It's a lot that goes on on a daily basis, I'm sure. Oh, yes, sir. Well, I appreciate that service very much. I'm really excited what's going on here, though. I mean, this is a grand old fire station that I remember, unfortunately, being built, however many years ago that was. And it just really was kind of a neighborhood station. But what area does this station serve generally? Station 9 serves the Richmond Road corridor. Primarily it goes inbound to approximately Midland and Woodland. All right. And then it goes all the way out to Hayes Boulevard and beyond. Wow. So it covers a wide berth. It also covers all the way over to Alumni Drive and Woodhill, Codell, all the way over to Liberty Road. So it's a good. That's a big bouquet. It's a good chunk of land. How busy does it stay? This is one of our rescue companies. Okay. So it's a specialty house. So the engine company alone stays pretty significantly busy, but it also houses an ambulance. It's one of the 12 frontline ambulances that we have in the fire department that make 911 emergency responses. And so our EMS numbers across the city average around 40,000. Our community paramedicine program is helping to reduce those. Great program. So useful. Yep. Very incredible program, actually. Yes, sir. And so we're hoping to continue to grow that to help alleviate some of the. I think the council supports that. The administration too, for that matter. Yep. And so we're hoping to alleviate some of the workload on the ambulances. And that community paramedicine program is actually doing well in doing that. So, you know, side note, really glad to hear. I mean, that's really great stuff. I mean, those are things that have come online and become very useful and make a difference on a daily basis. Yes, sir. So here, you're kind of going to the next level, you know, you're remodeling. We have a small remodel job going on. But we were talking, this is the only infrastructure job anywhere in the county related to the fire department. So we're glad to have that in the Pitt District, everybody. Woo-hoo! So what is going on exactly? So what exactly is going on is we are essentially expanding the fire station in order to not only meet the needs of the PSSI study that was done in 2014. That's the Public Safety Solutions Incorporated study that was done department-wide. And as you can see behind you, we have one of our specialty trailers. It's our dive rescue trailer. And so it's currently sitting outside. It is secure, but it is currently sitting outside. And so the primary goal that was identified in the PSSI study was to not only get that inside and get it out of the elements, but that would allow the equipment to last longer. Oh, no, that's been one of the things we've battled over the years is just getting roofs over stuff. Right. Okay, good afternoon, everyone. It is now 1.30, July 23rd, 2020. We're in the Irving County Planning Commission Zoning Items Public Hearing Meeting. I'm going to call this meeting to order. And first thing on the docket is to read over the statement from the governor's office. And it reads as follows. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 by the Governor on March 31, 2020 and Attorney General 20-05 in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. Got that out the way. Okay. Number two on our agenda item is the approval of minutes. Commission members should have received those minutes via email. We're needing a motion for those approvals. So we have a motion by Ms. Plumlee. We have a second. Thank you, Chair. Move approval June 25th, 2020 minutes. All right. And we have a second by Mr. Pohl. We got a motion and a second. All in favor, raise your hands. Thank you. Now, I think, Chairman, Mr. Davis and Ms. Meyer, did you abstain since you weren't present at that meeting? Thank you. That's what I took. Sorry. All right. Next up, do we have any postponements and or withdrawals? I see Mr. Brandon Gross has his hand raised. Okay. Mr. Gross, we're allowing you to speak now if you'd like to go ahead. Thank you. Welcome, everybody. This is for item number one. Pardon me a little second. Page four, GPLLC, and it is matter of PLN. MAR20-02. We would like postponement to the commission's August 27th meeting. We've had lots of meetings with the neighbors. We've submitted some new materials to staff, and hopefully we'll be meeting with them early next week to discuss the plan. We do not plan to go through the tech review committee next week, but we do plan to go through the zoning and subdivision committees early next month. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Do we have any questions for Mr. Gross with his request for a postponement? PLN MAR-20-00002. Hearing none, do we have a motion for the postponement request? okay mr wilson yes uh mr chairman i move that we postpone pln mar 20-2 judy llc for what is it one how many how much time do they need uh the 20 is it the 27th of august okay okay postpone until the 27th of august Great. We have a motion and a second by Mr. DeMolden. All in favor, raise your hand. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll see you guys in a couple weeks. Thank you. All right. Don't see any further postponements or withdrawals. We will move on now to the agenda items. First one up is the on page two final subdivision plan PLN FRP-19-0005 Crossroads Christian Church. And staff is up for their presentation. Thank you. We are currently sharing our screen. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The plan that you see before you today is a final record plat. It is back before you for reapproval. This is property that you can see that is located out on Todd's Road next to the Todd's Road Christian or Baptist Church. It is a subdivision of the property to allow the transfer of the lot to the east of the church that you can see. Let's see here in this location, as well as a second lot in this location. They, excuse me, this plan is subject to an approved development plan, and I would like to point out one important difference with what you're looking at here as opposed to the final record plat. There's actually no street to be built, and these lots are not a part of this plat. What's actually happening is they are creating these lots, this lot right here, out of a parent tract. They're actually only subdividing this part off of the parent tract. I believe we may have inadvertently loaded the preliminary subdivision plan as opposed to the final record plat. But again, the final record plat is a re-approval. It had a waiver associated with it. You may recall this discussion with the final development plan, and that is for the sewer. They are now and you approved this amended development plan where there were apartment buildings, not single family lots. There's going to be a pump station in this location for the for the sewer. So they are going to coordinate, and this is not uncommon, their infrastructure, their sewer, in this particular instance, with the overall development of the property. And again, you all have approved that development plan, which governs the property. Now, this proposed lot in this location is an agricultural lot. It is nonconforming but legal, and it has to have a septic tank. And there will be no permits issued on this property unless and until a septic tank is approved for this. So, again, they are requesting approval subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda. And, again, this is actually the preliminary subdivision plan that shows these lots and not the actual final record plan, which, again, doesn't include this street. I just wanted to clarify that for you. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Mr. Martin, the final record plat is development plan or final record plat PDF is in the Google Drive for the commission members if you want to view that directly. And it does show again, as you mentioned, this parcel just being subdivided into two from one to two. It's not on your PowerPoint presentation, but it is in the Google Drive. There we go. that's the apparent track. Well again I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Okay don't have any public comments so we have a hand raised. I would like to hear from the the applicant sir yes okay mr. Kaley we're going to promote you to panelists now if you can go ahead and unmute and show your video please mr. chairman members playing commission Rory Kaley VA partners we are in agreement with the conditions for re-approval and request your approval Thank you. Thank you, Roy. Okay, any questions for the applicant? Hearing none, we'll obtain a motion for this extension request. All right, we have Ms. Carolyn Plumney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. delivery approval of PLN FRP 19-5 Crossroads Christian Church. We have a motion. We have a second. Second, Mr. Paul, I see you. Graham? No problem. Got a motion and a second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. As have it. Motion is approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Okay. Okay, next up on the agenda items, the development plan. This is PLN MJDP-20-0012. We have a revised recommendation, which is located in the Google Drive. The staff is going to begin their presentation. Thank you. Thank you. I'm still adjusting to my new eyes here, apparently. Again, this is Major Development Plan 20-12, Hoover and Philpott Evangelistic Association property, also known as the Fountains at Palomar. This is an amended to the previous development plan approved by this body. You can see the colored area with the red buildings and the parking all through here. This is the area of the amendment. You had previously approved a hotel in this area. Again, here we have Manowar and Harrisburg Road. This is your main entrance into the development. This is this location. There is a write-in, write-out off of a man of war and an access easement to the interior that serves the development. Now, the purpose of this amendment is to modify the buildings and the parking layout in this area. The total square footage affected by this amendment is 31,543 square feet. There are 240 parking spaces, as you can see through here, that are associated with this amendment. Here we have a single-use restaurant, a multi-tenant building, another single-use restaurant. and there's a bank by the way listed here and this original amendment did not include this lot they added it because it addressed some concerns staff had with cross movement and access through this area and between these lots and again you can see a large parking lot in this area. These buildings appear to be primarily placeholders to staff and I'm sure the applicant could elaborate on that. The plan was originally postponed because of the notification requirement for the neighborhood which has been met. There has been a neighborhood meeting. That information is available to you and I might add there are revised conditions that you'll find in your Google Drive under this plan. Again, Major Development Plan 20-12, Hoover and Philpot. So the applicant and the staff during the postponement period had several lengthy conversations about some of the concerns on the plan. They did submit a revision early in the process that you see before you today that addressed many, many of the concerns and conditions that staff originally had. Much of which just arise from the fact that this is a large plan. There are a lot of notes, so there's a lot of circumstances that govern this plan, not the least of which, as you all are aware, are access and landscaping and some other issues on this particular plan. Now, staff, again, having had very productive talks with the applicant, is offering you revised, the Planning Commission, revised conditions. They are standard sign-offs. we do want to resolve the location of a multi-use trail within the harrodsburg along the harrodsburg frontage there's been some discussion about whether or not the right-of-way has room for a multi-use trail standard sidewalk that sort of thing the whole point is to help facilitate the trail facilities in this area. We do believe that will easily be resolved. There is another item, which is the timing of easement modifications on a final record plat. They have filed a final record plat to subdivide parts of this property. There are easement conflicts. There's some in this area. There's some through here. Again, this is a large site with a lot going on and a lot of information, and it's going to be necessary for them to resolve these easement conflicts before they can actually construct some of the buildings and parking lots that you see on this particular development plan. Again, staff just likes to have that timing addressed. And then there were several notes originally that we wanted to discuss with them and their compliance. Again, as I stated, there's a large number of notes that govern this particular development. There is one in particular that we want to continue to discuss at the time of the building permit, and that's facades. And you all may recall when this plan first came through, there was a tremendous discussion about its presentation along these right-of-ways. And this area played into that, as well as enhanced landscaping that the applicant agreed to, particularly along Harrodsburg Road, where they agreed to enhance landscaping in this area, again, to help mitigate the impact of development on the right-of-way. So as a part of that, they agreed to address some facade elements in the proposed buildings. So again, that is one note that we'll have to resolve with the applicant. A second note that remains to be resolved on this particular plan is actually related to the easement conflicts that I've outlined for you previously. And again, that's a matter of addressing that through the appropriate time and the appropriate mechanism, which, as I stated, there's a final record plat that's been filed on this property, and that plat can certainly address those easements. And with that, the staff is recommending approval of this amended final development plan to the Planning Commission. I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. I don't see any hands raised right now. May have one later. We'll come back to you. I think we have the applicant, Bruce Simpson. Okay. Mr. Simpson, we're going to promote you to panelists now. You can go ahead and show your video and unmute, please. