. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thanks for your work and working with all the neighbors and the staff as well. So with that, I do believe we did not have anyone else who wished to speak on this. We can move on. Any questions before we close this part of the hearing any questions from the commission members for anyone seeing nothing I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or motion for this plan which is Centennial American properties on Louie Place motion if anyone's ready Okay, Mr. Forrester said he would. I'll do my best. All right. I'd like to make a motion for PLN MAR-20-4 Centennial American Properties based on his staff's condition. Okay, thank you. Seconded by Patrick Brewer. So the motion was made by Larry Forster and seconded by Patrick Brewer for approval of Centennial American Properties Plan MAR 20-4, located 132 and 148 Louis Place. If there's no questions, I'll ask for a show of hands. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now for the development plan. Yes, I'd like to make a motion for PLN-MJDP-20-7, Sharkey Property Unit 1, lot, and 10A, and a portion of Unit 4, Section 2, changing condition for the result. I heard that directly. Yes, sir, you did. Second. Motion's been made. Larry Porsche for approval of planning JDP 20-7 Sharky properties and seconded by Mr. Patrick Brewer, change in last condition on the place builder to resolve. So show of hands, all those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So I believe our next one, Mr. Bailey, will be Centennial American properties located at 1540 Eastland Parkway of Plan MAR 20-5. Is there anyone that's going to wish to speak to this? I don't think so. Okay, Mr. Bailey. Thank you very much, sir. I will now share my screen with the presentation. So now we are moving to Centennial American Properties, PLNMAR 20-00005. In a similar tone to the previous application that we just went through, the Epcot is seeking a zone change from the Highway Service Business Zone, or a B3 zone, to the wholesale and warehousing business B4 Zone for 1.744 net, 2.745 gross acres for the property located at 1540 Eastland Parkway, a portion of. So this is an area that was much larger. It actually had the Continental Hotel on it, or motel, that had been demolished years ago. The applicant is seeking to develop another three-story climate-controlled self-storage warehouse and associated office and retail space. Like the other application that we just saw, there will be no exterior storage units and no exterior access to individual storage units. The access will be through a drive-through entrance, like we previously saw, into the interior in which individuals will unload their goods and then take it up to a storage unit using an elevator. Looking at the area of the zone change, the site is located along Eastland Court. I'm going to bring up just my spotlighting tool. Eastland Court is a newly established cul-de-sac at this location. It is located between three major roadways, Eastland Parkway, New Circle Road, and then Winchester Road. As such, one of the major conversation topics throughout this has been the treatment of those road frontages with this development. Moving in a little closer on the subject property, we can see here that the applicant is surrounded by B3 or that highway service business zone for this portion of the property. There is a bit of residential development located over in this area, which includes multifamily housing. Along the right-of-way at this location, we're primarily seeing I-1 with some I-1 dipping back this way. The property at this location is similarly zoned before the wholesale and warehousing zone. Looking at the aerial photography of this property, you can see that there has been a change in development over time. With the highway service businesses surrounding there, you do have the Infinity dealership, a car dealership at this location, a rental equipment area or location right here. And then we get into a host of different businesses, including a medical school, Spectrum's training and main office is located in this location, as well as the driver's license venue. There are also some other businesses, including a gym and some other more neighborhood service businesses. However, you can see at this location, it is heavily tied to the traveling public. With that, staff is very concerned about the mobility through this site, as well as producing some alternatives to that transit dominant kind of perspective that you're seeing in this area. looking at the site itself you can see that this is just a panoramic the site is actually located in this area back here there is a bit of a dip when you are looking into this site from Winchester Road you can also see the proximity to the to the other businesses located in this area and then the back of the infinity dealership here. In our lower left corner picture we have the off-ramp onto New Circle Road from Winchester Road which actually does have almost a view into the property but that that's an elevation change actually makes it so you can't really see what's going on at this location. Now we have Winchester Road going out towards 6475. These next pictures you can see the current sites opposing the East the Eastland Parkway in this location looking at Eastland Parkway towards New Circle Road across the street to a bunch of shops at this location including a sandwich shop and some other retail and then down Eastland Parkway away from New Circle Road. You can see the apartment complex here and then the heavy equipment rental company at this location. In the bottom two pictures, you can see the newly constructed Eastland Court looking towards Eastland Parkway and then looking from the court into the proposed area of development. With this application, the applicant went through and chose a corridor place type at a medium non-residential or mixed use development type. You can see that the B4 is not one of the recommended zones in this location, but that does not mean that they can't apply for such a zone change. It just means that they need to provide us a greater amount of information regarding how they are going to fit into the current business kind of layout, as well as working with staff to make sure that we are getting at all of the needed kind of resources, including pedestrian walkways and interconnectivity between businesses. So you can see here, this is the definition or the intent of the wholesale and warehouse business before zone. I want to pull a focus down to the last sentence there, which consideration should be given to the relationship of the zone to the surrounding land uses and the adequacy of the street transportation system to serve the anticipated traffic needs. Now, when we're talking about traffic nowadays, we want to expand upon that to include the transit-oriented facilities, as well as some pedestrian connectivity. So staff, during our previous conversations, had some concerns, and so did the committee, which is why both staff and the committee were recommending postponement of this application. These were the primary areas of concern from the development criteria. They really fell into a few different areas. One, proper connectivity for the connection for pedestrian services and connectivity for the commercial spaces. Connections to transit, increase of treescape and the canopy coverage at this location. And then also making sure that the frontage along these different areas were activated and appealing as many of these as Winchester Road is a gateway into Lexington. East Eastland Parkway is a major corridor. And then taking into account that while New Circle Road, you can't really see this development, that we do need to have an idea of activation of that space. so following the staff's uh presentation the committee's concerns at the committee level the applicant came back and did a fair amount of work on their application to provide staff with greater amount of information as to how they were going to connect miss golf will go through some of that information with her review of the development plan i do want to point out that uh with all those changes staff is now recommending approval of the zone change for the following reasons The proposed zoning allows for the development of vacant parcels, themed A-Goal 2A, at an increased intensity of use. The proposed development provides a well-designed neighborhood, themed A-Goal 3, by providing safe connections to surrounding businesses and preferencing pedestrian safety along access easements, which connect the commercial development to transit opportunities along Eastland Parkway. The proposed development will promote, maintain, and expand the urban forest, Theme A Goal 3D, by increasing the canopy coverage while also maintaining the established tree line along the rear of the subject property. The proposed rezoning will also assist in the maintenance of the urban service area concept, the theme E-goal 1, by allowing greater density of business use and by maximizing development on a vacant parcel of land in a manner that will enhance the existing urban form, theme E-goal 1D. The multi-story self-storage structure respects the existing commercial character of the immediate area. As you can see, there are a few different buildings that are similar to what the applicant is proposing at this location, and we will be having a continued discussion about some of those elements. The justification and the corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies and the development criteria of the 2008 comprehensive plan as it meets the site design building form and location and creates a business development that supports pedestrian mobility, that connection between Eastland and some of those businesses that are closer to Winchester Road. The proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for potential users that incorporate pedestrian walkways and access along that access easement. And that creates more, that access easement also connects the commercial operations to Winchester Road with the transit facilities on Eastland Parkway. These improvements address the transportation and pedestrian connectivity development criteria of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning also meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it works with the current landscape limiting the impacts on the surrounding environment increasing tree coverage. Now, I do want to just push one element of the staff report that was discussed at length with the updated staff report, which is the need to provide an adequate exhibit going through how they are going to activate and beautify that space along the Winchester Road side. Right now, the elevations and the information that have been provided to staff is really focused on that Eastland Parkway side. Since this is a dual frontage lot, staff would like to make sure that the applicant comes in during the time of the final development plan and addresses that frontage along Winchester Road, especially since that is a gateway into our city. This recommendation is subject to the approval and certification of PLNMJDP 20-00014 Eastland Parkway Subdivision Track 1 Block B Lot 2. With that, if you have any questions regarding the zoning element of this, I'd be happy to answer them. Questions for Ms. Bailey? Okay, thank you. Thank you. And Ms. Galtz will present the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon. This is the final development plan, MJDP 20-14 for Eastland Parkway subdivision. As you can see, Hallett explained to you that this was at the end of the court. You can see their access point is coming in off of the, on their left-hand side as you look at it, and they have parking along the front. The structure goes to the rear portion of the property. They have an access easement that follows along the boundaries of the property and will connect into the adjacent property as we were looking for. Here, as you can see, where this property is located down here at the end of the street, and it'll connect into the shopping area, and there's an office building. And then we also have the car dealership up here along New Circle Road and Eastland Parkway. With that, we just have some typical sign-off conditions, engineering traffic, forester, green space planner, environmental quality. We want to make sure we just did a record flat on this property, and it does meet the same boundaries. although we'd like to see easement flat done for the access easement that's on the adjacent property because the access easement to this property straddles whoops straddles the property line so we'd like to see an access easement flat done at a later time by the time of the final development plan and we have a discussion for the place builder but with that we believe that can be changed into resolve as we move forward. I'll open it to the committee if there's any comments, questions. Questions for Ms. Galt? Seeing none, thank you Ms. Galt and I want to ask for that And probably Mr. Murphy again. Go ahead, Mr. Murphy. Sorry, I had to unmute myself. Dick Murphy here representing Centennial American properties. And again, we appreciate the process. We've worked through with the staff and with neighborhood on this. And we were pleased to be able to present a plan that the staff can recommend approval of and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all have. Any questions for Mr. Murphy? I don't think so Mr. Murphy. Thank you again. Thank you. Did I hear, Ms. Galt, did I hear on your development plan number eight, as in the previous one, can we change that to resolve place builder now? yes sir okay thank you any other questions for me if not I'll close Bailey oh right we're just watching okay um if not I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion from anyone Okay, can you all hear me? Okay, then I would make a motion to approve Centennial American property zoning map amendment and Eastern Parkway PLN MAR 20-5. thank you uh the motion has been made by mr wilson for approval of cindy all american properties plan mar 20-5 seconded by mr larry forrester uh for the reasons provided by staff any questions if not i'll ask for a show of hands all those in favor please raise your hand Any opposed? The motion passes unanimously. And then for the development plan. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 20-14 Eastern Parkway Subdivision Track 1 Block B Lot 3 with the conditions provided by staff. Mr. Wilson would you like to change number eight to resolve place to over project? I'm sorry and changing number eight to resolve. Okay thank you. The motion has been made for approval of plant MJDP nut 20-14 Eastland Parkway with the aid conditions changing number eight to resolve. Mr. Larry Forrester second the motion. I'll ask for a show of hands. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. I think we'll move on to MVO acquisitions, which is beginning page seven on item number five. It's plan MAR 20-6 MVO acquisitions located at 2679 Mastown Road. Mr. Brayley. Yes, sir. I am now going to share my screen. Start my PowerPoint. This is MBO Acquisitions LLC. The applicant is seeking to have a zone change from the highway service business zone, the B3 zone, to the high density apartment R4 zone, and also the professional office P1 zone to the high-density apartment R4 zone. You can see, I'm just going to bring this to your attention, that might be different from your staff reports initially. What has happened is that another applicant had finalized a plat. The applicant was good enough to go ahead and revise their numbers just to make sure that we don't have any leftover space later on. The applicant is seeking to develop an apartment complex that will include two buildings, associated amenities, and required parking. The structures are proposed to be three and four stories in height, with the shorter building located adjacent to Robison Way, which is closer to the single-family development. The structures will contain a total of 153 apartments, with a density of 18.68 dwelling units per acre. The structures are proposed to face the green space and the tributary of the Bracktown branch of the Town Branch Creek, which separates the portion of 2679 Leestown Road and the portion that was recently rezoned and recently had a final development plan for townhomes. So just looking at the map that we have here, as I pull up my spotlight feature, we're looking at a location along Citation Boulevard and Leestown Road. We have a few local streets, Robinson Way and Ferndale Pass, that can access a private access road, Abigail Way, into the subject property. When we get a little closer in, you can see that the zoning in this area is separated primarily by the major arterial roadways that we have here. So if you look to the eastern portion and to the right of Citation Boulevard, you're going to see more of your P1 and I1 uses along that kind of corridor. Whereas on the left-hand side or the westernmost side of Citation Boulevard, we get into more of the residential, in which we see a mix of R3 planned neighborhood residential and then R1C and R1E, both single family residential. There are portions of that P1 here. So when the road was widened along Citation Boulevard, that's when we pulled in some of that P1. That's why you're seeing the extension of the zone change application to this portion. looking at the aerial you can kind of see what has started to develop we have some more pictures that will go through this but abigail way comes into the site as the access point for the b3 highway business services in this location we do have the houchins or the iga right here and this is the location that i was discussing for the townhome development that recently was resumed to R3. Their proposed development really is on this. This is that stream that I was discussing before. It does have some floodplain in this area. However, the applicant is staying out of there and is utilizing that space in a really great way to activate the green space and front their amenities and their building onto it. Looking at the property itself, you can see this is looking in on Abigail Way, the subject property is over in this area. You can see that drop-off in elevation towards the floodplain and that stream. Here we have the IGA or the Houchins at that location and future potential B3 zone uses. Looking down this way, we're looking down Robinson Way towards Ferndale Pass and Robinson Way towards Leesdowne Road. Then we move over to the Citation Boulevard side of this proposed area. And here we have the subject property, looking down Citation