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Bruce Simpson on behalf of the applicant. As Tom indicated, we have had a number of discussions with the staff about the proposed amendments. And as you also know, this is an ongoing process. These development plans, particularly of a commercial nature, in which they undergo many levels of review. They will go, this plan will undergo another level of review after Ural's review today in terms of the staff. But in terms of the issues that need to be resolved before Ural's consideration and approval today, we've met those concerns on behalf of the staff. We've met with the neighbors. We've had, for those of you who have been on the commission for some length of time, and in my experience we've met with with the surrounding neighborhoods on this case more so than any other case I've ever been involved in and and that's been quite frankly a tip of the hat to my clients who who early on wanted to develop an outreach with the neighborhood to inform them well in advance months in advance of even even filing the rezoning application to inform them about the proposal, respond to questions, and we've had a very healthy, ongoing relationship with the neighborhood. As you know, we had a significant amount of neighborhood approval during the zoning phase of this and subsequent development plans, so the neighbors are well informed. We had a Zoom-type meeting a couple of weeks ago where we gave them a heads up about what was going to be discussed at today's meeting. We will continue that. And we've also been already started on off-site stormwater improvements for a number of the houses in the glades, which has kind of evolved in a kind of a retirement community, if you will. A number of off-site improvements to stormwater management, which weren't of our creation, They weren't even a creation of the church property that we purchased. They were the creation of really development that was not properly checked many, many years ago, in which stormwater was damaging a number of houses. And we'd offered in the course of our rezoning and also our request for TIF approval to remediate those off-site stormwater problems. And we have met with many of the residents a number of times to work out plans to get that done. It is part of our commitment with our tax increment financing, as well as the shared use trail that Tom mentioned. Those are commitments in writing. The shared use trail extends along the front of our property and also across the street at Palomar Shopping Center, which of course is already zoned, developed for many, many years. but room was also provided for the extension of a shared use trail along that side of the property should should the government ever want to put that that trail in in the event that the trail could not be located in a very significant state right of way that parallels Harrisburg Road so we have set aside months ago actually more than a year ago room for that that shared use trail on our property in the event that the state had a problem with the shared use trail in the right-of-way and with that I'll be happy to respond any questions we certainly feel we've answered all the staff's concerns and and we're prepared to go forward with the next level of review and hopefully get this project on the way. It's been slow and going because of COVID, of course. And so we're hopeful now that we can at least be in a position when the economy brightens up a little bit to move forward. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time from the commission? Okay. I propose it out to the public. Is there anyone that wants to speak on behalf of this application? There's a hand raised. Mr. Chair, we have a hand raised for Jay Hahn. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and allow you to speak now, Mr. Hahn. You can go ahead. Hi. Mr. Commissioner and planning staff. I just want to second what Bruce Simpson said. I'm one of the residents who's been watching this whole process closely and been collaborating with them. And I'm one of the people whose water drainage problems they're helping resolve. So I hope you just approve this and this can move ahead as quickly as possible. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. We don't see anyone else. Okay. All righty. We'll bring it back to the commission and we need a motion for an approval on moving forward with this application today. Mr. Chair? Yes. I'll move for approval of PLNMJDP 2012 Hoover and Philpott with the, is it 13 conditions? Now, you're going to use the revised staff recommendation. It's on your Google Drive. I have 13. Yes. Yeah, we didn't renumber them, but you're right. One through 10. 13. And there's 14, 16, and 19. Yes, sir. Okay, we have a motion. I have a second by Mr. Polk. All in favor, raise your hand. All right, as have it. Is that? Everyone. It's unanimous. It's unanimous. Thank you, Bruce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. All right. Okay. Next up, we have PLNMJDP-20-00031, Hamburg East. We have three action items on this one today, revised recommendation. We will also have a EAMP report done by Mr. Tom Martin and also an access easement that we need findings for. And staff is up with a presentation. And these are also on your Google Drive for everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Again, the next item on your agenda is Major Development Plan 20-31. It is Hamburg East Baptist Health Care Campus. And as the chairman has reported to you, there are three actionable items, and they are very much interrelated to the entire development and the plan that you see before you today. And again, this is the Hamburg East area for the Baptist Health Care, as I stated. This is Polo Club in this location. I-75 is in this location to the north. Cabela's is in this direction, on your plan. And then Winchester Road and the Calgill Development is in this direction at this location. As you all recall, when this plan was originally presented to you as a preliminary development plan and amended, we had access points in this location and this location. They are to be full signalized access locations into the property. The property will be served by a network that you can see of curving streets. This is a nice boulevard up through here. This is the main boulevard into the central area of the campus. This street system is one of the subjects that need to be acted on today, and that they are proposing a private access easement street system to serve the entire development. Now, the development itself at this time is a phased development, and you're looking at phased development on what is in effect Lot 1 in this location. now the entire development is over 147 acres this particular area for development is approximately 73 acres out of that total they're proposing at this time and this in these blue areas over over 370,000 in fact 378,000 square feet this is a multi-story medical facility This is their plant, their energy plant. This is a heliport right here at this location. Now, you can see all the associated parking. There is a large amount of parking. There's over 1,400 spaces. These are surface sites, are surface spaces that they are preparing to build with phase one. In the future, with additional phases, there will be structures, parking structures, and buildings that will occupy much of this space. And then, of course, over time, we anticipate we'll see lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 develop. Now, again, this was one of those items that staff has worked closely with the applicant. And they have addressed, again, many of our concerns, many of the conditions. The one important condition that is on your revised report is to note the access configuration to Polo Club in this area. And this is connected to the proposed road that will connect Sir Barton Way on the west side of the interstate to this property, to Polo Club Boulevard. Now, it's going to involve this property and the adjoining property. And we are just proposing that that be addressed at the time that either lot two or three be developed. And this is just to be sure that we get the appropriate reservation, if necessary, for the street alignment. But most importantly, that we get the correct access, design, and point to Polo Club. As you may recall, Polo Club has pre-established access points per a previous final development plan. Now, the other reason for postponement was the tree canopy and the tree protection plan in particular. And I want to point out, and I haven't at this point, this is a large greenway area in this location. And of course, it flows on under and out in these creeks. This is the Brighton Tributary. this this uh this is a significant very significant aspect of this site is the greenway as it is within your your eamp greenways as you know are a very important aspect with that now again staff has worked with the applicant we have a revised plan it uh does require that you make a finding that it complies with the eamp and so we have reviewed their statements which have been provided to you in the Google Drive. There is an EAMP report. Again, you'll find it under Major Development Plan 20-31 Hamburg East, along with their statement. Now, in terms of EAMP compliance, in reviewing this plan, as you all are aware, the EAMP addresses infrastructure and addresses community design and future land use criteria. Well, this land is zoned ED, which is in compliance with the AMP land use recommendations for this area. You all are aware that this land and the adjoining property are all ED land, and that is consistent with the EAMP recommendations. In addition, the development that you see before you and the layout, the use, certainly the medical campus, is an allowable use under the zone and within the recommendations of the EAMP. And again, as I pointed out, they have a local street system, and you can see coming in, they're utilizing traffic circles in these areas, and this demonstrates a requirement of the EAMP that ties together the entire development and then brings it out to the collector streets. Polo Club is, of course, an EMP-exactable item. It has been constructed, and the collector streets are considered to be one of the primary elements, again, that ties together the development of our expansion area. And that's back to the greenway. These two, the greenways, not only are they stormwater facilities, they are an integral design element that ties together our expansion area. And in reviewing the plan that you see before you, the staff does find that they meet the design elements as required under the AMP. The infrastructure, there's only one required infrastructure element, and that is this detention area. And it too will be an exactable feature. It's part of the overall stormwater plan. Polo Club, as I stated, has been built. The sewer system and a large trunk sewer line, as well as the pump station, have been completed. So all the major infrastructure requirements under the A&P have been constructed in this area. So this plan does comply with the infrastructure element. Now, the one small concern, I say small, in reality, it actually was a considerable concern to the staff initially, was the tree protection plan. and we felt that it was not adequate because the tree inventory demonstrated there were a lot of large trees on this site and there were a lot of significant trees by species on this site and a lot of people believe that our tree ordinance article 26 only addresses size you try to save the big trees, the beautiful old nice trees, and it does, but it also specifies numerous species that are native to this area and native again to Kentucky in this area, and a particular concern to the staff was an area here where the energy plant needs to go, and there was a small grove of coffee trees and some other trees, including a couple of fairly large trees in this area identified on the plan. And by the way, there's a bit of a drainage area that you can see through here. In addition, they were proposing to protect only one major tree initially. This is a chinkapin oak in this area, and it's extremely large, about 55 inches in diameter. As a result of discussions with the staff and a revised plan, they identified a sycamore in this area, which is a nice design feature and it's 61 inches in circumference just a beautiful large sycamore now they are proposing to protect trees along the fence line uh where they can unfortunately the fence line was dominated by a lot of ash trees and as you're all aware we're losing our ash trees so they can't really protect those but there are areas along this fence row property line as it were that they are going to protect trees. As I stated, they're protecting the sycamore, the chinkapin. And then up in this area, there's a grove of trees. And there were several large trees and also another grove of a species that staff felt were significant. Well, again, the ordinance stated were significant, that they're going to be able to protect. But that left another area. This area is an area of concern and that there are a considerable amount of trees, another small grove of trees in this area. And again, isolated, very large. Here and there, some very nice large trees that have grown over the years. So with this area and this area being a concern, staff entered into a mitigation discussion with the applicant. And they were very cooperative even thought that was a very, very doable solution was to address this. Now, I will say, they're not going to have a canopy shortage. Their landscaping plan shows trees planted all along their street system and all around and through the boulevard and then along the arterial. Article 18 requires a lot of buffering. There's going to be a lot of trees. So again, this isn't really a matter of a canopy problem. It was more an issue about significant trees and significant species. So staff in reviewing the AMP is recommending approval of the finding that they do comply, but we are also recommending that they work with the urban forester to plant some additional riparian species in this area to enhance this greenway. And as I stated, the greenways are integral to the AMP. So we believe that that is something that they can work out with a forester. We use the word, if you notice the condition, reasonable. And we mean that as it sounds. Just a reasonable plan to plant some additional riparian trees in appropriate locations in the appropriate relationships to enhance this greenway. And I might add one thing I left off in our discussion is that they have a pedestrian system, and you can see it all through the development. They are going to be building sidewalks and a system, a pedestrian system, throughout this development. And that is also an integral part of the design requirements of the EMP. Staff has made one small recommendation and we've timed it to the development of lot six up here that you see this this trail portion that comes down to the greenway which is which will allow people to walk down and enjoy this area. Staff thinks it might be or not might be staff thinks it's a good idea to provide a trail all the way along the greenway and then tie it back into the system. And again, we think this could be timed with lot six because they don't know yet what's going to happen on lot six, which is up here, of course, kind of out of the way and in the corner. But again, they have been amenable to working with staff on these issues. There is one other actionable item that has been brought to your attention today, which again, these private street systems are going to be access easements. And here again, all through here. For that reason, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to make a finding that these access easements will serve in lieu of public or private streets. The applicant is going to build these to very stringent standards. They're going to exceed public streets in some circumstances, but they're going to have flexibility to adjust these streets to somewhat lesser standards if necessary in terms of width and the cross section, again, to enhance their overall design and to be consistent with the overall campus, medical campus design. And this will also facilitate their control of the street system, which I think Staff does agree that makes perfectly good sense with a large institution. If they be able to control the street system, they'll have to maintain it, etc. It will not, they will not be public streets. It will not be maintained by the public. So in that regard, we think that this system they're proposing is consistent, not only with the AMP in terms of compliance, but we also make a recommendation to this body that you make a finding in support of the access. I know that's a lot of information that I just threw at you, but I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Ms. Meyer? We have two questions here. Bruce, we'll get you next. My question is, who oversees that the trees that have been identified as being salvageable, savable, who oversees that that does indeed happen? The urban forest. I'm curious because I've seen plans where I thought trees were going to be saved and they got bulldozed down. So I just, I wondered if, you know, what, what vehicle was in place to protect these trees. And they will be denoted on the plan to be protected in these areas to be protected. So that, that makes it more enforceable as it were. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. Oh yes. Mr. Martin, just procedurally. if we make a motion to when the time comes where do you add the finding and support of the access easements is that added to your all's recommendation as let's say number 14 or how do we do this it's a separate item that requires your action of finding okay well i'll need help on that Yeah, you'll have three motions. Okay, thank you. Okay. Anyone else have any questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you. Hearing none, we'll head over to the applicant. Okay, we have two hands raised currently. If you're with the applicant's team, if you could go ahead, please, and raise your hand. Mr. Hill, you're being promoted to panelist, and Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. Bender Saunders. Welcome, please show your video and unmute. You can go ahead. Thank you all. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Baptist Health Lexington. Brian Hill and his CMW team are also here if anyone has any questions on this development. We are in complete agreement with the staff and request approval of the submitted final development plan based on their conditions and recommendations. I do want to provide just a moment and I do need just a minute of context regarding the proposed note that is added by the staff to be placed on the development plan. There were kind of two thoughts that we wanted to make sure that both the applicant and the staff wanted to make sure it was very clear moving forward. that the possibility of a road connecting Sir Barton to Polo Club and tunneling under the interstate is a possibility. And that path likely falls on this property in the approximate location we are kind of showing on this plan, but the state is still designing that road. And secondly, that the future development of lots two and three isn't developed or isn't dependent on the road actually existed. We don't believe a third access point onto Polo Club is necessary for these two lots to develop. And this was probably done out of an abundance of caution, but I don't think anyone actually believes that these two lots had to remain empty if that connection road never actually existed. But we thought just to make sure everybody was clear, let's go ahead and get it on the record. Let's go ahead and make sure there's a note on the development plan that ensures that as this property develops as this road is designed everyone remembers that this road is still a possibility so with that I just want to say thank you all for your time and thank the staff for their hard work on this one this is a great development for Lexington we're really looking forward to going in and getting started so we'd ask for your approval based on staff's conditions Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, hearing none, or seeing none, do we have anyone out from the community that wants to speak on behalf of this application today? Mr. Chair, I don't see any hands raised, but we do have two phone callers, if we could check in with them. Yes. First, the caller from phone number 859-396-3089. We're allowing you to speak now. If you could let us know your name and which case you're interested in, please. Hi, this is Adam Bender Saunders from CMW. I'm here on behalf of Baptist Health. Okay, thank you very much, Adam. and next phone number 859-421-0884 we're allowing you to speak now if you could let us know who you are and what case you're here for please. Trace this is Brian. Brian Hill. It was a backup just because I was having kind of an issue making sure I was on so I've got to do it. Sorry about that. That's fine. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. You are muted. Okay. We didn't have any hands raised to speak on behalf of this application. That's commission members. Do you have any further questions for staff or the applicant at this time? If you do not, then we will entertain a motion. Okay, Mr. Nickel. You go ahead. I've seen the ground. Go ahead. Okay, I'm going to try to do this properly. It looks like we have three motions. The first motion, I would like to make a motion to approve PLN MJDP 20-0031 Hamburg East Baptist health care campus with the staff's recommendations of approval and 13 conditions. All right we have a motion we have a second we have a second from Mr. DeMolden. All in favor raise your hand. Okay, that's unanimous. Mr. Penn, I can't see your hand. You got your hand there. There you go. Thank you. How are you doing, dude? All right. So that motion is passed. Yes, Mr. Nickel? Okay. I would like to make another motion. This is a motion for approval of the EAMP compliance report, PLN-MJDP-20-00031 Hamburg East Baptist Healthcare Campus, citing the staff's document that we're looking at here on Google Drive. We have a motion. We have a second to that motion. Okay. Mr. Pohl, thank you. We got a motion and a second. All in favor, raise your hand. All right. Got you. Got you. Okay. Any opposed? Mr. Davis, did you four? Okay, then it's unanimous. Yes, sir. Sorry. No problem. No problem. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Nichols, we got one more for the access easement. Okay. I would like to make the motion to I guess initiate a finding or show us a finding that um or approve a finding that the plan is in support of the access easements i think i don't know how are we supposed to do that the planning that the planning commission is supporting the use of that okay well i'd like to make a motion that the planning committee is making a finding in support of the use of the excess easements. We have just changed committee to commission. Commission. All right. Thank you. And we have a second. Got a motion in a second. Please raise your hand in favor. Unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Thank you all so much. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Okay. All right. Next up, we're on zoning items. And as we previously stated, the first zoning item was postponed to the August 27th meeting. And we will move down to the second zoning item, which is CLNMAR-20-0008. And we do have Ms. Winters will be speaking in opposition to this, and she has been granted 30 minutes just to get that on the table. And we do have two action items if we get to that point, which is an revised plan and a preliminary development plan. And staff is up for their presentation. Great. Thank you very much, members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. We will be starting our discussion today with a review of the zone change PLN MAR 20-00008 Centennial American Properties. The applicant is requesting a zone change for the subject property located at 109 Sand Lake Drive, the rear portion, from a highway service business B3 zone to a wholesale and warehousing business B4 zone for 2.02 net and gross acres. The applicant is seeking to develop a three-story climate-controlled self-storage warehouse and associated office and retail space at this location. The applicant proposes no exterior storage and no exterior access to individual storage units. This is moving towards the interior self-storage units that are climatized. All access will be from the interior in which the applicant is showing a drive lane, which actually comes into the building. And then individuals are able to drop off their goods, take it up an elevator through a hallway and to their individual storage unit. The applicant has indicated that they are not proposing security fencing and that they are seeking to match the architecture with the surrounding uses. Now, I will say that previously this application had a requested variance. That variance was the distance between a residential zone and an overhead door associated with wholesale and warehousing. that request was for a reduction of 72 feet, so down to 28 feet from 100 feet. With the modifications that the applicant has made to their building, they have rescinded or withdrawn that request for a variance, and they have worked their site so that it works a little bit better with the topography and adds a bit more buffering. So going to the site itself, and if you'll bear with me. I'll pull up my annotate tools. We are located close to the intersection of Man of War, which extends up this way, and Richmond Road. The Sand Lake Drive actually comes in off of Richmond Road and extends over to South Eagle Creek Drive, which is on the other side of the development. You can see just with an idea of what you're looking at with the zoning around here, you're seeing an awful lot of business zoning up along Richmond Road and then a step back into more of the residential zoning as we move away from this corridor or major arterial roadway of Richmond Road. Just pulling in a little closer to this zoning of the subject property, the property is located within that B3 or Highway Service business zone. It was rezoned in 2005 to allow for the construction of what is the CarMax lot over on this side, you'll get a better view of how this site kind of fits into what's around there as we move to the aerial photography. But from what you can see here, there is a fair amount of residential zoning as you move south and east of the subject property. We have a bit of R3 zoning, Planned Neighborhood Residential, which is primarily dedicated to some apartments over in this area and townhomes right adjacent to the subject property. I will point out you see that this long piece of R3 right here you'll see in the aerial that is parking for the