along the subject property here and the future B3 uses, and then back up Citation Boulevard towards Ferndale Pass. I do want to stress they did a great thing with their application in which they broke up this very large block by bringing in pedestrian facilities that will connect at this location. So we will have cross-connectivity between Citation Boulevard and Robinson Way. This is particularly important for some of those individuals on Robinson Way that might want to walk over here and utilize the transit facility at this location back here off of Ferndale Pass. Again, just a site of the overview of the property. During the initial conversations, the applicant did come in with a place builder type of a place type of enhanced neighborhood, looking at a development type of medium to high density residential. and utilizing the R4 zone. So within this, staff was in agreement with each of the categorization of the place type and the development type and the potential zone use that they were seeking at this site. We did also agree that these were appropriate for this development and this site. So over the course of the past couple of months, the APKIN has provided staff with various different examples of what they are trying to do with this, that to meet the multifamily design criteria and standards. Ms. Wade will talk about those briefly with her review of the development plan. They have also provided us with various different color renderings to show how this will be laid out. Some elevations to show how it will meet the multifamily design standards. And then a specific kind of viewpoints into their development, including looking from the green space into the development from Robinson Way in two different ways. And then also just an idea of how this will work with their landscaping along Citation Boulevard. So staff is recommending approval of this zone change or the requested zone change to the high density apartment zone as it is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan's goals and objectives for the following reasons. The proposed rezoning expands housing choice, Theme A, Goal 1, by accommodating the demand for housing in Lexington, responsibly prioritizing higher density and a mixture of housing types, Theme A, Goal 1B, by introducing multifamily dwelling units into the immediate area, which is primarily categorized as single-family detached residents. The proposed rezoning will also support infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area as a strategic growth, strategic component of growth, theme A, goal two, by utilizing currently vacant land. The proposed rezoning and associated development plan also respect the context and design features of the areas surrounding the development project by stepping up in height of the buildings as the development extends from the existing neighborhood towards Citation Boulevard, Theme A, Goal 2B, and also incorporating adequate green space and open space that would serve the needs of the intended residents and neighboring single-family residential development, Theme A, Goal 2C. You will really see a good view of that connected trail system that can connect to our already established trail system in the future. The proposed rezoning and associated development plan will provide a well-designed neighborhood and community, theme A, goal three, by respecting the context of the existing neighborhood, respecting the existing neighborhoods and expanding options for mixed type housing, theme A, goal three A. The proposed increase in the pedestrian facilities in open space and green space will allow for positive and safe social interactions in the neighborhoods, theme A, goal three B, while also minimizing the disruption of natural features when building new communities, the A-goal 3C. That's specifically talking about that green space floodplain and that portion of Racktown that is coming down through there. Finally, the justification and the corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies and development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning meets the criteria for site design, building form, and location as it creates a residential development that is pedestrian friendly while also providing access to focal points, public greens and public green space. Additionally, the proposed rezoning seeks to increase the intensity of use on an underutilized vacant parcel of land while minimizing those impacts on the surrounding environment. The proposed rezoning does meet the development criteria for transportation, pedestrian connectivity and development for all those same reasons that we have discussed previously. And the proposed rezoning meets the development criteria for the green space and environmental health as it's working with the current landscape and limiting the impacts on the surrounding environment. I will stress since Mr. Martin's not here, he is very happy to see that this will be sunlit as there has been a fair amount of conversation of putting this portion of the stream into a closed off system in the past and this has made him quite happy. This recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 20-11 Masterson Station Center, Citation Village, Citation Flats as amended. And I will turn that over to Ms. Wade. If you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. May I offer, I do like your spotlight. I hope when the Commission resumes more normalcy and gets back into council chambers you can take that spotlight with you. Question? Anyone? If not, thank you. I'll be back to talk about the variance here in a little bit but Ms. Wade? It's yours and you do have the spotlight. Thank you so much Ms. Braley. The associated development plan for this application is PLN MJDP 20-11 Masterson Station Center and it's previously been titled Citation Village and then with the townhouses also Citation Flats and this is an amended preliminary development plan and again preliminary development plans are conceptual in nature and they do have to come back with their final development plan to move forward with building permits this This is their color up or the rendering of their site plan. And as Mr. Bailey mentioned, there are two structures proposed to multifamily development buildings. One here that I'm pointing at closer to Robinson Way is three stories proposed. And the second closer to Citation Boulevard is proposed to be four stories. This allows for the residential use along Robinson Way, which is single family and mostly two-story structures, to transition to a higher density and also a height, taller height, of buildings as we move from Robinson Way across the site towards Citation Boulevard. Robinson Way is a local street, whereas Citation Boulevard is one of our collector minor arterial roadways. In addition for this particular site, the applicant has the large greenway along the north side of their project. So that allows for quite a bit of open space associated with their development. Circulation for the project. Access is only available via Abigail Way along the southern side of their project with one entrance off of Abigail. And then their main office building is up along the traffic circle. office area for the project and then additional residential parking along the front of the building along abigail and then a larger parking lot between the second building the four-story building and citation boulevard and then exiting the project is at the termination of abigail way here at the eastern portion of the project so one of the concerns that was brought up early on was related to the place builder and that had to do with buffering parking lots when they're adjacent to our roadways. So place builder encourages for multifamily and commercial developments for our parking lots to be interior to a site rather than exterior. In this case, there are three rights of way, if you will, Robinson Way, Citation Boulevard, and then Abigail that connects are all adjacent to parking areas and so the staff recommended early on additional landscaping along those to soften that presentation to our roadways the two multifamily structures I think mr. Bailey mentioned it's 153 dwelling units with 214 bedrooms they are proposing the required parking just a few spaces over the required parking with 232 parking spaces and this is a total of about 170,000 square feet of building plus amenities. The staff is recommending approval of the development plan associated with this particular zone change. There were six sign-offs associated with that which are the typical sign-offs and a few cleanup conditions for their plan. I will note that the applicant submitted a slightly revised plan this week, and our conditions don't reflect anything associated with that because it was past our normal deadline. And so we evaluated the development based on their previous submission. And so these conditions may have been met by the applicant via their most recent sketch, but they will be reevaluated before we certify the development plan. And those include some just general cleanup notes. And as Mr. Haley or Bailey mentioned, correcting a boundary line shared with the R3 zone. And then three things that really needed to be resolved. And then I'll mention the place builder criteria. The three resolve issues are resolved enhanced landscaping for parking area adjacent to Citation Boulevard. And that should be done at the time of the final development plan, although the applicant has provided this landscape plan or the development plan rendering, which includes the enhanced landscaping. So that is very helpful. The second one is resolve enhanced landscaping adjacent to Robinson Way, also at the time of the final development plan. And again, they have provided additional landscaping there. And those directly relate to the place builder criteria we had mentioned earlier. The third resolve item had to do with zone-to-zone screening. And that dovetails into Mr. Bailey's last piece of the presentation. Along Abigail Way, there's this black dashed line. And that's actually a zone boundary as well. When there's a zone boundary between a B3 zone and an R4 zone, there is additional landscaping required. required. Along this light green area, there's a water line and water line easement. And so we notified the applicant earlier in the process that they may need a variance for that particular area of the site plan. And they followed through and did go ahead and submit that information to us with this particular application, as opposed to going to the board of adjustment at a later date. And so before Mr. Bailey comes up, I would like to suggest a change to condition number 16 related to that. And that would be for instead of resolving it at a later date to denote planning commission action for zone to zone screening variants along Abigail Way. So at this point, instead of resolving it at a later point, we want to denote whatever action the Planning Commission takes related to that on the face of the development plan. In addition, the discussed place builder criteria, we're happy to report that the applicant has met, substantially met, all of the place builder criteria that were relevant for this particular site, which is honestly very exciting for us. I would note that while we feel they met the multifamily design standards at this stage, we'd want them to further document that at the next stage of the final development plan. And that comes from, again, the place builder. It's theme A related to a design, the design pillar policy 3.1. So ADS31 says that we should utilize the multifamily design standards for review of zone changes. And we want to make sure that in the future with our final development plan for the site, it continues to meet those standards that are set forth. So we would ask that that also be denoted on the development plan and we denote documentation of compliance with the multifamily design standards shall be provided at the time of a final development plan. Again, the staff is recommending approval of this particular development plan today. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Westwood. Questions? Okay, we'll see. Mr. Bailey has a few words about their requested variance. Thank you. Thank you. I can be relatively quick with the review of the variance for this property. The petitioner is seeking a variance to what we commonly call the zone-to-zone screening, what is called in the zoning ordinance, the property perimeter. They are seeking to reduce the property perimeter between the proposed residential development and the established commercial zone from 15 feet to zero feet. And specifically, we're talking about this area of concern. And the applicant indicated, as Ms. Wade pointed out, that there are issues with the established water line along this current location with the potential development and planting of trees. Within the property perimeter requirements, The applicant is required to plant a tree every 40 feet combined with a six foot double double hedge along the entirety of that area. They are showing that in their other areas. However, in this location, the applicant has indicated because of that water line, they are unable to go ahead and review that or bring that into compliance with the zoning ordinance, which is why they are seeking the variance. The applicant did meet with the Landscape Review Committee on June 23, 2020. However, the Landscape Review Committee did not have a voting quorum at that time. We did discuss this element of their request, and during that meeting, it was a discussion between staff, the present member, Ms. Janice Myers, the division of planning staff and the applicant. The applicant described the proposed variance and the limitations. The committee did discuss various different options. Staff brought up a proposed option, which was what you see here. They did provide us with an example of this for today's meeting, which was adding landscape islands here, here, here, and here, and planting a tree in those landscape islands to meet the treed aspect of the zone-to-zone screening. With the additional parking that they had earlier on in their process, they did have the ability to take up those spots, put in those trees, and still remain in compliance with the required parking. Staff is supportive of their variance request and is recommending approval of this variance request as the granting the request of the variance does not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor should it affect the character of the general vicinity, as landscaping can be dispersed in the parking lot through trees and in a buffer through a hedgerow. Now, the applicant is willing to put in that hedgerow along this location. However, they are still waiting back to hear or waiting to hear back from Kentucky American Water, which is why they are requesting that full scale decrease from 15 feet to zero feet. They want the option to not have to come back in and discuss things. So they are also, a staff is also recommending approval because the need for the variance arises from the special circumstances of the proposed development, including the location of the 20 foot water line along the proposed parking area and property boundary. The strict application of the property perimeter screening and landscape buffer requirements would create an unnecessary hardship on the proposed development as it would put the development in opposition to the needs of the utility company that the current easement is in favor of. Additionally, the request is not the result of a willful violation of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has taken care to go through the necessary process for the project and has requested the variance prior to commencing construction. The recommendation of the staff of approval is made subject to the following conditions. First, as with all types of these kind of variances that you hear, the applicant must receive the zone change, the R4 zone. Also, the development plan should be constructed in accordance with the final development plan or as amended to address the requirements of the Division of Engineering, Traffic Engineering, and Building Inspection. All necessary permits should be obtained from the Division of Planning, Traffic Engineering, Engineering, and Building Inspection, Private Construction, and Occupancy. Action of the Planning Commission shall be denoted on the development plan for the subject property, which ties directly into what Ms. Wade was talking about with the denote aspect earlier with the development plan, and that there shall be the inclusion of four trees from group A or B of the planting list in the parking area located south of the four-story apartment building utilizing landscape islands. This is what they're currently showing on their plan. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have at this time about the zoning or about the variance. Question for Mr. Bailey on the variance. No. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm going to stop share of my video and bring it back to you. Thank you, sir. So the applicant, would you like to chime in? Or she likes to chime in? I'm seeing no hands. No hands are being raised. Mr. Simpson, you can go ahead and unmute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based on the staff's very comprehensive and detailed recommendations, we urge the Planning Commission to approve this zone map amendment request and variance. Thank you, sir. We appreciate the work and put forth by everyone. So if there's nothing else, I'll return to the commission. Open it up for any questions from the commission. If they have any, if not, I'll close this part of hearing and move on to a motion if they're ready. We will need three motions. One for the zone change. MAR 20-6 MVO will need one for the variance and one for the DP plan, MJDP 20-11. Anyone like to do that? Are you ready for a motion? Yeah, Mr. Penn. Do you want to do the variance in the middle or last? Do it in the middle. All right. I move for approval of PLN MAR 26 for the reasons provided by staff. Second. Thank you. We've got a motion by Mr. Penn and I think Mr. Moblin is seconded for approval of plan MAR 20-6 NBO acquisitions for the reasons provided by staff. So with a show of hands, all those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Mr. DeMoblin. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of variances as presented by the staff. Thank you. Seconded motion by Mr. Penn for approval of variance associated with the MAR20-6. Seconded by Mr. DeMoblin. With a show of hands, all those in favor. Any opposed? Mr. Penn. I'm not opposed. Okay, thank you, sir. Motion passes unanimously. And now for the development plan. I move to the development plan PLM-MJDP 20-11, changing number 16 to denote. I want to know what it is to denote what. Yeah. Denote documentation of compliance with the multifamily design standards shall be provided at the time of final development plan. I knew you'd fill that in because I could. Thank you. I was thinking we wanted to change number 16 as well this way. Yeah, number 16 we could just scratch out because you just approved the variance, which has that same condition, denoted on the face of the plan. Okay, we're beginning. So we're scratching 16. Yes. Adding the new 16 that she just read. Right. Okay. Anybody with us? Yes. So we've got a motion for approval of Plan MJDP 20-11 Masterson Station with 16 conditions. change in number 16 to read to note compliance uh utilizing multi-family design standards at time of final development plan um all those in favor please raise your hand any opposed mr owens did we have a second second by mr de mogul thank you motion was made by mr pen second by mr demotem so that motion did pass unanimously so thank you very much um i think if it's all right for everyone we'll take about a five minute recess and i believe we will move back to uh the shilling property after the recess Thank you. um raise your hand now let it let it be known uh no mr chair we would actually like to have uh the speakers come following the staff's presentation and then the applicants and then we'll speak to those people. Okay, so once we get the staff's presentation and the applicants, we will ask for others that want to speak, and we'll give you time to raise your hand, and we will get to everyone that's wanting to speak. So to begin with, Mr. Bailey. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. We do have a presentation from someone from the public, so when that starts what I will do is I'll also share my screen and they'll be able to go through their presentation verbally and then once we're done we'll end that I just wanted to give you the heads up on that. Thank you. So I am going to share the screen right now just with the staff presentation. So, yes, this is Schilling Properties PLN MAR 20-1. This is a zone change request from a single-family residential R1D zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for a property located at 706 Aurora Avenue. This is a very small property with a net acreage of .061 and a gross acreage of .095. The applicant is proposing an enlargement of the commercial zone to allow for the expansion of the current footprint of the Blue Door Smokehouse building. The applicant is seeking to update their development plan to address pedestrian mobility around the site and vehicular movement through the site while increasing the available off-street parking. the uh property is located along aurora avenue which as i pull up my annotate feature now i'll be able to spotlight aurora avenue which extends from walton avenue over and dead ends past richmond avenue it is uh tied in or proposed to be tied into walton avenue which is a minor arterial roadway which connects our major arterial roadways along east main street and winchester road if we zoom in on the subject zoning, you'll see that there is a host of different zones which represent the historical development of this area. What you see up towards Winchester Road is your higher nuisance uses or the more intense uses with I-1 zoning located here, and then a step down of before uses, which is utilized often as a buffer between the industrial uses and then your less intense business uses or your residential uses. You can see that the current zoning of the neighborhood located back here, the Mentel neighborhood, is R1, I'm sorry, R1D. There are pockets of R2 located in this location that is also a historic overlay or H1 overlay district. Moving over to the aerial, you'll be able to see a little bit better that kind of transition that we see from Winchester Road back into those B4 uses, primarily along National Avenue, and then into the residential developments. As time has gone by, you've also seen a fair amount of development of B1 or business uses located along Walton Avenue. You have the school in this location, and then we have Aurora. Our subject property is located right here. In 1967, excuse me, 69, the city rezoned this portion of land in red to R3 zoning. That R3 zoning was, at the time, low-density apartments. open. It remained as such until 1975 when a request was made by the neighborhood to down zone that to R2, which is now what you see in the red. So we do have some R3 over here, a little bit of R2 in this area. So in 1975, we saw that decrease from the R3, low density apartment, to the R2 or this two-family residential zone. Again, in 1998, the neighborhood came in and saw a rezoning to down zone the portion in white to R1D. At that time, the neighborhood focused on the idea that the size of the lots were more comparable to an R1D development. there is something that I do want to point out with this development as you can see with this it is quite a small lot typically we would consider that to be a non-conforming lot within the zoning ordinance because it does not meet the standards of R1D however because the property is located within the defined infill and redevelopment area the subject property is not considered to be a non-conforming property because of its small size. And with the inclusion in the infill and redevelopment area, that small size does not make it non-conforming because we were hoping to make sure that those non-conforming properties previously historically were not a problem going forward and people can continue to utilize them. It was meant to provide a bit more flexibility in the already built urban form. Here we again get a look into that subject property as it stands now with some of those more industrial uses to the north, the B4 uses, which have really been heavily adaptively reused. Mirror Twin at this location, Epping's in this location. Part of that is it does play into the historical value of this area of storage of more industrial uses and the location along the rail line. going across here. What we can also see at this location is the combination of properties that the applicant is seeking to utilize for this development. Currently the property located here is where the Blue Door Smokehouse is standing. This property right here was the single family household that was demolished in early 2019. The applicant is seeking to utilize their development plan to resolve some issues with this property, this property at this property, which is the subject of the zone change. And then these three properties here, 222, 224, and 226 Walton Avenue. While we'll get into some other aspects of it, I do want to say these are working together, but the only property of the zoning conversation today is 706 Warham. So looking into the property itself, we can see in this middle top picture, that is what the property currently looks like. It is a vacant lot that is currently fenced. If you look to the top left, you can see that we're along Aurora Avenue looking towards Richmond Road. And then in our bottom photos, we have the opposing single-family structures here and here. And then looking towards Walton Avenue. I want to point out with their development plan, they are looking to change a fair amount of this frontage here to comply with the comprehensive plan a little bit more to provide better pedestrian facilities and access into their development. Next, we can look on Walton Avenue, which will be impacted by the development plan, looking out towards Winchester Road, looking into the current site, which you can see is quite open. Now, the openness of the site is a historical development that we'll see in another picture or two down the line, which has been maintained since the 1940s. You can see that it has some impact on the pedestrian mobility along this. This was a truck that had been parked to try to get some food, but was blocking this section of the pedestrian facilities. And there was no clear connection. So with their development plan, they are seeking to provide some of those better facilities to connect pedestrians out from the neighborhood and onto the major collector down into Main Street. This is the current look of the off-street parking that's available right now associated with Blue Door Smokehouse. And that's located at 224 Walton. And then looking at the Schilling property's main building, which is 222 Walton. Again, looking back at this site, we can see the openness of what has occurred historically with the subject property. the property was originally platted in 1913 along with the rest of the neighborhood and saw the first uh residential structure built in 1934 you can see it's that 706 property that is fronting on aurora with the construction of that property left a large swath of land over closer to walton avenue that large swath of land was filled in by 1940 with a gas station, which established this open nature and a very car-centric perspective of mobility pattern through this corner, which allowed individuals to pull in off of Walton or pull in off of Aurora Avenue and access both roadways. The property was operated until 1944 as that gas station, but the gas station went defunct and was replaced in 1958 by a dry cleaner shop. The dry cleaner tore down the then gas station building and built the structure, the primary structure that you see today, leaving that openness of the front portion, which allowed a fair amount of just auto mobility through there. And that also connected with what the dry cleaners were doing at that time. Since the dry cleaners establishment changed over, there have been 11 businesses established at this location prior to the Blue Door Smokehouse. In that time, there were numerous changes to the structure itself, including the inclusion of the smoker area at this location. But overall, the nature of that corner and Aurora Avenue has remained consistent. With staff's review of any application under the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, there's a thorough review of the place type, development type, and zone being proposed. To begin, the applicant indicated that they were, they thought they were, or they proposed that they were part of the enhanced neighborhood place type. This place type is typically an existing residential area, which amenities are added in. So you're seeing a mixture of residential business, especially neighborhood serving business, but with a real focus on conductivity, both for vehicles and pedestrians and transit. So at this location, staff agreed with the applicant that this would be a enhanced neighborhood place type. Next, the applicant looked at the most suitable development type as they were proposing, and they chose the low-density non-residential or mixed-use development type. Now, this is described as primarily neighborhoods serving commercial uses, services, places of employment, and or a mixture of uses within low to mid-rise structures appropriately scaled to the surrounding neighborhood. Further, the retail slash service options typically include the boutique type establishments, neighborhood restaurants or pubs, and or neighborhood serving services like dentists, daycares, etc. And the places of employment for small offices. As this is a currently established neighborhood restaurant that does facilitate a broader consumption, staff did see that this place type was appropriate for this application. From this, the applicant is choosing a zone that is recommended within these place types, the B1, which is consistent with that perspective of low density non-residential and works to support neighborhoods by having a restaurant that is available to residents, as well as the traveling public. This is Walton Avenue is a minor arterial roadway. So it does get quite a bit of traffic, approximately 7,500 ADT or average daily trips. So with that in mind, staff then goes in to look at the compatibility or the connection between the current zoning and the proposed zone. The current zoning of single-family residential R1D zone is located, and I want to stress certain aspects of this, not read the whole thing, but the zones are typically located in areas of the community where services and facilities will be adequate to serve the anticipated population. So with the neighborhood business or the B1 zone, that focus is really developed to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of surrounding residential areas. Furthermore, the zone should be oriented to the residential neighborhood and should have a roadway system which will be adequate to accommodate the anticipated vehicular traffic. At this location, it is found at the corner of both a local roadway and a minor arterial roadway. In those cases, we do look at the appropriate flow of traffic through sites, and Ms. Wade will describe that quite a bit more in her presentation today. Again, looking at the differences in the zoning restrictions, we're not seeing too much in just the form of the zones with the 35-foot maximum height. However, there are some differences in what can fill out that space and the required parking. This site is currently vacant and is not covered by historic district overlay or H1 zone. So we do not need to incorporate some of the review that we would typically do for that. from the information provided by the place type and development type the applicant must then address the development criteria these criteria are distilled from the goals objectives and policies and we've discussed that quite a bit this is a copy of the low density non-residential or mixed use development type within the enhanced neighborhood place type from these criteria during the initial application for this, staff was concerned about a few elements of their application. While staff initially recommended approval, we were seeking to have greater amount of information on these three different development criteria. During the zoning committee, the zoning committee also thought it would be appropriate to postpone this application to seek further information about how the building orientation maximized the connections with the surrounding area and create that pedestrian-friendly atmosphere, specifically focused on that corner of Aurora and Walton Avenue. And then also the fact that the parking should be oriented to the interior or rear of the property for non-residential or multifamily developments, and that green infrastructure should be implemented in new development, that it was not applicable, or if it is not applicable for the development, they needed to give us that information. So initially when the applicant came in, this was the development plan that they provided. And this goes through the areas of concern. So you can see initially the applicant went through and had a outshoot lane onto Aurora. Staff was concerned about the distance to Walton Avenue and that signalized or stop signed area, as well as having parking up front. Staff was also concerned about the phasing of the parking over in this area. And then there was the discussion about the access back out onto Aurora Avenue. This is a point of contention that will be discussed a little bit more as we go forward in our discussion of the development plan. I did want to show you this just because this is a good view of what has changed over time. With their new application, the applicant is seeking to fill in, move their pedestrian services out, connecting to the already established pedestrian services, and also remove the parking in front of the structure to create more of a place-based system in which they can have tables if they would like to, or some sort of amenity for both the neighborhood and the business itself. So at this time, staff is recommending approval of this zone change. The applicant is requesting the B1 zone, and staff believes that it is in agreement with the 2018 Comprehensive Plans, Goals, and Objectives for the following reasons. The proposed rezoning supports infill and redevelopment as a strategic component of growth, Theme A, Goal 2, and Theme A, Goal 2A, as this is a vacant parcel of land. The expansion of the existing one-story structure will remain in line with the existing building and will respect the built context and design features of the surrounding development, remaining compatible with the existing urban form, Theme A, Goal 2B. The proposed development provides a location for positive and safe social interactions in the neighborhood, theme A, goal 3B, and through those proposed sidewalk and parking improvements will enhance the neighborhood, theme D, goal 1D. So that is really focused on that front portion, bringing the sidewalks around. They are increasing the sidewalk width to five feet around their property to make it a little bit more in line with ADA compliance and to make it a little bit better of a facility. The proposed enhancement of the restaurant along the edge of an established and walkable neighborhood helps deemphasize single occupancy vehicle dependence, the vehicle to D. That is, again, really looking at the expansion of the walkways, removing that corner in which it really was a free for all and providing more delineated space for residents to walk. Finally, the proposed neighborhood business zone can provide for entertainment and quality of life opportunities that attract young and culturally diverse professionals to Lexington. Theme C, Goal 2D. Barbecue is quite a trend right now and has been for a very long time. So this is adding to that. The justification and the corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies and development criteria of this 2018 comprehensive plan. As the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for site design, building form, and location, as the site creates a residential development pattern that increases safety, safe pedestrian mobility, and provides a neighborhood use. The proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for potential users of the site by prioritizing the inclusion of safe pedestrian facilities. These improvements address the transportation and pedestrian connectivity development criteria for the 2018 comprehensive plan. And the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for green space environmental health as it works with the current landscapes, limits the impacts on the surrounding environment, and adds tree canopy coverage in the form of street trees and landscape buffers. So staff is recommending approval. However, staff saw the need to