townhomes. Just below the proposed or the subject property we have a section of R2 zoning. While this is R2 zoning or the two family residential zone the vast majority of houses along Lake Wales Drive and Lake Wales Court local roads are single-family detached homes. We do also have a bit of R1T located in this area for townhomes, and then the R1D located in this area here and here. Just going to the aerial, this gives you a better idea of how this site is oriented. Over time, you have seen the construction of single-family houses, 1950s and 60s over here, and then into the 1970s as we move over to this location. As time has gone by, this highway service business zone along Richmond Road has developed to support the traveling public, which is largely the historic context of the B3 zone. You can see we have some fast casual restaurants up at the front, and then a fair amount of auto sales. So right here we have the CarMax and then we get over into the Don Franklin development of various different dealers in this location. With this application, this gives us a better view into the site itself. So as you can see, if we're looking at this photo in your top left, This is Sand Lake Drive leading into the site. You can see this would be towards Richmond Road this way. And then as we would go to Eagle Creek Drive over here, this actually looks in from the front portion of the property that is not being rezoned all the way to the back portion. So if you can look at this, this wall right here is associated with the CarMax. That is about the rear of the property. It extends just a bit further back to the tree line. But that gives you an idea of what hasn't been constructed to this point. And then looking down Sand Lake Drive in towards the CarMax development. Here we get the view across the property, which we're looking at some of those fast casual restaurants. And then for our purposes, this is a great view of the surrounding development at an angle. So you can see that parking associated with the townhomes located here. And you can also see how close a lot of these single family residences are to the rear of the property line here. That's something to be discussed as we move forward with the intensity associated with the potential of an upzoning to the B4 zone. Next, we go and look at the subject property a little bit more from the Lake Wales Court side and Lake Wales Drive, in which we're looking at that cul-de-sac that is ending into the property. It's heavily vegetated at this location. Into the rear of the property that's neighboring the property to the river. This gives us a view of the grade change from Lake Wales Drive down into the subject property in the area of rezoning. I do want to point out that while we are at a high point here, it does drop off down to about 10 feet. If we go back to this portion, we see the grade change here in which it's dropping from Lake Wales Court down into the site. There is a bit of a grade change as you are moving to the southeast of the subject property towards those townhomes in this location. So and then this just gives you a great view of just that intersection of Lake Wales Drive and Lake Wales Court, in which it is a primarily single-family detached residences with kind of a large setback and just gives you a feeling of the nature of that residential development. Next, with any application, we must review the submitted material by the applicant and how they are meeting the comprehensive plan. With the 2018 comprehensive plan, we get a bit of a better way of narrowing down potential uses and potential kind of conformity with the already built form in the area. But this application, the applicant is requesting a zone change within the corridor place type. This is within Lexington's major roadways focused on commerce and transportation. The overriding emphasis of Imagine Lexington is to significantly overhaul and intensify these cords. Now, this could be to accommodate increased housing or different models of retail and different land uses. Since this is located really facing Richmond Road, staff thought and agreed with the applicant that this would be an appropriate place type for the subject problem. Additionally, the applicant has placed their medium density non-residential development type for this. Now, I do want to stress, while it does say medium density non-residential slash mixed use, it does not require something to be mixed use to be part of this development type. Mixed use zones can also be something that's more horizontal rather than just vertical. So within this, this is focused on providing community service, commercial uses, services, places of employment, and or a mix of mid-rise structures with a higher floor area ratio. Within all of our corridors, we are really trying to utilize a lot of that land at an intense and higher use of that area. Now, whenever we look at these applications, we then have to look at the proposed zones. In this case, the applicant is not choosing one of the recommended zones from this section of the comprehensive plan. Now, that does not mean that what they are asking for is outside of the comprehensive plan. it is noted in several areas that zones for this place type are not limited to the listed zones other zones can be considered with proper justification this is largely attached to the shift from a map-based plan to a policy-based plan that we uh that occurred in 2013 and we're carrying through to the current 2018 comprehensive plan furthermore the place builder includes a list of ideal zoning categories to develop a particular place type, but provided there is an appropriate justification addressing the criteria, other zones can be considered. With that in mind, the applicant did go through and address many of the medium density non-residential slash mixed use development criteria for this application. Staff reviewed many of these things, and during the the zoning and the subdivision meetings or committee meetings, staff went through and highlighted a lot of areas that we were concerned with. The primary area of concern for staff with this application really was focused on theme A, goal 2B, which was how is this going to fit within the context of the current built environment, which is that highway business zone or those highway businesses, your car lots, your restaurants, and the like, and transition from that to the residential development. So with that, staff has to look at the types of zoning that is being requested compared to what is already established and really the nature of that area. The B4 zone is really intended for wholesale warehousing, storage operations, and the establishment and establishment suits activity is the same general character as the above. Whereas the highway service business zone, the B3 zone, is intended to provide retail and other uses, which are necessary for economic vitality of the community, but may be inappropriate for other zones. So more of those auto-focused or car-centric kind of uses that we see, the drive-through restaurants, something that is going to be pulling a greater amount of the traveling public into resale operations. Now, in both cases, the comprehensive plan should be used to determine the appropriate locations for this zone. And staff believes that with the place builder application or the place builder element of the comprehensive plan, the applicant is able to try to get into how are these situating into the current built environment and addressing real needs between two different zones or different construction areas. So, when looking at these two zones, it's really important to look at a few different aspects of them. The regulation differences between the two. If you look at the two that I have side by side, these go through the various different setbacks, side restrictions, and then some of the usable open space limitations. for this zone of the B3 currently and the B4 as proposed by the applicant, the real difference comes with minimum lot frontage and minimum front yard. In the minimum lot frontage for the B4 zone, there is no limitation. This is largely to allow for access easements to be utilized to get people into the rear of properties so that they can have these B4 or these warehousing buildings set a little further back than on just right on a roadway. The minimum front yard, there's no limitation except for in Section 8-21, which goes through a few other aspects of this. Now, with the B3, the difference there is there is a required minimum lot frontage of 40 feet and a minimum side yard or front yard, sorry, of 20 feet. Now, for this location, the applicant and Ms. Ed will go through a lot of the development plan here shortly, and I don't want to rain on her parade, so I'm going to not pull that up. But for this application, they are really trying to situate the proposed B4 zone at the rear of the property, almost buffering against some of those B3 uses. Along with the regulation differences, we do need to look at the use differences. The B4 zone is comprised of 27 principal primary uses with 10 accessory uses and seven conditional uses. This zone is meant for a slightly higher intensity use focused on the storage of materials and in some cases the creation of potential light, air, and noise nuisances. nuisances. Those three aspects of this are really important for staff to look at and an applicant to look at when they are trying to situate something like a B4 zone or a warehousing zone up against residential. Additionally, the B3 zone has 30 principal primary uses, 11 of which are accessory. One of those accessory uses is the wholesale warehouse and storage facility, and then 13 conditional uses. Now, this zone is heavily focused on the traveling public with retail and service uses. So this zone is not without its own nuisance creation, especially with the flow of traffic. However, it is not at the same level of the potential light, air, and noise nuisances associated with the B4 zone. So with that, the applicant has submitted some conditional zoning restrictions associated with their application. This includes what you're seeing in front of you. I'm not going to read those off because I will go through them with the findings at the end. However, these are use prohibitions at this listed out here. These are within the B4 zone. And then further, the applicant is suggesting or indicating that they will not have any outdoor storage and all access should be done from the interior. Again, that is a use conditional zoning restriction. Next, staff looked at those conditional zoning restrictions and determined that for this to work, especially with its location next to the residential, there needed to be further restrictions. Staff is recommending the prohibition of establishments and lots for the display, rental, sale, and repair of farm equipment, contractor equipment, automobiles, trucks, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, motorcycles, or boats or supplies for such items in this area. Now, that is specifically because this area is so heavily dominated by the car retail and the car sales at this kind of area. If you go from the CarMax over to the various different manufacturers off to the east, it makes up or comprises a large portion of that frontage. And staff would like to see a buffer between some of those establishments for the sale of automobiles and residential. They are not great to be situated right next to each other. Additionally, staff is recommending that there shall be no exterior lighting greater than 10 feet in height along the building that is adjacent to the residential zoning. This is specifically to cut down on some of those light nuisances within the area. Now, this is specifically important to just cap it off at 10 feet. Now, we talked about a bit of the change in the grade change with the rear. With that grade change, this light should not affect some of those single-family households that are so close to the property line. We really wanted to make sure that there was no real impact there. On the side that is along the side of the townhomes, there is both the treed area that is located there and that parking area that is between the potential rezoning and the townhomes themselves. Stats thought that this distance, which is approximately 90 feet from the building to the next building that is residential, and this 10-foot requirement is enough for that location. Finally, staff recommends that there shall be a 20-foot landscape buffer adjacent to all residential zoning. This again should cut down on some of the impact of a building like this. so just to get another idea of this i do want to point out so these are the areas that staff is truly concerned about with the buffering requirements light and tree and then staff is a little concerned and trying or seeking to buffer against the continuation or the abutment of uses similar to what you're seeing here and here up against these residential dwelling units So with that, staff is recommending approval at this time to the requested wholesale and warehouse business zone, as it is in agreement with the comprehensive plans, goals, and objectives for the following reasons. The proposed rezoning allows for the redevelopment of vacant parcels of land at a higher intensity, theme A, goal 2A. The proposed development provides a well-designed neighborhood, theme A, goal 3, by providing safe connections to surrounding businesses and activating the street frontage. Now, before we move on with that, I will note that the application that was submitted, the justification, harps on the ability to bring individuals from a bus stop on Richmond Road into this development. Now, that safe movement of people, that comprehensive kind of pedestrian focus is not totally reflected currently on the development plan. For this to proceed, the applicant will have to show us with both their phase one and phase two development where those pedestrian facilities will be located. And Ms. Hedge will go into that a little bit more with her review. The proposed development will promote, maintain, and expand the urban forest, theme A-Goal 3D, by increasing the tree canopy coverage, while also maintaining the established tree line along the rear and the side of the property. The proposed rezoning will also assist in the maintenance of the urban service area concept, theme E-Goal 1, by allowing for greater density of business use, And by maximizing development, that FAR bringing it up on a corridor, on a vacant parcel of land in a manner that enhances the existing urban form, the E-Goal 1-D. The justification and the corollary development plan are in agreement with the policies and the development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning meets the criteria for site design, building form, and location as it creates a business development that supports pedestrian mobility while also providing cross-access between businesses. The proposed rezoning includes safe facilities for potential users by promoting or prioritizing multimodal connections and increasing pedestrian facilities at this location. These improvements address the transportation and pedestrian connectivity development criteria. Finally, the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it works with the current landscape and limits the impact on the surrounding environment. As we discussed previously, under the provisions of Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance, we are able, or the Planning Commission is able, to impose conditional zoning restrictions at this site. Staff is recommending that you prohibit those uses that the applicant submitted, as well as the establishments and lots for the display, rental sale, and repair of farm equipment, contractor equipment, automobiles, etc. Additionally, staff is recommending that there be no exterior lighting greater than 10 feet, and that there be a 20-foot landscape buffer between the residential zoning and this proposed development. This recommendation is subject to the approval of PLN MJDP 20-21 Sand Lake and Estes Properties, Lot 2, Section 2 as amended, which Ms. Edge will come and discuss here in a second. But I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have regarding this zone change at this time. And I'll stop share so that I can see you. You can see me a little bit better. yeah hell i have one question what's the buffer behind the car max so currently and i'll share that uh my screen again and go back to the aerial photography so right now there is a bit of a buffer located here however that is largely associated with a retaining wall. During a lot of the early discussions of this, it was hoped that there could have been some sort of connection back into the neighborhood. There was a determination at that time that both individuals from the neighborhood and the developers weren't really interested in having that connection. During the development of this property, and there's a great view of this in some of our pictures. You can see here there is that large retaining wall that extends across here and you can see it a bit there. In all likelihood the applicant is going to have to look at doing something similar just to make sure that there is no impact on those surrounding properties. But that is what has been developed as almost a buffer between the two uses. Staff would rather see landscaping, some better kind of practice in this area, which is why we're recommending that conditional zoning restriction. Okay. Mr. Bailey, I got a question for you. Okay. The CarMax is in a B3 zone, correct? That is correct. Okay, and so what you're looking, what the applicant is looking to do is to go from the zone change from B3 to B4, but exclude some of the allowed B3 uses, which is the CARMAX, because you think that's, the staff believes that that's, I guess, more burdensome to the neighbors? Is that the conclusion there? So with the reduction of the uses as proposed by the applicant and then also added on by the staff, staff actually sees this as a decrease in the intensity of the uses that are available at this site. Currently, the B3 zoning is not restricted in any way. So all of the available 20 principal primary uses are available to the applicant within reason. There are some of the uses that are on there that would not work for any type of application because of distance requirements to residential structures. But staff is really focused with this application to bring down the intensity of uses so that this before use would be able to buffer between some of those higher intensity B3 uses, which are very auto-centric, and the neighborhoods behind them. Thank you. That's counterintuitive because we're up zoning, but reducing the intensity of the use. Correct. And you're doing that in deference to the neighbors to make sure that the product that's put there is less intrusive. So that's interesting. Thank you. I say staff. The applicant had submitted those conditional zoning restrictions. Staff added three, the two buffering and then the one which prohibited the establishments for car sales. Okay, because we've seen quite a few of these recently over the past couple of years. This is another interesting case. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Bo? Can you hear me? Yes, sir. So I'm having trouble understanding the nature of the retaining wall. Um, the, my understanding is that the grade drops away from the residences. Is that correct? That is correct. It's generally the lots about 10 feet lower than the elevation of the residences. Yes, sir. So, uh, the appearance of the retaining wall on the CarMax lot is that it is up above the elevation that the, uh, that, uh, the subject lot, where the subject lot sits. So could you explain, you said that they will probably need to have a retaining wall. Could you explain how that would work? Well, and staff isn't sure, and they're going to have to get into this with engineering at the time of the final development plan. Staff would rather not have to have something like that, especially since staff is recommending that 20-foot landscape buffer. However, during the rezoning and then the final development plan of the neighboring property associated with CARMAX, initially they said, we don't need a retaining wall. As time went on and engineering looked at it, there were a few other things that needed to be reviewed on the site. They realized they did need a retaining wall for this portion. There is an element of that that staff would like to avoid for this as it would modify some of the natural features over there. However, we are trying to push for that with that 20-foot landscape buffer at the rear of that property. Does that answer your question, sir? Because if it does not, I can also call in someone that has a greater depth of knowledge in fact that they have dealt with it in the past. So just if you could clarify one thing for me, the photo that shows the notice of zoning change, and you can see in the background that white retaining wall. Yes, sir. I guess that retaining wall is there to allow for the cul-de-sac to sit at the right elevation for the residences that it serves. Is that correct? That is correct, as well as to not impact this property here. You can see that the retaining wall extends back over this way and is also supporting. I mean, this would be a fairly steep drop-off and could result in some issues of erosion on this side if it was not located there. But this is largely for that cul-de-sac. And does staff have access to a plan with contour elevations? Yes, sir, we do. with any development plan that is submitted. It does have a requirement of having that. And while many of our color-ups don't show that, you should be able to find the non-colored up version in your Google Drive. If it is not there, I can jump in there and add that to it. I guess the question that I would have is that is the 20-foot setback that you're recommending, was that developed with an eye to the contra elevations? It was at the time that we were looking at this. No, sir, it was not. So that is something that we can discuss going forward. And there can be a discussion of this again, if this should go forward at the time of final development. Thank you. Questions? Any further questions for staff? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. How in the 20-foot landscape buffer are you suggesting that there be plantings or what would be in that buffer, not just plain green space? So with any zone change that is going to a greater intensity zone like this, there would be the property perimeter screening requirements, which would include trees or the planting of trees. The applicant has also submitted a landscape plan or a tree inventory map associated with the landscape plan, which they are looking to do a cluster of trees at the rear of that property right near the cul-de-sac. that would transition to the established tree line and create more of a continuous buffer along those residential areas. Staff's biggest concern with a lot of this is the maintenance of those trees that are already established on that zone line and then the meeting of the perimeter property screening requirements. Adding trees in those locations, especially within that 20-foot buffer, would be great, but staff is really trying to focus on protecting mature trees. One more question. Without seeing the development plan, how many feet would it be from the property line to the building? Do you have any insight? So there's actually two different measurements that I can give you. It's approximately 40 feet. If you look at, I'm going to share my screen again, just so that you have an idea of what I'm describing. and Ms. Hedge can also show a fair amount of this with her presentation but if you look at the proposed building location the distance from the building to the closest R2 zone property zone line is approximately 40 feet and the distance from the R3 property over on this side is approximately 50 or 60 feet. Then we could get into the distance to from building to building and if we do that it's approximately 60 feet from the building that's proposed to any of the R2 zoned houses approximately 90 feet from the proposed building to any of the town. Thank you. I don't see any other hands raised now. Great. Thank you very much. I'm going to hand it over to Ms. Hedge and throw my mask on. And if you'll bear with me, I just need to move our PowerPoint along. And adjust my glasses so I can see. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. So the development plan is MJDP-20-21. There is an updated staff report for this plan, and that is located in the Google Drive. Okay, so here's our development plan. The proposed storage building that we've been talking about is in red. The applicant did submit a revised plan last week on July 17th, and staff is now recommending approval of this plan based on that. we've had a number of cleanup conditions addressed by the applicant and we also have a few new conditions that have been added so the first few conditions are just our standard sign-offs I do want to point out number one obviously this is dependent upon the rezoning of the property going to be for. Item number seven, we're asking that the proposed limits for phase one and phase two be denoted on the face of the plan. So phase one is just going to be this proposed storage facility that we're talking about today. And then phase two will be these two additional buildings on the lot. We just need those two phases denoted more clearly on the plan. Item number eight is regarding the access easement that's on lot two. That needs to be recorded prior to the final development plan being approved and that easement is up here. And that condition has been on this from the beginning item number nine we have our first discussion item regarding the access easement from lake wales drive cul-de-sac which is down to here up to the subject property so there is a pedestrian access easement that is shown on final record plat n-641 that pedestrian access easement It was actually approved by the Planning Commission back in 2010. And it was recommended that a staircase coming off of the cul-de-sac going into the property be built. Well, that has not been built yet. So we are hoping that that can be addressed with this plan. So that is a discussion item. Number 10, we are asking that the pedestrian connectivity to the subject property be denoted for phase one and phase two. So the applicant has informed us that they are going to have some of the pedestrian connectivity addressed just with phase one. So the proposed storage facility and then the rest of the connectivity addressed with phase two. But we need to have that spelled out and noted on the plan as far as what is going to be added at what time, at which phase. And then, of course, we're also concerned about the location of the dumpster being in the way of pedestrian access. So that's on this proposed future building. The dumpster location is a little problematic there. It looks like it's in the pedestrian walkway. And then finally condition 11 is just that the place builder criteria can be resolved. You know based on what Hal has just discussed we believe that the criteria has been addressed with this revised plan. And with that I'll open up to the Commission for any questions. And let me stop sharing my screen. Questions for staff? I just got one point of clarity. The Zip request, is that for the entire parcel or for just the back portion that we saw