include some conditional zoning requirements or restrictions on this property so not to impact the neighborhood in a negative way. Staff is recommending a prohibited use, a drive-through facility. We do not think that it is appropriate at this location, nor does staff think outdoor speakers or amplification of live music shall be available on the subject property, as it could produce a nuisance that would impact the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, lighting shall be a maximum of 10 feet in height and shall be shielded and directed away from the neighborhood adjacent to the property. These restrictions are appropriate and necessary for the following reasons as they are to reduce the potential impact of the allowable neighborhood businesses or business uses on the adjacent neighborhood and to reduce the potential impact of lighting and sound on the adjacent neighborhood. I do want to stress at this time that these conditional zoning restrictions are only for the property of 706 Aurora Avenue, as we cannot apply conditional zoning restrictions on other properties since they are not being rezoned. So these will only apply to that small property or small portion of the property. This recommendation is also made subject to the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 20-00003 Morningside Edition Blue Door Smokehouse Expansion, which Ms. Wade will discuss here shortly. And with that, if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them at this time. i just i just have one question you were talking about they were going to have some outdoor eating area in a location that's approximately close to the front door right now and it appeared there was a driveway in that area i showed you uh the older plan so that you can get the context leading up to uh why there was a postponement recommendation by the subdivision committee and why uh staff is now recommending approval with both the development plan and the zone change. So the drive isn't there anymore? It is not along the front. Thank you. I think we'll see that Mr. Mowlin with the development plan here in just a second. So anyway, that's okay. Mr. Bell. Mr. Bell. Yes, again, it might might see it with a development plan or not but i'm just worried about parking and did i miss a point where where they're going to be parking sir you'll see that on the development plan thank you very much any other questions if not speaking of development plan let's get to it thank you very much miss wade will present the development plan at this time good afternoon chairman ellen members of the commission uh um the morningside edition blue door smokehouse expansion development plan does appear on page three of your agenda and that recommendation on the agenda is reflective of reflective of the subdivision committee's review in February so this item has been around since then and the subdivision committee has not reviewed since then. So let me jump into the, oops, into the development plan. The, oops, okay. Excuse me, Ms. Wade. Remind everybody, we do have revised conditions on a nice lavender sheet. The lavender sheet is only available to those of you who came into the office. sorry that's okay so when when I get to the information on for the conditions mr. Woodall will be prepared to share his screen in the office to show those to you but follow along sorry I jumped ahead that's okay so again as Hal mentioned this is a you have a question mr. Bailey It is on the Google Drive, so all the Planning Commission members would have it. But for the public, we want to make sure that we can see those conditions as we talk about them. The subject property for the development plan includes four parcels, whereas Mr. Bailey mentioned the zone change only applies to one of the parcels shown on the development plan. And that is to the rear of the existing restaurant. So this is the development plan that both the subdivision committee and the zoning committee saw in February, which included one way circulation through the site, an existing restaurant with a proposed expansion. So the existing restaurant is about 1100 square feet and the expansion is the same size. They're doubling the restaurant size. And then there's an existing 1400 square foot building to the south, which our understanding is is being used for an office. As the discussion proceeded, there were some changes to the development plan. Let me go to that next. And those changes, for the most part, the staff is very supportive of. So the building addition and the existing structures haven't changed. Those remain static on this proposed development plan. And again, the existing restaurant is at the corner of Aurora Avenue and Walton Avenue with the proposed expansion to its rear. And the existing house that's been utilized as an office by the shilling properties that fronts on onto Walton Avenue as well. And if you saw Mr. Bailey's aerial photographs, you know that there's been an area in between these two structures used for parking. And then it appears part of that lot has been fenced off and previously had some either storage or something else in the backyard. But again, Mr. Bailey mentioned historically this was a gas station. So they have access that circulated through the front of their property. And with this revised development plan, they heard a lot of the concerns from the subdivision committee and the zoning committee about that front circulation. and that was echoed by traffic engineering. And so they've removed the three or four parking spaces that were in front of the structure and they removed that circulation in front of the building. And that related back to some of the place builder criteria that we mentioned and are present on the agenda related to building orientation should connect to and create pedestrian friendly atmospheres. So by removing that vehicular movement area in the front, it allows for that pedestrian area to be created. And then also parking should be oriented to the interior rear of a property for non-residential or multifamily development. And so, again, they moved that parking out from in front of the building. So those changes on this plan definitely help to meet the development criteria from the place builder. The third place builder criteria that we mentioned previously as a concern was green infrastructure should be implemented. And likewise, by adding green space in the front of their building and removing the pavement, that facilitates the allowance for some green infrastructure in that area. The staff has received a revised plan, and that occurred in late February. And that came to our office by paper and digitally. And I understand that the applicant has submitted this slightly revised plan with a color up in mid-May. That plan did not come to our office in paper. So our revision, it's only slightly different. And I think Mr. Murphy can attest to that with his engineer. They removed a dumpster. That was primarily the change that we saw. Solid waste indicated to the applicant that they would not need a dumpster at this location. And so the dumpster was the main change. But when we change development plans, and I'm going the wrong way, from early January, this original plan, I mentioned there's a one-way circulation from Walton into the site, park, go in, get your barbecue, and then leave onto Aurora Avenue. And from Aurora, you can turn right or left. And at Mr. Bailey mentioned at the intersection of Aurora and Walton, there's a stop sign. So circulation through the site is one way. With the change to the development plan, there is no longer one-way circulation through the site. Instead, it's a wider entrance onto Walton Avenue and then a parking lot that just solely circulates with itself. So when someone comes in to get their meal or go to dinner, they park, then they have to back out and leave back onto Walton. In addition, this configuration of a parking lot isn't really a comprehensive plan issue. It's more of a development plan, zoning ordinance issue, and traffic engineering issue. In addition to there no longer being circulation through the site, but rather only internal to the site, there's a there's sort of a cobbling together of different types of parking we have perpendicular parking where someone pulls in and faces the building and then we also have four parallel parking spaces and that is a concern to our staff in terms of circulation and movement within a parking lot when you incorporate parallel parking obviously that takes a bit more space to maneuver in and out and time as well and that can cause some additional unnecessary congestion within the parking lot whereas the through movement and angled parking is much more common and you have some expected movements with that. The staff and if I'm going to go back to what Mr. Bailey showed us with his aerial photograph thank you for your graphic assistance today. This is an aerial photograph of the subject property and the surrounding vicinity so our red highlighter shows the existing site and the existing commercial building for restaurant use and the associated office next door. What is of concern to the staff related to the parking lot changes on this development plan is that there are four really controlled access points already along Walton Avenue, and the applicant is asking to install a fifth full access for their commercial, expanding commercial development between these access points. And so the staff is, although we're recommending approval of the development plan, one of the conditions associated with that is to revise the plan to depict basically going back to the one-way movement that appeared on the earlier development plans. One-way access to Aurora Drive from the rear of the proposed addition. So the circulation for the site would be entering the site from Walton and then exiting onto Aurora Avenue. And these access standards that really provide for these spacing along Walton Avenue is disrupted when we add these commercial access points in between. The zoning ordinance in Chapter 16, as well as the land subdivision regulations do provide what are called land use access standards. And those are what we often call, or you hear Tom say very frequently, the spacing standards. So spacing along our roadways is important for traffic movement. In a new development, particularly under these land use access standards, commercial access can be allowed along Walton, but it's not generally encouraged unless safety issues are addressed to the greatest extent possible. Since this is a redevelopment project and the property cannot meet the required spacing, the emphasis becomes on reducing the conflict points, particularly in this case along Walton, which is our minor arterial. That's the higher classification of roadway versus Aurora Avenue, which is a local roadway. Access onto Aurora will help to alleviate the possible conflicts. And in many cases, we would recommend against commercial access to local roads, but that's not always the case. In this case, because there's already a stop sign that controls the movements in this area, that is a safer way to have traffic move through the site and onto the public road in this particular case. So the staff, if Mr. Woodall would, let me stop sharing this particular screen and allow him to show the revised recommendations. We'll go through those. Thank you. So there is a revised staff recommendation that was provided to the Planning Commission. The subdivision committee recommended postponement. and then since then we have these um sorry Mr. Woodall can you scroll down my assistant today um the staff is recommending approval subject to a list of 11 conditions the first is provided the planning commission or excuse me the urban county council rezones the property um and then there are a few sign offs from the divisions of engineering traffic engineering urban forester our green space planner and then we want to have a few cleanup items one number six here is denote the building height particularly the existing and the proposed in feet in their site statistics that's a requirement of article 21. i'll get back to seven i think i mentioned that already number eight is denote the use of the building at 22 22 walton avenue and adjust the parking accordingly verbally the applicant said it's an office but but the parking calculation they're showing on the face of the development plan is consistent with a retail or restaurant use. We need that modified. They need to denote the timing of shared parking and when that would be constructed. And we want to make sure that is clear at the final development plan stage. We want to make sure there's property perimeter landscaping along the rear property, which is adjacent to a single family property. And then the last one that would remain on our list of conditions is to discuss those place builder criteria. And I mentioned earlier, actually all three of these place builder criteria, we believe, have now been met in the front of the restaurant use. So those, in our opinion, have been satisfied. but I want to go back to number seven condition number seven which is revise the plan to depict one-way access to Aurora Avenue at the rear of the proposed addition and the staff believes that's a just a safety issue not a comprehensive plan issue it's something we would recommend whether this property was involved with a zone change or not with that I will be happy to answer any questions you might have Thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. Questions for Ms. Wade? Yeah, could you clarify the dumpster, no dumpster situation here? Sure. Mr. Woodall, could you stop sharing our list of conditions? Thanks. And Mr. Bailey, do we need to show that? Can I share that again? Yes. I'll give that for you. The dumpster, typically we don't have solid waste as a sign off on our preliminary development plans, because a lot of times that's not a conceptual issue, but rather a final development plan issue. How is solid waste going to serve your property? Our understanding is the properties current, both are all three, four properties are being served by solid waste via the roll carts, the Herbie, Rosie, and Lenny system. And the applicant wants to continue to do that. And solid waste was agreeable for that to occur as well. And so they showed us a dumpster in the February development plan. And then when they submitted their renderings to us in May, the dumpster was gone. So we did add, Mr. Martin asked how that occurred. And they said, well, we met with solid waste. And they indicated they don't need a dumpster for our site. Pete Knuckle. Okay. My question is about the two development plans. The one we saw in February versus the one we're looking at right now. the plan we're looking at right now has 19 parking spaces how many parking spaces were provided on the previous february development plan 21 21 okay good so they were able to um they didn't they removed three parking spots but gained one back that's good or two back Yes, they only need 13 according to our ordinance. Good. So those four parallel spaces, if you, those could be removed to satisfy you all if necessary. Now, what you're saying is that you want to, as we're looking at this development plan, you would like to extend the access to Aurora Avenue, which is the same condition we saw in the February development plan. And I imagine that's where we're going to have the neighborhood conversation. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? Let me ask one. Ms. Wade, the parking area that is painted on the right-hand side of the screen, what is that for? It says something to be removed. I can't read it on the screen. So it would not be pavement then? them? That's a shed to be removed? Yes sir there is it currently there is a shed still on the single-family residential property. They're indicating that they will remove that prior to the development of this lot. My recollection in reviewing the plan was the hatching that that angled hatch that's shown there was an indication of thicker pavement. So if the solid waste truck was coming in they would have a place that they could turn around their heavier truck so that the applicant may be able to inform us on that. Okay thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions? No I Mr. Bailey indicated to just now that we do have some letters that were put into the Google Drive to share with the Planning Commission today he divvied those out into two letters of support for the zone change 12 in opposition and then an additional 10 that's right that support the neighborhood choice okay which I assume has something to do with access to Aurora. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. At this point, we'll move on to the applicant. I believe it's Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chair, we would ask that anyone associated with the applicant's team who would like to be added as a panelist, please raise your hand electronically now. And as usual, while Ms. Cunningham's handling that, the staffs available to answer questions throughout the hearing. Thank you. I'm sure we'll get back to you. If you are a citizen wishing to speak on this application, we will promote you after the applicant's presentation. If you could please lower your hands, that will help reduce confusion here. Thank you. We would ask for all new panelists, please, to show your video. If you aren't speaking and could remain muted, we would appreciate that. And Mr. Murphy, if the chair is ready, you can go ahead. We're ready. Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to address you all today. Just want to give you a little more information about this as background. Of course, I represent Schilling Properties, which is the owner of this property. I think Tyler is with us today. Jeff Newman is with us today, too. He is the owner of Blue Door Smokehouse, one of the owners and the tenant of the building. Steve Baker from Midwest Engineering is, I think, here. I don't see his name up on the screen, but I think he's with us on the presentation as well today. So we thank you for hearing us and wanted to tell you how this all started out. It started out with what the owners thought was a simple idea, and that was that Blue Door Smokehouse needs more space. If you've been inside Blue Door, and I hope you have because it's a barbecue mecca, there's only one restroom in the building and there's a very small kitchen in the building. And they wanted to have more space to have better restroom facilities and a larger kitchen, especially so that they could do more catering than they can now in the very small kitchen that they have. So they wanted to put an addition on the rear of the building. And when they started out they thought that would be fairly straightforward but things like that never are because we needed to get a rezoning this is as Mr. Bailey mentioned it's a very small rezoning the property is less that we're rezoning is less than one sixteenth of an acre probably one of the smaller ones you'll you'll have in this year just less than one sixteenth of an acre but when the We brought the plans in. That's when the parking situation at the front of the existing building came to the forefront of the discussions. Because we were told pretty quickly that that parking, what Mr. Bailey, I think, pretty accurately described as the free-for-all parking in front, where we have about six spaces that back out onto Walton or Aurora or into the middle of the intersection and have been doing that for 50 years, they cannot stay. So we had to do something to make that intersection and the parking situation safer. So that's when we realized we had to do a development plan. And because our parking would now be shifted to the side of the building between the Blue Door Smokehouse and Mr. Schiller's office building that you saw on the development plan, we'd have to do a development plan and shift the parking over there in order to do the addition. Now, as Ms. Wade mentioned to you in the description of the development plan, the plan we have today before you is quite different from, again, the one that we started out with. And that's because of the place builder process. We have done what the process advocates. We have gone through a consultative process with the staff. and I think just as important we've gone through a consultative process with the Mentel Neighborhood Association. We would have been happy with just putting the addition on the back and leaving the parking the way it was but that was just not to be and we understand that we understand the need to make that parking that free-for-all parking in the front much space much safer. So we've had a collaborative process. I do want to point out that it has greatly increased the price, the cost of doing the addition, but we understand that and we understand the need to make this safer. We've gone through a long process with the Mentel Neighborhood Association and I I appreciate all they've been through with us. Our first meeting was back in late December of 2019. We met with the association. And to be honest about it, I was discouraged after that meeting. I thought both sides were so dug in that we'd never be able to reach some common ground. But we have reached common ground. We had another meeting out there, and after that, we kept the lines of communication open. I had many conversations with Ann August, who is the president of the Mentel Neighborhood Association, and she would talk to the Neighborhood Association group. I would talk to our folks, and gradually, we got coming together on a solution. At the same time, we were working with the staff. And as you saw from the development plan, we took out that driveway that was going to go in front of the building. And we've made that a space where I guess you can do outdoor dining and that sort of thing. we've added the parking on the lot next door to blue door which is at 224 walton avenue and we also agreed with some other conditions with the neighborhood association and one of them was that we would put a we're going to put a deed restriction on the next lot behind there which is 708 Walton Avenue, which is also owned by Mr. Schilling. There was concern that he might try to rezone that lot, which has a house on it. So we agreed to a restriction that we'll have no business rezoning for 20 years. The only exception is that if the property on the other side of that goes commercial, which is not owned by Mr. Schilling, that would void that condition. But we'll have no rezoning on that lot for at least 20 years. We agreed to no vinyl would be used on the new building except for things like windows and soffits. We all agreed that the existing on-street parking on Aurora needs to stay. And the last thing we agreed upon was that we would not have a driveway onto Walton Avenue. And I know that's the main issue that you have before you today. As I said, we went through the process with the neighbors, and I'm very pleased with the process we went through. But they pointed out to us genuine concern about having the exit onto Walton Avenue, excuse me, onto Aurora Avenue. after we heard that request from the neighborhood association we went back to Steve Baker and asked him if he could redesign the parking on Walton Avenue to make a good entrance and exit there and to his credit he was able to design that so right now and I'll try to I'm going to try to pull up the development plan here on this if I can. The should be coming up right now. Okay. He has designed this and I don't have a little flashing light to go where my cursor is, but I do have that little hand. I don't know how I get rid of the hand and do something else. But we have now, here's Aurora Avenue. Here's Walton Avenue. And here's our entrance point, which is the same way we had it on the old plan. But now we have a safe access in and out. You can come in. You can park either here in the 90 degree spaces or over here against Mr. Schilling's office in the parallel spaces. You can turn around if it's all every all the parking spaces are taken you can turn around right here and you can come out onto Walton Avenue. And the important thing about right here is that unlike the old parking which is right up at the corner where we where people backed out onto Walton or they backed out in the intersection or they backed out onto Aurora Avenue. Everybody exiting now is going to be facing forward at a single access point. They can have good visibility left and right along Walton Avenue. So we felt that given the concerns of the neighborhood, which we respect, we could design this so that we had a much, much safer access situation than we do now. And also at the same time, respect the neighborhood concerns by not having this. Aurora Avenue. And I think there's a number of people in the neighborhood who will be speaking to you about that and what their concerns were. But this was truly a collaborative process. I do want to say we agree to the other conditional zoning restrictions, which the staff has proposed, and those were of concern to the neighborhood as well, about not having a drive-through window, no outdoor audio amplification, and the height limits on outdoor lighting. We agree with those. I will point out to you that Blue Door Smokehouse has limited hours. It closes at 3 o'clock Monday through Thursday, and it closes at 8 o'clock on Friday and Saturday. Or like a true barbecue place, it closes earlier if they run out. So we've been through the process, and this is not the plan we started out with. It's not the original desire of the Neighborhood Association, which was not to allow any rezoning at all. and we're pleased that it complies with most of the staff's concerns, except we understand they would like to have that driveway out to Aurora Avenue. But we understand those concerns, but we feel that what we've come up with is a very reasonable solution to the traffic situation. it's a much much safer solution than the parking situation which is out there now and we think it's the best solution to this taking into account the very concerns of the neighbors and place builder is is not just a process to lead nowhere place builder is a system which is a process which is to lead to a solution which is acceptable to the property owner, the neighborhood stakeholders, and all involved. And we're pleased that we have come up with the solution which is acceptable. We think it works. We think it works well. And we know it's acceptable to the Neighborhood Association as well. So I could tell you a whole lot more about the property. It's a great restaurant. I hope if you haven't been there, you will be there. But especially today in the coronavirus situation, we need to do everything we can to encourage the health of the restaurant business. And this will help ensure that they stay here in this location and continue to grow their catering business from this location. So at this point, I'll stop here and I'd like to hear a neighborhood comment. I'd like to be able to offer rebuttal or any information like that after they are finished. But we truly appreciate this. And I hope you understand that we have been through a long process, which I think followed place builder recommendations to the place where we are today with you. and I'll stop my sharing so we can get back to the screen and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Questions for Mr. Murphy? Mr. Bell. Mr. Murphy, I commend you and the neighborhood for for for working together to follow place builder utilizing that tool and and we really thank you very much my question is um do you know do you have an idea of your employee parking and how many spaces that might take and then the then just the parking with regard to the catering and things like that and how you're going to manage y'all anticipating that and how y'all are managing that type of thing and maybe the service side as well just different things like that how that will affect parking in y'all's mind please well jeff newman is here who's the owner of blue door he may want to respond but the bear in mind we only have five or six spaces in front of the building right now there's some on the side so uh we uh think uh uh designed this so that wood would work for those i see jeff has clicked on and Jeff you may want to respond to that. Sure yeah we usually only have about four employees total so it's just myself there's another owner involved John Rigsby he's working at the restaurant so he couldn't make it today and then usually only two other employees at any given time sometimes three other employees and we are lucky that a few of them live really close to each other so that they actually do a lot of carpooling. And other than that, John and I usually take one space each. And most of them actually park on some on-street parking on Walton Avenue that is adjacent to Willis Klein, the commercial interiors business. So we're not real heavy on parking in terms of employees. Thank you very much. My pleasure. Thank you, Mr. Newman. Any other questions? Well, Mr. Murphy or Mr. Newman, Mr. Baker, any additional comments? No? Okay. I have one. Ms. Plumlee also had her hand raised, sir. Okay. Ms. Plumlee first. Yes. Is there any sit down arrangement inside or is it all just walk in, carry out? There are tables inside. Today has tables inside and will continue to have tables inside. How many? Jeff, I may ask you to answer how many tables you have. Sure. Right now we only have six tables and we're extremely small. And we don't really plan on adding too much more seating inside. The main goal of the renovation, like Mr. Murphy said, is to increase space for us to work so that we can increase our catering and do more business outside of our four walls. It is likely that we will be able to add a few more seats, but we wouldn't really expect to see any more than four to eight more seats for diners. but that does not include if we add outdoor seating, which we don't have any right now. Thank you. And I will add just at this moment, we are doing no dine-in. We're still doing carryout only with all the COVID concerns. And we're just so small that having an additional 33% of indoor dining just doesn't do much for us. It's like, you know, four or five patrons. So we're sticking with carryout only for the time being. Mr. Nickel, hold on one second. I think Gracie Wade may have pointed a clarification on that. The development plan does show that they have an existing 15 seats indoor and they're proposing an additional 10. So that's what they're documenting for approval. Mr. Nickel. okay in anticipation for what's coming next um mr murphy could you please describe why this walton entrance and exit is the safest best solution number one and um talk to me about your conversations you had with traffic engineering so that i can get an understanding of what they communicated to you about this single entrance on walton avenue well we talked to traffic engineering early on and they both the planning staff and traffic engineering said the free-for-all parking in front has got to go and when we brought our original plan in with the driveway in front and a driveway in back I think traffic engineering indicated they were okay with that. I know that had some concerns with the planning people. We took out the driveway in front of the building going to Aurora. At one point, we had a development plan showing the access out in the rear onto Aurora, one driveway out to Aurora instead of two. And that, as I said, was a concern to the Neighborhood Association. so when they told us that they could be supportive of us if we would remove that driveway because of the issues it was for the issue it's going to be with the neighborhood we look to see if we could have what we thought was a safe access point on to walton avenue bearing in mind that that has always been our plan on all the plans is to have our entrance on walton avenue so it was just so there's going to be an access point at that place anyway so we were looking at it to see if we felt we could do a safe entrance on Walton for the exiting traffic as well we think we can we think we have come up with a safe entrance onto Walton at this point I can't compare to you whether it is safer or less safe than the exit onto Aurora. I can't compare to you the efficiency of that. I do know for sure it's much, much better than what we have today. It's a much safer situation than today. And we wouldn't have proposed this if we didn't think this is a safe solution which we can come up with which meets the neighbors concerns about that driveway onto aurora evans thank you um other questions uh mr murky if you would uh try and help answer the question i had originally the crosshatch area at the end of the parking lot. Is that going to remain as asfaulted and parking or just asfaulted and no parking? I think that's going to be, and Steve Baker can correct me if I'm wrong, that's going to be our turnaround area if all the parking spaces are occupied at one time. We wanted to have a place where you could turn around without easily even if all the parking spaces were occupied. Okay all right then thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else want to speak in favor of this? Stephanie? Do we have members of the public who would like to speak in favor of this application first, please? Okay, seeing none. I'm sorry, Stephanie. It seems as if one hand is raised. Jamie has raised her hand, and I think that it's a blend of both support and opposition. So, sorry, it might blend into your next portion. Okay. Members of the public could please keep your hands raised electronically. We'll give you the ability to speak in the order that you're appearing on our list. Ms. Lucky, which I probably mispronounced, we'll let you speak now. Go ahead. anyone wishing to speak with this in this part um one i'd appreciate it if those now are wanting to speak in favor of and then also i would ask that you keep it to at least three minutes so miss lucky thank you thank you very much chairman owens can everybody hear me i hope I think we're making history here. Is this the first public hearing via Zoom? Wish me luck. My name is Jamie Luke. I live at 914 Aurora Avenue, and I'm speaking for the Mintel Neighborhood Association, who would want you to know that they would be there in person if they could. would have a nice big group to support the plan, but not, and this is the key point, not condition seven, not the driveway onto Aurora. Now we did have a big crowd back in the winter, like Mr. Murphy told you. And when we saw that plan with the driveways coming onto Aurora, the neighbors said no, emphatically no, it's intrusive. It would fundamentally change the character of the street and it wasn't necessary because the traffic already exits onto walton it was obvious that the sensible solution was to just let it continue to exit onto walton but to do it in an organized predictable way designed by an engineer and that's what our plan does i'd have to say thank you to mr shilling he paid mr murphy to keep listening to us both sides made concessions as Mr. Murphy said and we found common ground we came up with this really good plan we think that the design does protect the character of our residential street even with the rezoning so it's a win for the neighborhood it's a win for Blue Door when we know our small local businesses need some wins it's a huge win for this corner which I thought Hal was going to have a pun. I thought we had a PowerPoint. Yes, I can pull it up. I just need you to tell me to pull it up. First one, Hal. I'm sorry. I should have told you that sooner. No, you're okay. I'm pulling it up right now. It should be sharing as we speak and just tell me to forward or back on any of your slots. Okay, so this corner is going to be safer. It's going to work better. It's going to look better. I mean, I can't wait to have some tables out there. It's going to become an amenity for the neighborhood. Yes, Ms. Luke? Yeah. The chair has a question. Excuse me for a second. I had a request early on for someone to request an additional time to speak. Was that you? I'm going to try to keep it to three minutes, Mr. Chairman. I may go over a tiny bit. okay all right and if we could we'd like the chance to have a rebuttal too if we may well uh the neighborhood as a whole is going to have one rebuttal as far as opposition okay well that's me so i'm sorry to interrupt continue on yes sir thank you so a big win for this corner a big win for pedestrians right when we have a normal sidewalk so we have a chance here for a win win win win and I would say like Mr. Murphy there's another winner and that would be place builder because we're showing that a neighborhood and a developer can work together and make our little corner of the core of Lexington a better place. Next slide please Hal. Okay this is 706 Aurora it's right at the entry of our neighborhood next slide Hal um I just want to say a quick word about the street it is an asset that Lexington should protect we're dense we're small craftsman houses next slide our we have small front yards so the traffic's right in our front doors we're next to excellent infill and redevelopment on National Avenue. I would say that according to the place book, the place builder definition, we're already an enhanced neighborhood. But I think all of us also know that good things can go downhill fast if we fail to protect the character of our neighborhoods. Later speakers are going to talk more about traffic. I would say I followed this process very closely, and I was surprised to hear Ms. Wade say that the exclusion of a drive-through window applied only to the Aurora site, not to the existing Walton site. I had been under the impression that there would be no drive-through window, period. So I'm thinking, I mean, we hope Ludo is there forever because it is the best brisket you've ever tasted. But, you know, we know businesses come and go, but a B1 zoning is forever. So imagine if there's a driveway on Aurora and some future tenant there, some future business that's open at night, has a drive-through and the drive-through traffic then winds around onto Aurora. I mean, that would be, talk about intrusive and changing the character of our narrow little street. It really would. um miss luke yes sir even with my interruption earlier your three minutes are about up okay what i want to say is that what happened here is exactly what imagine lexington imagines collaboration thank you how no not yet collaboration compromise for a better core what we're asking you respectfully to do is just say yes just take our yes for an answer reject the condition approve the plan thanks okay thank you ma'am and I will note that through this there is a conditional restriction for drive-through facilities who's next Stephanie? Mr. Chad Walker we're moving you over to speak now if you'd like to unmute and introduce yourself, please. How we doing? You guys got me? All right. Good afternoon, board members. My name is Chad Walker. We own multiple commercial properties in the neighborhood, as well as the residential property directly across from Blue Door. So I have three main points I'd like to make this afternoon, all which are specifically relating to the traffic. Point one is we've owned the adjacent property at 246 Walton 26 years. 