the development plan in red on? I wasn't quite sure, Hal, what your presentation showed compared to what we just learned. Sure. With the aerial photography, you could see there was that little box that I showed on my presentation before Lauren got to this one. And this is the area of rezoning. The applicant is seeking to maintain this portion as a B3 zone. and then this is a different address lot. So it would only be the rear portion of this lot that is covered. Okay, that's what I thought. I just want to make sure. Thank you. Any hands raised? Thank you, staff. And we'll move on to the applicant. With the applicant's team, we ask that you raise your hand electronically, please. Mr. Murphy, we're promoting you now. Mr. Glenn, Mr. Anderson. And the user who is logged in with the Zoom address, we're going to go ahead and promote you as well. I'll get your hand up. Go ahead and start your video and begin your presentation, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy, and I'm going to turn down my volume so I don't get a feedback here. As a result of my adventure last week where I had choppy video, I'm using two computers. I'm using one for video and one for my presentation, so hopefully that'll work out better today. Can everybody hear me okay? Thank you. Okay, I'm pleased today to be representing Centennial American Properties. If Brody Glenn is here, Brody, who's one of the principals, and had to leave to a meeting, Brody wanted to speak for a few minutes because he's got to leave. So, Brody, I'm going to turn it over to you. Brody is the principal in Centennial American Properties. He's former chairman of the Greenville, South Carolina Planning Commission. Brody. Hey, thank you. Thank you, Dick. And guys, I apologize. I've got a meeting. I've got a meeting at 3 that I just can't move, and so I'm going to go a little bit out of order. But I just wanted to be able to take a minute to talk. There was a lot of comments. If I can get back on, I will. the letter that we received from Ms. Winters there was some discussion about demand in the trade area there's also discussion about traffic were really the two highlights that I saw as far as demand goes in that trade area the demand is certainly there there's a transition right now in self-storage from the old facilities that we're all familiar with that are mostly in industrial areas. The majority of those facilities have non-climate control. And people learn that if you're going to store items that you want to keep in non-climate control units, then if they're there for any period of time, then they're probably not going to last unless they're products that are made for outside. And so there's been a big movement with density and flexibility and the people moving around the U.S. to climate control storage. There is, you know, most of the facilities that are in the trade area are older. There is a brand new facility that is just up the road, Citadel Self Storage. They are not exactly what we do, but certainly closer to the older ones. But competition is good for everybody, including the consumers. I've looked at their rates as of today. Their rates are well above the national averages. And then in a three-mile radius, the average occupancy for the storage facilities, both climate and non-climate, excluding the Citadel where they just started leasing, is over 93%. The city of Lexington has more storage per, has more square feet per person than the national average. But with that, the occupancies are still above 90%. So that's a long answer for we're putting, you know, making a $10 million plus or minus investment. into this property. We have done our research. We're doing these all over the country, and we are quite comfortable that the demand is there, or you can count on we would not be making this investment. From a land planning standpoint, you all heard me say it with our other projects, we understand that from a building size and scope, our building is fairly large, but from an intensity standpoint, it's not. We've done all we can to screen in the rear or the south of the building and also in the east or the left of the building towards the townhomes, and we'll continue to do that and work with staff to make sure all that's done. So from a traffic standpoint, we probably generate less traffic than any use in C3. We certainly create less traffic than any use that I've dealt with. we create about 16 trips peak hour per day to give you an idea of Walgreens. Average Walgreens would create between 130 and 150 trips during peak hour. So I don't think traffic, drive-thrus, those kind of things as far as people driving from neighborhoods will be an issue. Demand certainly an issue we wouldn't be making. We think this will be the best store in Lexington. and from a buffer standpoint we will do the buffers make sure that the residences are protected and we'll do a project that hopefully all of us will be proud to have been involved in so once again I apologize for having to jump but just wanted to say those couple things and y'all are in good hands with Dick and Dennis and the team. Thank you very much I'm going to go on and and and tell you a little bit more about the property. Brody, thank you for being here. Appreciate the Planning Commission letting us take you out of order. He did need to show you that there is a great demand for this here in Lexington, even though I think that's really irrelevant. We're talking about land use today, not about competition with other areas. As you all know, this property was zoned about 15 years ago, 2005. Our neighbors, our dominant neighbors, are the Don Franklin Auto Mall, which is nearby, and also the CarMax, which is directly next door to us. This is a view of CarMax, which is directly next door to us. You can see the height and bulk of that building. We are, our other neighbors in the front are a number of fast food restaurants, Jets Pizza, City Barbecue, Firehouse Subs, Axby's Chicken, and AutoZone. We have, as I said, CarMax, and we have behind us, we have three single-family detached houses on Lake Wales Court. and to the side of us we have about 19 rental townhomes along South Eagle Creek Drive. We have constructed a number of other facilities. Our Centennial has. As you know, you have approved two others up in Townley and in Eastland in the last two months. And I'll show you a couple examples of finished projects that Centennial has done. First one is you can see I do this so you can see the nature of the building. It's a very attractive building. There's no chain link fence around it. There's no outdoor storage of boats or recreational vehicles or cars or trucks. There's no outdoor storage at all. There is no outdoor entrance into this, as Hal mentioned to you. They enter through one door, which is a quiet overhead door. It makes no more noise than a residential garage door does. The garage door closes. People unload their car and put it on an elevator and take it up to their climate-controlled unit. I want to give you two other examples of facilities that they have built and are under construction or finished. Just to show you. You want to share your screen? Are you intending to share your screen? I am. Are we getting a picture of this on here now? I'm unable to see it. We are able to see the screen on our end. Okay. We can't see it, so I was just questioning. Okay. Yeah, we can see it. Okay, good. This is another example of one that is completed. You see the windows and the architecture use of brick on this one. And I'll show you a final one here, which is another example of one that they have built. I think this one is in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I show you these to show you that these are not what I think of as self-storage. This is not the one that has a bunch of one-story garage doors where people pull up their car or truck and open their drawer and load and unload. These are very attractive buildings, much like a hotel building. and use of windows and our, we feel, very attractive buildings. I want to show you our site plan and get to where we are today here. I'm first going to show you the 2016 development plan for the property. Now, I have a pointer here. I want to show you what's approved for this B3 area. Here's Richmond Road. I'm using my pointer to show. Here's Manowar Boulevard. And this is Sand Lake Drive coming on in. This is a busy plan. This was when the auto zone was built out at Richmond Road. They had to amend the development plan. But here are the two commercial buildings, which we show on our plan, which you saw when this hedge showed you the development plan. I want to emphasize these two buildings remain. Yes. You have a pointer because we're not able to see. Can you see my pointer here? No, I cannot. I think you're looking at the wrong computer when you're doing that. Oh, yeah. OK. Can you see it now? See the little. I have jury rigged the system together and I've confused myself. So I apologize. Here's Richmond Road with a little hand on there. Here's Manowar Boulevard. And here's Sand Lake Drive. Here are the two commercial buildings. This is the 2016 approved development plan. As you know, we're showing those on our current plan. And I want to emphasize this area is not part of the zone change. It stays B3. There have been comments that, well, we're taking away commercial area for the neighborhood. We are not. This is staying here just as it was approved in 2016. The only change we're having is this back building. Now, this back building is shown on this plan. It's very difficult to read, but the label here is three-story hotel. As you can see, it's a three-story building about the same width as the building we proposed. Our building from the last window you saw is very similar in architectural style to a hotel. And the difference is here, though. This hotel has parking right up against the common line with the townhomes, and it has parking in the rear. We do not have any parking on the sides toward the residential units on our plan. Now, Dennis Anderson's preferred use has always been to have a hotel on here. He has had two hotel developers enter into letters of intent with him, signed letters of intent to build a hotel, causing him to take the property off the market while they did their due diligence. This was before the COVID-19 situation. Unfortunately, in both cases, the hotel developers withdrew after doing their due diligence. So we have to go back and say, well, if we're not going to have a hotel, and I don't think we will after COVID-19, the question is now, can the existing hotels stay in business? But with that absent a hotel here, what is the best possible use? And we feel very strongly that the best possible use is the self-storage facility, which we have shown you. This is our current development plan. This is the version of the plan, which shows the trees. Again, here is Sand Lake Drive coming in. Here's Richmond Road. Here's Malawar Boulevard. and here are the two commercial buildings which I mentioned this area is not being rezoned to be three and here is our self-storage facility indoor self-storage facility and you can see our trees we agree with the staff conditions about our landscape areas we're showing some on here the staff has proposed some a little wider we're we're fine with that you can see we have no parking to the rear I like our entrance ray. We have redone the building since you originally saw it. It has a notch in here. So a car will drive in and turn in at the notch, and the notch will shield other uses from headlights and noise coming in. Come in in the door here, enter the building, unload. They will exit here toward CarMax and come back out. We will take care of the easement out. Initially, it will be here. But once these phase two buildings are built, our pedestrian access will be between the two buildings once it's built in phase two. So that's where our pedestrian access will go. So I do want to talk a little bit about the uses on the property. Again, we feel very strongly this is the best use of the property. It's very similar to a hotel building, except there's much less noise, activity, and traffic involved with the self-storage than there is with a hotel. But I do want to show you what the uses allowed in the B3 zone are. And I'll put the schedule sheet from the zoning ordinance up. You can see the top uses in B3 are number one is car lots. Number two is service stations. Number three is restaurants and cocktail lounges. Four is car washes. Five is hotel or motel. And then we have indoor uses, laundries, athletic clubs, parking lots. I do want to note that even in B3, the first listed accessory use is wholesale warehouse and storage facilities, even in the current side. We are a principal use, though. To get a principal use, we need to go to the B4. But my point is that what use is this going to be made to this property if it remains B3? Well, I think you can see what the main uses in B3 are. There are car lots or truck lots or whatever, or service stations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, car washes, and then motel or hotel, which unfortunately won't go there. We feel that the enclosed self-storage facility is a much better use given the fact we have residential uses on two sides. We feel we can buffer those uses from the existing car lots. We feel we will introduce less traffic, less noise, less activity than any of these uses that I gave you on here, whether it be a fast food restaurant or whether it be a cocktail lounge or a car wash or general retail, we will be introducing less traffic in there and we will have a building which will have much the same impact as a hotel. I do want to point out to you too the grade situation. I know we had some questions