246 Walton has three exit points, one onto Aurora Avenue and two onto Walton Avenue. Now, exit one onto Walton is just like Blue Door. It's right on the corner with no distance from Aurora or Walton. Exit two is 54 feet to the intersection. Now, in comparison, Blue Door's proposed exit to Walton Avenue is 110 feet from the Aurora Avenue, Walton Avenue center line. I'm happy to report that in the two and a half plus decades we've owned our property, there has not been a single traffic accident or pedestrian accident at either points of exit ever. Now, point two, Blue Doors parking is already working. Their current parking lot has been utilized as such with the existing exit onto Walton Avenue since about 2015. They currently have 12 parking spaces and new proposals for 19. So all we're really talking about is seven new parking spaces. The additional traffic impact is basically just for those seven new spaces. Point three, I had Mexican for lunch yesterday. I hadn't had my burrito fixed since COVID hit, and the missus asked if I would bring home a little lunch, which I gladly obliged. On a whim, I measured Mexico's exit. Their exit, which goes across four lanes of traffic on Eastland Drive at New Circle, is exactly 80 feet from the intersection of New Circle. Now, Blue Door's proposal is 110 feet. So this is obviously less impact. The way they've drawn it is a wonderful proposal. Now, Shelby Reynolds is going to talk in a little bit, but he and I are both neighborhood experts. He's the Aurora expert. He's been there for 33 years. I'm the Walton expert. I've been there for 26. We not only have a wealth of direct neighborhood experience, but a vested interest in making this neighborhood the best in Lexington. And nobody has a better, nobody has closer proximity or more involved in making sure this development is done correctly. So, in my opinion, what you have for you today is a story of a developer, a business owner, and an entire neighborhood coming together to negotiate a perfect compromise. It illustrates the philosophy behind place builders as it relates to the comp plan can actually work. I would hate to think that this entire process would have the possibility of derailment by overly cautious traffic guidelines that don't take into consideration the specific application to this neighborhood. As the owner of multiple commercial properties, the chair of the Warehouse Block Business Association, as representative of multiple tents and businesses, I'm the voice of our portion of the neighborhood. And we're a proponent of this plan with the exit onto Walton Avenue. We're opposed to it going on to Aurora. glad to answer any questions y'all have and i just thought as mr bell you had mentioned this point about parking we own every single parking lot on north ashland the 300 block of north ashland the 700 and 800 block of of national and the 200 block of walton i'm the only person who tows anybody in the neighborhood and so if blue door slides right over that's okay i make jeff trade out in barbecue so we don't ever tow anybody there's no parking concern down here and my camera's not on you guys can't see that there's no question I trade for barbecue on any situation so thank you Mr. Walker yes sir other others that would like to speak in favor uh Mr. Reynolds uh we will allow you to speak now if you'd like to uh unmute and introduce yourself please okay can you hear me yes we can thank you okay I just want to stress that I uh agree with all of that has been said and I am absolutely in favor of the newest proposal with all traffic exiting onto entering and exiting onto Walton. My name is Shelby Reynolds as you know. I have lived here in my house for 33 years and I've watched Aurora Avenue become the quaint very comfortable and livable neighborhood it has become. I'm also a board member of the Mentel Neighborhood Association. My house is one house away from the proposed zone change at 706. I wanted to stress my opposition to why I would oppose an exit onto Aurora. I think we were talking about the use restrictions and the reducing the potential impact on the neighborhood. If all traffic from Blue Door Smokehouse is allowed to exit onto Aurora, this would be the most disruptive and negative impact to the neighborhood, especially to those of us who live at this end of Aurora. Essentially robbing us of our quiet, comfortable, walkable street. my neighbors across the street at 709 they're the newest residents at this end of aurora they purchased their house just last october they said they looked for two years before they chose this house because it was close to businesses that they could walk to or bike to their home is direct is directly across from where the aurora exit would be and they are concerned about traffic noise and lights shining into their living room no less during blue doors evening hours and if another business were to move in down the road with even later hours the lights could be even more of a problem all evening they were also concerned if with this exit that it could have the possibility of lowering their property value we have a lot of families and young children who walk and play along the street and this Aurora exit would definitely make our street less pedestrian friendly. So we're asking that you strongly consider having traffic exit onto Walton Avenue as a good compromise which lets Blue Doors business grow while not having a major impact on our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Others that would like to speak in favor? No. No other hands, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you. What we'll do at this time, we'll move to any that want to or wish to speak in opposition. There was one person that I believe had asked for an additional amount of time, which I will ask to go first. I'm hoping that there may be a neighborhood representative. and anyone else would be allowed three minutes. I would offer that, as always, we do want to hear from you. I'm sorry we can't necessarily see you in person. However, I should simply ask not to be redundant. So with that, who's first up? I see no hands raised, Mr. Chair. No hands raised. Okay. Apparently, all has been worked out some time ago. Mr. Chair, the individual that had asked for additional time has already spoken. That was the individual that had the PowerPoint presentation. And she currently has her hand raised now. she did ask for additional time if she wanted to go through her the rest of her PowerPoint presentation or something is there a need I am not sure we'll allow her to speak and she can tell us if there's a real need or not I guess oh miss Luke we're allowing you to speak now go ahead thank you yeah I think I must have confused you I'm very sorry because The people representing the neighborhood association were the three you heard, me, Shelby, and Chad. That's all I have to say. Okay, good deal. Thank you. So at this point, we have no one else wishing to speak, so we'll move on into the rebuttal phase at this point. So we'd start with Mr. Murphy. Well, thank you very much. And you've heard from three of the representatives of the Mantell Neighborhood Association. And I know from just my contacts with Ann Oligas, the president, in the last two days, there are many, many more who reflect those same sentiments. I know they have designated three to speak for the Neighborhood Association. But I know for each of those three, there's many more who feel the same way. And I do want them to know we appreciate that they have worked with us through the last six months to come up with this plan. As Mr. Walker mentioned, he probably has the most experience with parking in this area. he has pointed out that the access point we are proposing on our development plan is not a new access point it's the existing access point to that parking lot on the side and as he mentioned we we are having about seven more cars in that lot and i think when you see the fact we're losing five or six spaces in the free-for-all and gaining maybe one net space in the side yard at an existing access point that this will be a safe solution. In going to meetings with the Neighborhood Association over the last six months, I have heard those concerns about traffic on Aurora. I know they put up with backups of traffic from the elementary school in the area and other issues as well not relating to us. and we're very concerned that this cannot exacerbate neighborhood traffic problems. And as some of the witnesses have mentioned, they do have concerns about all our traffic having to go onto Aurora Avenue, whether it wants to go onto Walton or not. Under the plan that the staff is proposing a one-way traffic circulation, every car that goes to Blue Door would have to come out onto Aurora, even if it's just trying to get back to Walton Avenue. So we feel we have a safe solution to this. Oh, I wanted to mention, too, the parallel spaces in front of Mr. Schilling's offices would be used mainly for the employees there who would be used to parking there or for loading space for drop-off of shipments to the office building, and it enables the two-way traffic there. But overall, we do thank you. We have met the concerns of the staff except for that one issue. We are mindful of Place Builder. We've tried to follow that process and we tried to follow that to a solution, which we have, and we think we have a solution that is considerate of the neighborhood concerns is one that will work for us and allow blue door to expand and continue to thrive. So we thank you for hearing this. And if you all have any more questions, we'd be happy to answer them for you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. As far as opposition, uh miss luke do you have anything to add miss luke you can go ahead just all i would say uh mr chairman and commission members is that no one has a bigger stake in that intersection being safe than the people who live on aurora we drive through that intersection more than anyone and we're also great walkers in our neighborhood and we honestly think that our plan is safer for pedestrians than having the driveway cross the sidewalk on Aurora and if I could I know you guys I want to get out of here but I would really like to thank the staff we can't even be mad at them for recommending this condition because they've been so helpful so open and responsive and I'd also like to thank you all your volunteers who have taken on a really big important job um luckily you've got a really easy decision in front of you right now I hope and uh just hope this we can have our win-win-win thank you very much thank you Ms. Luck um planning staff rebuttal yes sir um just before you get to some of your questions i see a few people have some questions uh staff did want to make a few clarifications uh so in in regards to the conditional zoning restrictions that staff is recommending for this uh proposed zone change application because the zone change application is purely located on 706 aurora we cannot add by law conditional zoning restrictions to an already unrestricted site neighboring the property. That is not something that is of discussion for the zone change application today. So when it comes to something along the lines of a drive-through window or something similar, Ms. Luke is correct in the fact that if someone wanted to, they could try to put in some sort of drive-through facility on the front portion of the property, what is currently addressed to 6 Walton Avenue. That is very unlikely. I don't want to say that it's definitely not going to happen, but it's very unlikely by the imposition of the conditional zoning restrictions on this portion of the property. But that is a legal aspect of this, that we cannot restrict the use of an already unrestricted site that is zoned B1. Ms. Waite will also like to make a comment on some of the clarification on some of the things that have been said. Thank you, Hal. Just to add to Mr. Bailey's comment about conditional zoning restrictions, the only other way that commission can restrict the property is with a development plan note and that can apply to the entire site. So you could say okay, this is conditional zoning restrictions over here, but even the rest of the site, we don't want any drive-throughs. And I think, you know, he's correct, and traffic engineering certainly would back us up. It would be extremely difficult to get the five-car stacking that's required in our zoning ordinance on this small site for a drive-through. So logistically, it would just be really difficult to make that happen. In terms of Mr. Murphy's presentation, he mentioned that how they've made improvements on the development and to reduce the safety issues in the corner, the front corner of the lot. And certainly the government and the city appreciates that effort. It's our professional duty to the Planning Commission just to make our best recommendation. and in this case better is what the applicant has proposed and the staff believes best is the through movement so that's our professional recommendation traffic engineering is available via the teleconference to make comments or answer questions as well but that's I believe our rebuttal for today. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Thank you. At this point, I will close the hearing public aspect of it, except for any specific questions that a commission member may want to ask. Any questions for anyone at this point? Mr. Nickel. All right, I'll make this quick. Mr. Murphy, or I guess the engineer of the development plan, the existing access on Walton now is being improved with the new development plan in what way? Please describe the physical improvements. As we know, it's going to now serve us an extra seven cars. Well, I'll respond, and Steve Baker is here. He may want to respond in more detail. I think we are improving the apron, the access, the paving, and that sort of thing. So it's an easier way in and out of the parking area. What about width? It looks like you're improving the width as well. I think we're making a wider entrance. Steve, can you, Mr. Baker, can you confirm? Yes, that's correct. the existing entrance is approximately 16 17 feet wide and we're widening it to 24 feet very good thank you okay any other questions from the commission if it's mr wilson hi there yes sir you forgot about me huh uh no you wouldn't love it One question related to, I don't mean to prolong this, but what is Traffic Engineering saying about that? We have on the meeting today Deepika from Traffic Engineering. We will promote you to panelist now if there's something that you would like to say to that. Dr. Neil is also available. Well, all I'm asking is that what's traffic assessment of what the entry and exit point off of Walton, vis-a-vis entry and exit one way and then off Aurora. I mean, what's your... And Mr. Neal, if you would prefer to answer that, please just let us know by raising your hand and we'll move you in as well. Okay. Yeah, you can go ahead. We can hear you. Okay. So can you repeat the question? Could you repeat the question? Mr. Wilson, could you repeat your question, please? Yes, what I'm asking for is the assessment of traffic engineering related to the request of having an entry and exit point off of Walton, vis-a-vis having an exit point off of Walton and an exit point off of Aurora. What's the assessment? That we wanted to ask. Can you hear the question? Deepika, we are having trouble with your audio. We're going to promote Mr. Neal from Traffic Engineering and let him answer that question. Probably one entry. Wait on one. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Neal, you've been promoted to panelists. You can go ahead and unmute and speak. Okay, can you hear me? We can. Thank you. Okay, yes. I think Tracy kind of stated it the best. Our preference would be the one-way circulation from Walton to Aurora, but this is such an improvement. This is such a low generator of traffic. we shouldn't it's not going to be a big safety issue one way or the other one of our concerns was serving the the dumpster with this setup we're not sure how a dumpster can be serviced sorry I forgot to start my video all right so what you're saying is that the better is perfectly acceptable is that what you're saying the better solution which is entrance and egress from one access point on wall i'm saying that is it's such a low generator of traffic it's not a huge concern for us our preference would be the one-way circulation but this is an acceptable plan okay thank you Mr. Chairman, if I could say one other thing, just as a comment. First of all, let me applaud and really say I appreciate the applicant and the community getting together. When we put together this plan, this comprehensive plan, this is what we had in mind when we tried to put these working together with the applicant as well as the staff. And I appreciate the community's recognition of the fact that the staff has worked really hard on this and they've done everything that they could do to help accommodate their questions. Let me just simply say, and I'm not making a motion now, but I am, I think I am very much in favor of the proposal that the community and the applicant would agree to. And if there's an issue of simply a preference vis-a-vis statistical safety issues, I would go along with the community and the applicant as it relates to this particular project. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. That probably leads us into closing the public comment section and any comments from the commission before we get to a vote. Mr. Bell? Yeah, I'm sorry, but I can't help but just comment as well. It's the most refreshing conversation that I've heard in some time. And it's just so nice to see neighborhoods and everybody working together. I know staff, we all regard staff and their opinion very much, but it's actually the most refreshing experience that I've seen in some time. So I celebrate everybody working together. Thank you. Any other comments? If not, what I'll do, I'd just like to echo those sentiments. One, this was on our agenda prior to COVID, putting this in a delay mode for a while, and whether people remember or not, Really, I think this got postponed from that agenda because Mr. Murphy got sick. So one, I'm glad that you've recovered. I don't know if it was the delay with the illness or COVID that gave everybody a chance to work on this. But I must applaud what my other commission members have said as far as everyone working diligently on this. quite frankly I kind of like to be one way access in and out however you know there's been so much work on this the owners I kind of have a tendency to think usually the owners know what's going on and know what they need to operate successfully and you know I'm just going to applaud everyone for working on this very much. So if there's not any other comments I would close this and ask for a motion. Anyone? Mr. Wilson? Mr. Wilson, go ahead and take your hand off the speaker real quick. We can't get you that clearly. Okay. Is that better? Perfect. I'm sorry about that. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MAR20-1 shilling properties. With the conditions provided by staff except for the one, I am putting in my motion that we accept the revised development plan as presented by the applicant with a two-way entry, a one-way entry, one-way exit off of Walton Avenue. I appreciate that, Mr. Wilson. You're just a little bit ahead of yourself. We're just going to do the zone change for the moment. The rest of the time in second motion. Second. So motion has been made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Headley Bell for approval of shilling properties, which is plan MAR20-1, located at 706 Aurora Avenue for the reasons provided by staff. Mike, before you vote, I think we've left something out. Okay. could mr wilson's uh motion include a development plan note of no drive-through uh at this point we just need to talk about the zone change right i was gonna i was gonna put that in part of the motion don't change itself at this point uh so for the reasons provided by staff which is printed four reasons that include the conditional restrictions so motion is approved and seconded so all those in favor I'm going to show up hands please raise your hand that that passes unanimously and now for the development plan Mr. Wilson okay Mr. Chairman I would move for approval of the PLN MJDP 20-3 Morningside Edition the Blue Door Smokehouse expansion with the understanding that there would be no drive-through and that the development plan that is reflected would be the one that the applicant presented to us today with the entry exit off of Walton Avenue second okay motion has been made and seconded for approval of plan MJDP 20-3 mornings out addition uh the mr wilson the revised healy the revised conditions number seven indicates to revise the plan to depict one-way access i would presume you'd like to delete that uh yes i don't have that on my revised sheet so yes i would and then on number 11 the the reading is discussed place builder criteria i think we can resolve that if you're okay with that yes and second and do you want to add a note on no drive-through yes please okay so uh the motion uh is approval of plan mjd-3 made by mr bill wilson seconded by mr healy bell deleting uh these are revised conditions deleting number seven and changing number 11 to read resolve place builder criteria and then adding a number 12 denoting no drive-through access on the property okay so I need a show of hands all those in favor please raise your hand any opposed motion passes unanimously thank you thank everyone, African, neighbors, staff for working. As it was said, better versus best. That could be debated, but I think we're okay with this. Thank you. We will move on. We've got a couple other items. We do. We have a few text amendments. Yes sir. Yes ma'am. Okay, moving to page nine. Mr. Bailey has our first text amendment, and then Mr. Taylor has the second for you today. I seek to go quickly through this one, as you have heard it several times, and we have had no letters of objection or comments of objection for this ZODA. So if you bear with me, I'm going to share my screen. This is PLN ZODA-20-0001. I would point out that we have a change in the nomenclature with these just because we have added this as an Excel document. So we are now mimicking what we do for all of our other applications. This is an amendment to Article 23C-7C regarding the reallocation of exaction credits. Request to amend the LFUCG zoning ordinance was made by the Planning Commission by staff and was initiated by the Urban County Planning Commission on October 24, 2019. Article 23C for the expansion area development exactions was established to implement and facilitate orderly growth consistent with the expansion area master plan by assuring that new development activity is served by adequate public facilities and bears a proportionate share of the costs of improvement necessary to provide roads, parks, open space, and sanitary sewer. treatment, sanitary sewer transmission capacity, and stormwater management facilities in the expansion areas of Lexington, Fayette, Urban County. It is also there to mitigate the loss of our rural landscape in the expansion area by providing for an exaction for preservation of undeveloped land within the rural service area, in the vicinity of the expansion areas or of community-wide significance. Exactions are defined as a fee or land dedication in lieu of a fee and calculated based on the cost of capital improvements in reasonable relationship and in a proportionate share to new development activities, creating the need for such capital improvements. Section 23C-7 outlines the system improvements and the calculation of credits against exactions. Those improvements, costs, and credits are noted on the development plans and subdivision plats and are subsequently recorded in the EAMP database. Over the course of the exactions program, the developers have been able to reallocate applied exaction credits from one property to another. This has often created some of the issues that we are seeing with our accounting program, essentially creating a mismatched number at times and the need for further accounting and a little bit more examination of what has been done in the past. Additionally, once a PLAT or a development plan is recorded, it records those aspects of the agreement and the credits applied to certain areas. The allocation of the credits have often been reapplied or reallocated, and those development plans and subdivision flats become out of date. Staff is recommending a slight modification to the language that was originally initiated in the Planning Commission, which is in the current slide that you're seeing in front of you. It states that unless otherwise provided for in this article, credits shall only be applied against exactions due once. Exaction credits may only be reallocated subsequent to the recordation of an amended plaque or development plan that results in a lot or development reconfiguration. What you're seeing in front of you in this location with your staff report, it says lot or development reconfiguration. uh this is primarily again to make sure that our development plans and our subdivision plats are correct going forward and we have an appropriate uh information to afford for the accounting of all of these exaction credits staff is recommending improvement approval of the staff alternative for the following reasons uh the proposed text amendments will satisfy the intent of Article 23 by providing an accurate depiction of the improvements, costs, and credits associated with the development in the expansion areas. Additionally, the proposed text streamlines the government process, providing the public with the most accurate information on official documentation, those development plans and subdivision plans. With that, I am happy to answer any questions. I was muted. Probably best. Questions? Now, questions? No? Okay. Anyone else wish to speak on this subject? If not, I'll move on and ask, pose it and ask for a motion on this. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion for PLN ZOLTA-20-1, Part 2-23, Readication of Exaction Crits, as the staff recommends. Thank you. Motion's been made for approval by Mr. Forrester. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Bell. So, as for a vote, all those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We do have a second text amendment that we've seen for a little while. Mr. Bailey. That will actually not be me presenting today, sir. Mr. Christopher Taylor and Miss Valerie Friedman will be presenting on that. And now there's Mr. Taylor. Good afternoon. Move to another office, so go right ahead. And put a coat on. All right, can everybody see my screen okay? We can, thank you. All right. Stephanie, everything sound okay here? Sounds great. Okay, great. We'll go ahead and get started. This is a text amendment that we last brought to you back at your work session, I believe it was in January, related to an update to what we call or was called in our words the floor area ratio of our multifamily zones, our R3, our R4, and R5 zones. I'm going to go through a little bit of the history of our multifamily zones over the last 20, 30 years because it's important and there's a very important point to make in sort of the end of that discussion. But I want to go through it a little bit here. Throughout the 90s, most of our single family was still done in R1 zoning. Our multifamily zones were primarily the R3, R4, and R5. And so we took a look at how the zone changes applications have changed over those decades. Through the 90s, we had 122 zone changes that were for R3, R4, and R5. As you can see, almost 70% of them were for R3. In the early 90s, again, most of our single-family construction was still done in R1 because it was a known zoning classification and product to the market. And R3 worked as a primarily multifamily zone. And that was its intention. But R3, again, accommodates single-family detached, single-family attached townhouses, as well as multifamily. In the 2000s, from 2000 to 2009, we again had about 117 zone changes to R3, R4, R5. 77% of them were for R3. Very, very few sites used our R1 zoning, even for single family. R3 became very well known as an adaptable, flexible zone that could accommodate just about all of our housing types. again the map here sort of shows how that flip-flops between the last if you look here you see the majority of things were R1 with a little bit of R3 as we went forward you see a sort of a donut flipping inside out where R3 became the dominant form of a dominant zone for most of our residential needs and again R4 and R5 represented less than 22-23 percent of those zone changes up through the recession. And then from 2010 to 2019, we saw a precipitous decline in R3 applications and an increase in the R4 and R5. Again, by this time, R1 is largely an irrelevant zone for new zone changes. You'll see it in certain neighborhoods where there might be a remnant piece of land that's adjacent in an R1 zone, but R3 largely became the zone for single-family attached and some detached, but infill redevelopment became much more prevalent with R3, and that's where we started to see the struggle for R3 to keep up. There was a clear shift in multifamily for R4 and R5 across the community, but again, the big shift there is that big change in R3. And we began to notice that over the last year or two in terms of our pre-application meetings with applicants. And we'll get into here why that change in terms of applicants is significant. And so really what we started to look at with this change was where's the existing ordinance falling short? Again, our discussions with applicants indicated that the R3 zone was not a functioning zone for most of our residential applications. If they included anything above single family detached or if it was anything smaller than say 10 to 15 acres and again some of those factors again we're looking at some things that haven't that that are fixed uh points when it comes to developing land it's the lot size how big a parcel can you get again the land cost um and then a function of those two items is how many units do you need to make the development payoff given your lot size and given the cost of the land but the thing that is unchanging over time are those zoning restrictions and the first thing that applicants hit up against when it comes to our zoning ordinance there's a few big hurdles in the zoning ordinance that every application has to meet it's flurry ratio it's open space and it's your parking restrictions those three are sort of the big three that define how a site is going to be developed in terms of the design especially so but in almost all cases in r3 the very first thing that an applicant hits up against is the floor area ratio. And that's what I'm going to turn over to Valerie. I'm going to let Valerie Freeman go over through exactly what the floor area ratio is. I'm going to come back in just a minute and talk about the specific changes that we're recommending and we'll finish it up there. Hi everyone. It's nice to be with you this afternoon and like Mr. Taylor just said I'm going to give you a refresher on the floor area ratio and our existing standards because it has been a while since we last looked at this. The floor area ratio, we refer to that as FAR, it's the relationship between the square footage of the building and the square footage of the lot. So in other words, basically the FAR regulations tell you how much building you can create on a lot. So if you look at our examples down at the bottom, you'll see a building on the left that has a square footage that is equal to 25% of the lot. So that gives us an FAR 0.25, so on and so forth down the line. Let's look at this a little bit deeper and talk about how we calculate FAR. So like we said, FAR is the relationship between the square footage of the building and the square footage of the lot. We can think about it like this as an equation where FAR is equal to the total floor area. So that's the square feet of all floors of the building over the lot area. The zoning ordinance is going to specify for us what our maximum FAR is. It's going to do that by zone. And generally the lot area is a given, you know how big your lot is. And so what we end up solving for is X. So the FAR divided by, or the lot area times the FAR is going to give us the square footage of our building. It can be helpful to visualize this as well. So in this example, we see a lot outlined in red. It's divided into nine equal segments, and we have a building that's covering one of those segments. So in this example, we could say that the building is one over nine, which when you divide those things, gives you an FAR of 11, or excuse me, .11. Another example looks a little bit different. We have that same lot divided into nine sections. But in this case, we have a building that is completely filling in one of those sections, but it's nine stories tall. So that's going to give us a floor area of nine over that same size lot of nine. And that is going to give us an FAR of one. So here you can see two different examples, two very different FARs giving two different types of buildings. But it's not so simple. we can't talk about floor area ratio. We also have to talk about lot coverage. And we'll go into some more details about how our standards, our current standards look in regards to lot coverage. So lot coverage is the relationship between the ground floor area of the building and the area of the lot. So again, in our previous examples, we have two different FARs, one 0.11, an FAR of one. And in this example they're both covering the same amount of ground floor area even though one is much taller than the other. Now if we change the example on the left so that we have nine or we sort of take that building and expand it so that it covers up the entire lot, we see that we now have a lot coverage of 100%. So the takeaway here is that development scenarios that have the same FAR, but different lot coverages will produce varying types of development, for example, low-rise or high-rise buildings. So it's these two things working in concert with some other standards that really help define density. So let's take a look at our existing standards as they relate to floor area ratio. You can imagine these three lots, and these are imaginary lots that are 100 feet by 100 feet and we've just divided them up into four equal sections. So let's look at those in perspective. What we've done here is we've modeled how our FAR standards would produce buildings on these different lots. So the R3 current standard for FAR is 0.5. So here you can see we've got a building it takes up 50% of the lot. The R4 Our current standard for FAR is 0.7. So here you can see a building that takes up almost three quarters of the lot. And in R5, the current FAR is 1.3. So we have a building that is 130% the size of the lot. Obviously, you're not going to have a building hanging off the edge of a lot like that. So the first thing