about that and we wanted to talk a little bit about that. I'm going to show just a couple pictures of the surrounding area. This first one is looking. We're standing at the back of our property. This tree line is the line where we adjoined the rental townhomes along South Eagle Creek Drive. There, the parking lot for the townhomes is on the other side of the streamline. You can see we're looking out. That's the building across on the other side of Richmond Road. The next slide I'm going to show you is the This is on the other side of that tree line I just showed you. This is the parking lot for the townhomes. Here's the tree line I just showed you from the other side. Here's the parking lot for the townhomes, which, as Mr. Bailey mentioned, increases the distance of our buildings to the townhomes, which are over on the other side. The next slide I'll pull up is, these are to give you an idea of the grade situation. The first one I'm going to show you is we're standing about on Sand Lake Drive, looking back through the property right here. And back up here, that is a car, I believe, that is on Lake Wales Drive. But you can see how high the grade goes. And my next slide illustrates that just a little better than where we are. This one is taken from the side. On this one, we're standing behind where our building is going to be. We're looking over toward Lake Wales Drive, there's that car again parked. And over here we have the single family homes on Lake Wales Court behind this tree line. But you can see the grade. Here's the CarMax parking lot. The retaining wall is about there, I guess. And you can see the car with the scale of the car. You can see what the grade is. Now, our grade is not as big as that. Mr. Pohl, you asked if we were going to need a retaining wall on our property. We do not plan to have a retaining wall. We don't think one will be needed. We think we can accommodate that without a retaining wall. I guess we'll obviously have to make that decision on the final development plan stage, but we don't feel we'll need a retaining wall on the property. But the point of that is that if we're in the houses behind here on Lake Wales Court, our building is going to appear to be more like a two-story building than a three-story building because of the grade situation. We're going to be lower, anywhere from 8 to 12 feet lower on this side of the tree line than the Lake Wales Court people are on their side of the tree line. just like the three-story hotel would have had the same situation probably with it. But we're not going to have any parking back here on our side of the building. I want to talk about engagement a little bit. Because of COVID-19, we were unable to have meetings early on. There's no neighborhood association out here. So I ended up sending up letters to everybody within the 500-foot notification area asking them to come to a Zoom meeting. One person did. Ms. Winters did come to the Zoom meeting. At that time, she wasn't formally retained. I don't know who she's representing now, whether they're people on Eagle Creek or behind there. But we sent her the proposed conditional zoning restrictions. We sent the revised development plan, but we did not have any negotiations other than us sending those about changing the plan. I understand they're objecting to the zone change in its entirety, which is their right to do. So that's fine. But we did have an engagement. That way we have had no other contacts on the property. And as I said, we're dominated by the Man of War, Richmond Road intersection. But we feel that this will be a good buffer between the other uses and the uses in the rear. As I said, if this is not used for this use, I think the most likely use would be another car lot. They're right next to CarMax. They're near Don Franklin. A car lot going in there probably wouldn't have to advertise at all. It would just take people visiting one of the two other car lots who often visit both of them while they're there would stop in to see this car lot. We feel car lot is a legitimate business here, but we feel that this would be a better business here. I do want to note, too, that as far as the scale of the building, both the B3 zone, as Mr. Bailey mentioned, and the B4 zone have a 75-foot height limitation. So we do not change the height limitation by changing the zone. Our building is listed as 40 feet on our development plan, almost a little over half the height that would be allowed in either the B3 zone or the B4 zone. I do want to mention our comprehensive plan. I want to, as Hal mentioned, we do agree with the comprehensive plan. And we have, I won't go over it. I have an exhibit on that. But the, excuse me, I've got to find out here. We probably agree with the comprehensive plan for the reasons that Hal mentioned. We feel that this supports local businesses. The second greatest cost of a business is space for an office. and in this time especially the space costs can be greatly reduced by storing business records off-site where they are not needed. We support infill and redevelopment. We transition between the more intense uses in B3 to the residential uses. We feel we reduce the carbon footprint by reducing the distance people have to go to store personal property. We allow options for businesses. It's a dense and compact use and we allow greater density of housing types. We think it allows smaller housing units and we think there's a demand for it up in the, especially in the single family area behind this property. And it will assist in redevelopment of this underutilized property. I also have an exhibit on the development criteria. I won't go over that. HAL has gone over that. I've addressed here the criteria which were listed in the postponement recommendation. I think we've complied with all of those or will comply under the conditions the staff has imposed to us on that. And let's see, you want to go back to our development plan, which will, I can find that on my screen to go back to the development plan. the there we go again we feel we have the the best use for this property we had to get a zone change to do it storage is an accessory use in B3. It's principal use in B4. We do agree with the staff's proposal for conditional zoning restrictions. We have one quibble with that and that is the conditional zoning restriction number five to prohibit sale of automobiles. Again, if we want this use on the property, but if the deal goes through, and for the reasons I mentioned, the most likely user is in automobile use. So Dennis Anderson is very hesitant to agree to that conditional zoning restriction on the property. But overall, we feel that we strongly agree with the comprehensive plan because this is a use which is a denser, more compact version of storage facilities. It's the 21st century version of storage. It's not for the contractor who needs to stay off store plumbing supplies. They can do it in one of the old-fashioned ones where you drive up to the door. This is for people who need to store goods that have to be climate controlled. We find that if an item isn't in climate-controlled facilities, it'll start deteriorating in less than six months. So people need this to store household goods. Businesses need it to store business records. And we think it supports small business. It supports residential use in the area. It preserves land. And this use will be much quieter, much less traffic, much less activity than I think any of the other uses that would be allowed in this zone or the other zone. So we appreciate your hearing this very much. And Tony Barrett is here, our landscape architect. Doug Wynn is still on the line. He's also one of the principals with Centennial American Properties. Dennis Anderson, the owner of the property, is here. And we would be happy to answer any questions. I have seen, Ms. Winters did send me her brief a couple days ago in advance. I appreciate that. We do have some issues in that, but I'm going to save those for rebuttal time. So we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. All right. Commission members, do we have any questions for the applicant? Yes. Mr. Murphy, did you relate what about the pedestrian easement that Hal mentioned on that little cul-de-sac oh yes yes thank you i forgot to do that the um i think my plan is still up before you and i think i got the little hand that's working there Tony actually did show the pedestrian easement on this plan. Now, it didn't get labeled, but there's a little L on there showing that easement coming off the cul-de-sac. We'd like to resolve how that is done or whether that should be there at the final development plan stage so we can discuss that a little further. but that is shown on the property so we think that can be resolved at the final development plan stage thank you don't see any hands before we move on to the citizens comments okay all right so next up for the citizens do we have any one that want to speak in favor of the application let's present it please raise your hand all right okay all right so for the objectors opposition we've as i mentioned earlier miss Winters was granted 30 minutes for her presentation so Miss Winters you're up Miss Winters you are being allowed to speak now go ahead I'm just getting set up can you see a camera or will I not be on camera or just the verbal you will not be on camera okay and I've also been told that I'm not able to share a screen with you or walk you through personally through my PowerPoint presentation, but planning staff will be doing that, and I think you should be able to see the presentation, so that's why I will be verbally indicating when the next slide is necessary, so hopefully that'll help planning staff there on the ground. Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission, good afternoon. My name is Jessica Winters, and I am here on behalf of the Eagle Creek Coalition, which is an informal association of owners of more than 25 properties along South Eagle Creek Drive, Lake Wales Drive, and Lake Wales Court, to voice its opposition to PLNNAR 20-0008, which seeks its own change from B3 to B4 for a portion of the subject property located at 109 Sandlink Drive. The coalition further holds the position that the design proposed bicentennial for which the planning staff has recommended approval is not consistent with the Imagine Lexington comprehensive plan development criteria. Next slide. The Eagle Creek coalition includes the owners of more than 25 properties that will be directly impacted by the proposed zone change and development. The LFUCG MAP-IT application shows the area in question to be included within the Boone Creek Neighborhood Association but that neighborhood association indicated it does not extend its boundaries this far. The coalition was formed because Lake Wales Drive, Lake Wales Court, and the portion of Eagle Creek Drive nearest to the subject property are not within the Boom Creek Neighborhood Association or even the East Lake Neighborhood Association and had no official body under which to organize themselves. The subject property directly adjoins between 20 and 24 single-family residences and townhomes. Properties located at 153 through 191 South Eagle Creek Drive, 263, 274, and 278 Lake Wales Drive, and 3305 and 3309 Lake Wales Court. Lake Wales Drive ends in a cul-de-sac that feeds directly into the subject property. Children living on Lake Wales Drive routinely ride bikes and play in this cul-de-sac, which currently eliminates through traffic on their residential street. These single-family properties will be directly impacted by the zone change request and proposed development plan which if approved will result in the construction of a three-story storage facility that will essentially be in their backyards today you should have received signed statements from seven individual homeowners in the immediate vicinity of the subject property voicing opposition to the application for the same reasons that will be articulated in this presentation you have also received a letter from Georgene Schneider who owns 19 townhomes along Eagle Creek Drive to back up to the subject property. Ms. Schneider also opposes the application. Tim Scott, President and Principal Broker of Modern Property Management, the company that manages the rental of the Eagle Creek townhomes has also submitted a statement in opposition and I believe he may be here today to speak in opposition as well. I also forwarded an email in opposition I received from a Lake Wales Drive resident last night. Many of these property owners are long-time residents of the area who will be directly impacted by the zone change and development. Many are elderly and the remote format of this meeting diminishes their opportunity to make a show of force through physical attendance or to attend due to technological hurdles. Finally this morning I submitted the results of an online petition in opposition signed by 24 additional members of the community. Findings of fact and in support of this approval have also been submitted to planning staff. In all, you have received statements from more than 50 community members who stand in opposition to the proposal, in addition to the voices you will hear today. This is a substantial community outcry, and I hope that this commission will give the community input due weight, despite the fact that you cannot see their faces here today. Next slide. This next slide shows an aerial view of the subject property, which of course you've already seen. Next slide, please. Which, of course, you've already seen through staff and the applicant's proposals. You can see the residential streets that directly adjoin the rear of the property, which is where the storage facility will be located. While