we have to do is kind of take that end and stack it up on top. So already we can see conditions starting to happen in the R5 where we're going to have multiple stories on this property. And then we have to start talking about our lot coverage requirements as well. So in the R3, the current lot coverage is 25%. So if I back up to the previous slide and you look at the R3, you can see there it's taking up 50% of the site. Now it's only covering 25% of the site. So it's grown into a two-story building. Similar with the R4, where the lot coverage is currently 30%, and in the R5, where the lot coverage is currently 35%. And then finally, setbacks do come into play as part of this, and so we've modeled those for you here on these abstract imaginary lots just to paint a more realistic picture of how floor area ratio and lot coverage combined with our setbacks give us the type of development that we have. And at this point, I will turn it back over to Mr. Taylor to finish things up. Thank you. Thank you, Valerie. This is a really important point right here. What you were looking at is sort of a sample small lot. You look at an R3, and you see two stories. Look at an R4, and you see three stories. And in an R5, our highest density residential zone, you see not even four stories. This comprehensive plan makes it pretty clear throughout all the place builder information. It's really a three-story development, can be contextually sensitive, and can work in just about any case. You can see with a two-story R3 building, you can clearly see why the R3 development doesn't work for a small lot infill project. By the time you add in the other standards that are required, R3 is essentially not a functional zone anymore. What we are recommending through the comprehensive plan deals with housing and infill and really pro-housing policies throughout. Our density policies 1 and 2 in theme A, our equity policies 1 and 2 in theme A, our livability policy 6 in theme C, our placemaking policy 2 in theme D, and three policies in our theme E on balance. Supporting missing middle housing in Lexington is something that if we're going to do it, it requires updating our zoning ordinance. if we want to make these zones useful for the next 30 years lifting some of the barriers to make them functional is a requirement three stories in r3 four stories in r4 and five stories in r5 is what we're shooting for does that mean that you could build more in certain situations it does if you have a much larger lot it does mean that you could do larger a higher higher building. On R3, you still have a lower height limit that's probably going to limit you to three stories, but at least they'll be able to get two three stories in just about all circumstances in an R3 zone. So what we're recommending is, again, a change. If you look here on the chart on the right, you'll see the existing FAR for R3 of 0.5 and coverage of 25%. There's no change recommended to the coverage, but what we are making is essentially a linear relationship between the lot coverage and the FAR in each of these zones. The FAR would be three times the lot coverage. Again, so you could do three stories. In the R4, we are recommending an increase from 30% to 40% allowable in the lot coverage. And again, a four times relationship in this case to a 1.6 FAR to allow four stories in some of our smaller lot infill. And again, in R5, the same thing, an increase from 35% to 45% with a five times relationship between the FAR and the lot coverage. to allow for five-story development. Now, and again, a lot of cases, there are still other restrictions that are going to apply here. By the time that you meet your lot coverage or parking in your open space, that can still constrain the lot. But in an application, the run in the middle of the application that we would see, the first thing that an applicant will hit will not be the FAR anymore. It means that the other things that are important on developing the site, the other restrictions of the ordinance are going to kick in before the FAR does. Again, this is a strategy that is led by the comprehensive plan. Imagine Lexington does lay out the necessary regulatory improvements that are needed for growing successful neighborhoods. Adjusting the allowable FAR is a very important first step. We are working on other text amendments that are going to look at other aspects, including contact sensitivity related to setbacks and height. our open space text amendment is we're working on that internally and we've already shared with you part of the parking text amendment that we're that we're working on but the one of the things I want to make it very clear is that this ordinance was created in in the early 1970s and it has not changed if you go back to the the originating document for R3 you'll see in R4 and five you'll see that the FARs and lot coverages have not changed since the mid-70s but there's one thing that has changed a lot and that is the cost of land and anybody that does development in this community can tell you that the average size and parcel that you're picking up to do development and the cost of that land nowhere near represent what the 1970s levels were when these lot coverages and FARs were introduced. You can see how over time as land becomes constrained and costs go up how the R3 and eventually the R4 will fall completely into an unusable state. I think we started to see that in terms of the zones that are being requested for residential development in Fayette County. But with that if anyone has any questions I'm gonna stop sharing my screen, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Chris. Questions for anyone on this? I'm looking around, man. There's only one here. Seeing none, I appreciate the work and And yeah, I think this is good. I'm just curious in 12 years being down here, why did it take you all this long for you to come up with a good definition that I can understand? We needed more talented staff to help us illustrate these points. Whoa. Oh, it does. It means not me. At any rate, thank you. um motion uh mr chair i believe we have a speaker yes i'm sorry i got ahead of myself someone like to speak um okay miss clark you'll be allowed to speak now go ahead hello i want to thank you all for working very hard on affordability of housing um i don't think that a text amendment for r3 is the right way to go with it I think it needs to be a map amendment. Your staff told you in work session that this particular text amendment is exclusively targeted to the central downtown area. And if you look at a zoning map, you will realize that that entire central downtown area, the residential part, is zoned either R3 or R4. This was an upzoning made at the time of the merged government. um what that means is that a great many uses uh that were single family even duplex um were up zoned to a multi-family situation um and they never availed themselves of that uh so in taking our three and four and now five as well and increasing the building allowed to those lots, what you're doing is you're enabling people to build even more incompatibly next to existing use that has been single family for generations. Effectively, if you look at the last of the slides that was shown you by Valerie, Ms. Treeman, effectively the standard for how much building you can put on the lot, the FAR standard for R3 is, if you'll pardon my saying so, upzoned. It's increased to what is currently the R4 standard. In fact, even a little higher. So what happens is you lose R3 as an option for low-density multifamily. I don't think that's a benefit. I think we need the tool of low-density multifamily to have genuinely mixed and varied housing. I think this ZODA is premature. You've learned that there are many more ZODAs down the road that will affect every other aspect of R3, R4, and R5. um why should we do the building area which affects the density radically before or separately from doing parking requirements open space um and uh the the several other aspects of the zone in fact apparently to come along later is changing the intent of the zone don't you begin with the intent of the zone. I would urge you not to approve the ZODA at this time. I think it's not respecting the existing use and promise of the residential land in the central city, and it's offering opportunity for extraordinarily out of context increases in sizes to buildings immediately adjacent. As far as affordability, I was trying to describe it to a friend the other day, and they said, it sounds affordable for the developer. You will, some of you have been following closely the Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force, and they talked about neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement, and they made a study of those. And exactly where this R3-4 zoning is that was instituted at the time of the merger are the areas that are seeing extraordinary foreclosures, a disinvestment, a loss of value, and having this instability in zoning is not going to promote the kind of renaissance we are seeing in the Duncan Park area, next to, you know, along 3rd Street on Ross Avenue, where settlers are moving in and making these places their homes. And they're tiny homes, they're cottage homes, they're homes that are suitable for seniors. They're a wide variety of housing. R3 is a great zone as it stands for cutting up a giant house that's too large for modern use into two or three apartments. If If R3 extends to allow this extraordinary building area, I think it's not going to be useful in introducing low density multifamily as it was actually the zone R3 was labeled low density at the time it was introduced at the time of the merged government. um i have a letter that i wanted to show you apparently i'm not allowed to show so i um i regret that i guess you'll receive it after your decision um please think twice about um doing this at this time without all the parts and pieces in place and please think carefully about whether a taxed amendment that is specifically targeted to a location that infill and redevelopment area in downtown isn't better introduced as a map amendment where you can say this patch of places is suitable for increased density this patch is not as a map amendment you can correct the zoning that was introduced at the time of the merged government and that density is welcome and where it's not. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay it looks like Ms. Rothmeier we're going to promote you to speak. Go ahead. Hello Chairman Owens, Commission members this is Brittany Rothmeier with Fade Alliance. I appreciate your time and I just wanted to speak briefly on behalf of the Alliance in support of the recommended changes to the zoning ordinance and I hope that you all received and were able to review our letter of support but these changes really thoughtfully recommended by planning staff we think work to acknowledge the barriers that developers do face in bringing good infill and redevelopment projects to the table and address them in an innovative way that creates opportunities for the type of density and growth that we imagined as a community with the 2018 comprehensive plan. Updating our ordinances to reflect our growth strategy has not been easy, and I applaud planning for addressing the floor area ratio requirements, as well as acknowledging that other changes related to these amendments will be coming down the pike in a strategic way. I think it's really important that we remember that we can't let perfect be the enemy of good, And these are the types of changes that we need to make and that will make our growth strategy a success for our city's future. Fade Alliance supports these changes and respectfully recommends approval of the same as we feel these updates to our regulatory framework really paved the way for innovative and sustainable growth in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Looks like we also have Mr. Murphy who would like to speak. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy, go ahead. mr murphy you should be able to take yourself off mute and speak now okay good can you all hear me yes we can thank you okay thank you we i'm not representing anybody chris clinden is here with me we just wanted to express our support for the staff proposal. I think that has, this has been discussed since the comp plan was adopted and it's a way of accommodating the additional population that will be living within the urban service area during the planning period. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Anyone else? Ms. Cunningham. No, sir. I see no other hands. Okay. Mr. Taylor, any sort of rebuttal briefly? No, sir, unless you all have any questions. Questions from the commission? Seeing none, I'll close this part of it and open it up for any discussion among commission members and or a motion. If you're ready to go forward. Mr. Neckle. well if there is no discussion i can go forward with a uh motion i think or does anyone want to discuss i think we're ready okay i would like to make a motion to approve pln zoda 20-0002 amendment to article 8 of the zoning ordinance to modify the allowable floria ratio and lot coverage in the planned neighborhood residential high density residential and the high-rise department zones. Second. Thank you. Motion's been made by Mr. Nickel and seconded by Mr. DeMoblin for approval of Plan Zota 20-2 Article 8 to floor area ratio updates for R3, R4, and R5 zones for the reasons recommended by staff. As for show of hands, all those in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Seeing none, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. So we move to commission items. Commission items from anyone? Let me, let me offer this. I know Patrick has left us, Karen has left us, and I'm about ready to leave you. After 12 years, I really appreciate the staff, the various commission members. I don't know. I'm thinking there's 27 or 28 all total that I've served with over the years. I referred to them once as suits. I appreciate the attorneys and all the applicants that did come down and speak to us and presented to us over the years. Citizens, we can't do anything without them. We need them very much. And the best thing of all, I think we saw it as an example today with the shilling property, whereas we had the applicant working with the citizens and neighbors very well and doing it with placeholder so I think you know we're on the road and good things are to come so I'd like to thank everyone in in front of the camera behind the cameras for making this work for me for 12 years so thank you anything else Mike? Yes. Yes, sir. Well, being as you declared yourself null and void after today, I just feel that I have to say, and I hope I'm saying this for the rest of the commission, I think I am, when you came down here 12 years ago, you became vested in this process, and not only did you serve it twice as chair but you put everything you had into it good better and different you're the example of what we'd like to have on the Planning Commission and I for one want to salute you for your contributions and let you know that you have made a difference and we appreciate thank you I have to say that came very good mentor of mine so thank you very much anyone else anything else we can move on mr wilson i'm gonna call a parliamentary tech you see your term officially ends june the 30th as a commission member but your term as chair does not officially end until july the ninth that means you got to come back for at least one more meeting Or the vice chair can chair the meeting. Oh, be quiet, Tracy. I've got him on the run here. She's right about that. If you just hand the bow out and what have you. But I just want to say, Mike, it's been a pleasure working with you also. And I thank you for mentoring me. You, along with Frank and other members of the committee, mentored me through my chairmanship. And I was privileged to support you and your chair, the twice chair. And I thank you for your leadership And I thank you for your vision And I thank you most importantly for your friendship Thank you very much Thank you, thank you So Staff items Mr. Duncan Thank you Mr. Chair I have three quick things If you all can stick with us for just a few more minutes I know it's been a long day First I want to remind you all That we picked this up again a week from today With the committee meeting on July the 2nd, and we'll be doing it in the same format that we did in June through the Zoom format. So I look forward to joining you all electronically next week. Secondly, like Mike said, I want to thank all of the staff that has made these meetings possible. It has really taken a Herculean effort from LexTV and from several members of our own staff. We've got a control room where Mike is right now. You can't see it, but we have three other staff members in there with computers who are keeping this going for us. So thank you to our staff who have worked very hard to keep us moving on this. You all are ahead. The Planning Commission's ahead. We're getting development going again, and today I think shows that that we advanced housing and commercial development and updates to the zoning ordinance all in one swoop, and so we've made great strides today, we'll do so again in July and get back on track. And then third, I want to say also to the chair and to the two members who have left us already for the day, Patrick and Karen, together, the three of you have given 32 years of service to this planning commission. And that is significant that that shows an incredible commitment on your part, loyalty to this community, a willingness to learn and participate in trainings and practically every Thursday for 32 years, that is an unprecedented commitment on your part. And so on behalf of the staff, let me say thank you to the chair, to Patrick and to Karen for all of your contributions, for all of your love of this community and for working with us, for making us better as staff and professionals and for your friendship and your professionalism as well. We will miss you, and we invite you to come back and visit with us at any time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So, thank you. So, Bruce, Feedly, Larry, see what you've got to look forward to? I'm just taking notes. So, anyway, anything else? If not, I'll declare this meeting adjourned, and thank you very much. Thank you. I have a question. Are we going to get together for a cocktail or what? Did that ever get any legs? I don't know what he's talking about. Yes, they're already gathering. They are already gathering. Thank you for getting our broadcast now.