the parking spaces for townhome residents are to the rear, so are their outdoor spaces, which are located in the back of each townhome. Next slide, please. The next few slides, slides 4 through 20 of the presentation, cover the residences that would be directly impacted by the proposal. So planning staff, if you would please just click through these with a few seconds delay between each one, that would be great and would give the commission the opportunity to see these homes. As you know, the proposal seeks approval for the construction of a three-story storage facility that will dwarf nearby single-family residences. These next few slides show the properties that are immediately adjacent to the subject property and which will be most impacted by the proposal. You have single story and split level residences along Lake Wales Drive, images of the cul-de-sac at the end of Lake Wales Drive, single family residences along Lake Wales Court, and two story townhomes along Eagle Creek Drive. now we should be on slide 21 the proposed development is different in architectural style appearance and density than traditional self-storage the updated layout and design do not however change the function of the business it looks like a warehouse and it is a warehouse This three-story, 100,000 plus square foot building will be located adjacent to several residential streets, yet will not provide any measurable benefit to the neighborhood. Next slide, slide 22. Next slide, please. Thank you. There are many reasons self-storage facilities have not been permitted to locate within neighborhoods, and these reasons apply to the instant proposal as well, despite its updated design. For example, the concept is inherently automobile-centered and does not encourage pedestrian activity. The self-storage building model does not bring jobs to the neighborhood and does not provide anything that will be of daily use to the residents. The proposal is simply not an efficient use of limited urban service area land that could otherwise be utilized in connection with true multi-use development, featuring housing, multimodal transportation options, prioritizing a pedestrian-oriented streetscape, employing a substantial number of area residents, and providing goods and services that would be used on a daily basis by neighborhood residents. Next slide, please. Multi-use developments have been prioritized and recognized as essential to the successful growth of Lexington in the 2018 Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development does not provide even one of these elements to the neighborhood that surrounds it. The 20 to 24 single-family residences that back up to the property will have to suffer continual noise from the raising and lowering of a massive garage door, the coming and going of vehicles during the facility's operation, and the glare of security lights. This building, which will dwarf the adjoining residential properties, most of which are substantially less than 2,000 square feet in size, will be within a stone's throw of these residents back porches. Next slide 24 please. The B4 zone is not a suggested zone and either a corridor or enhanced neighborhood place type. Next slide please. A preliminary step in the process envisioned by Imagine Lexington's place builder is the designation of place type. This step is important because designation of place type necessarily informs the discussion of what zones are appropriate within the proposed development area place builder indicates that an applicant should quote consider your site community feedback and surrounding context and determining place type here community feedback and context are wholly missing from the place type analysis the applicant assigns the location of the subject property as corridor despite the fact that is bounded on two sides by residential streets containing single-family structures the immediate area along north along sand lake drive is characterized by retail sales restaurant professional offices and services which themselves front richmond row corridor the immediate area along one full side and the rear of the subject property however is 100 single-family residential homes and townhomes as previously noted the subject property directly adjoins 24 20 to 24 residential properties on lake wales port lake wales drive and eagle creek drive in looking at the current zoning map it is clear that the proposed development area and surrounding neighborhood are residential in character while there are higher intensity zones along the richmond road corridor richmond road is 650 feet from the subject property and the context of the affected area is residential next slide please it is the coalition's position that plate the place type is more appropriately described as enhanced neighborhood according to the place builder an enhanced neighborhood is an existing residential area to be enhanced with additional amenities housing types and neighborhood serving retail services and employment options development should be context sensitive to surrounding areas and should add to the sense of place incorporating multi-modal connections is crucial to neighborhood success and viability notably the b4 zone requested by the applicant is not a recommended zone for an enhanced neighborhood the comprehensive plan makes it clear that in making developed development decisions as a community process is important. Here there was no opportunity for the owners of properties within the affected area or other stakeholders to participate in the decision regarding what place type designation the proposed development area should receive. As noted in the initial staff report prepared for this application due to the COVID-19 outbreak the applicant did not conduct a meeting prior to undergoing development plans. Here the first letter to the neighborhood was not mailed until a month ago on June 22nd. At that time, the applicant sent the letter to the neighbors proposing a virtual meeting. I attended the meeting on behalf of concerned residents. However, at that time, the place type had already been determined and the plan for the proposed development was mostly solidified. Place Builder states that Imagine Lexington strongly encourages meaningful engagement between applicants and stakeholders for design and envisioning of development before the process begins. While Centennial has modified its development plan following the virtual meeting in June, these modifications are in response to planning staff's recommendations and do not take into account the neighborhood's objection to the designation of place type and their concern that the zone change from B3 to B4 will have long-lasting negative repercussions for the affected area and the neighborhood as a whole. Furthermore, the conditional use restrictions proposed by staff do not eliminate the concern of residents regarding the B4 zone or the fact that this self-storage unit lacks a true neighborhood serving use and does not enhance the neighborhood. The zoning ordinance notes that conditional use restrictions should be used sparingly and they should not be used to create a de facto customized zone that only benefits the current applicant to the detriment of the neighborhood. Next slide please, slide 27. This slide shows the subject property and the direct connection it has with the residential properties to its rear. Slides 27 and 28 show the view looking toward Richmond Road from the subject property. Slides 30 through 32 show the neighborhood serving businesses that exist immediately adjacent to the subject property. The businesses that have located here are not automobile centered and enhance the adjoining neighborhood by providing goods and services that can be used on a daily basis by the neighborhood residents. Even accepting the designation of a corridor place type, the comprehensive plan makes it clear that in these places, incorporating high density residential and retail should be prioritized. In addition, it should be noted that the B4 zone is not a recommended zone even for the corridor place type. Next slide, please. The staff report describes the proposed development as medium density non-residential mixed use. While it is true that this development type is recommended for the corridor place type, a close examination of the definition of this type of development demonstrates that the proposed development does not qualify. This land use is intended to be a quote primarily community serving commercial uses, services, places of employment, and or a mix of uses. Mixed use structures typically include more multi-family residential uses, our units and places of employment and retail and commercial options generally draw from a larger geographic area. An activated and pedestrian scale ground level should be provided. There is no indication in the proposed development plan of how the construction of this three-story self-storage unit will satisfy any of these elements. Next slide, please. According to Lexington's zoning ordinance, the B4 zone is intended primarily for wholesaling, warehousing, and storage operations. The zone is specifically intended to promote the reuse and redevelopment of older warehouses, and it is intended to encourage the adaptive reuse of older structures in or adjoining the infill and redevelopment area. The zoning ordinance states that, quote, the comprehensive plan should be utilized to determine the appropriate locations for this zone. The 2018 Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan only mentions the B4 zone once and place making policy number 11, in which it discusses the action item of updating the adaptive reuse ordinance. Imagine Lexington states, quote, the creation of the adaptive reuse provisions in the wholesale warehouse B4 and light industrial zones were a boon to Lexington's economy. The B4 zone is meant to be the bridge between our industrial zoning and our less intense business zoning, not as a use that directly adjoins a neighborhood. The zoning ordinance further states that in determining whether a B4 zone is appropriate, quote, consideration should be given to the relationship of this zone to surrounding land uses. In this case, Centennial, it seeks to impose a B4 zone onto property that is bounded on two sides by single family residences. The proposed structure is a monolithic warehouse with only one intended use, auto-centered self-storage. This development does not include any mixed uses and does not provide services to the neighborhood or encourage pedestrian activity. Next slide, please. The proposed development does not provide a neighborhood serving use and is not a multi-use concept. Neighborhoods should be served by neighborhood-oriented businesses, which are those that furnish the ordinary or daily necessities for their surrounding residential areas. They are businesses that are used by pedestrians and which do not interfere with pedestrian movement. Self-storage facilities provide a convenience to local citizens, but are not walkable and they do not furnish daily necessities. As a result, this rezoning is not in agreement with the 2018 Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the proposed B4 zoning and land use is not appropriate for the subject property because it is not compatible with the adjoining residential uses or consistent with any of the nearby zoning in the immediate area. The only B4 zoning nearby is associated with an existing self-storage facility. The comprehensive plan supports infill and redevelopment that is respectful of the area's context and design features. In this case, the context of the area is neighborhood business and single-family residential. incorporating a warehouse facility within the neighborhood is out of character. Next slide, please. There is no demonstrated need for the requested zone change. When an applicant seeks a zone change to a zone that is not recommended for a particular place type under the 2018 comprehensive plan, there must be some stated need for the zone change, and the Planning Commission must look to the comprehensive plan for guidance as to whether the proposed B4 zone is supported by the plan at this location. Centennial contends that the proposed self-storage facility addresses a neighborhood need. However, there is no evidence that self-storage is necessary or desired by the residents of the neighborhood. In fact, the owners of more than 50 properties in the vicinity of the proposed development oppose the requested zone change and development proposal. Next slide, please. The applicant cites statistics to the effect that self-storage facilities are typically used by customers within a three-mile radius of such facilities. What the applicant neglects to mention, however, is that there is already an existing self-storage facility similar to the concept proposed here, Citadel Self Storage. This map shows the location of Citadel Self Storage off of, I believe it's Locust Hill Drive there, and shows that it's only 0.7 miles between that self-storage unit and the one proposed at 109 Sand Lake Drive. The Citadel self-storage unit is also an enclosed climate controlled storage unit and it has 872 units which is less than one mile from the subject property. Only 23 percent of the units at this self-storage facility are currently rented. Planning staff in fact recommended disapproval of the Citadel self-storage proposal. My apologies for the siren. My office is on a busy road. One second. Which was before the planning commission in 2018 and sought a change from commercial center B6P zone to B4 zone in connection with a proposal to develop a two-story self-storage facility with interior access to storage units. The same concept proposed here. That development has 872 units as previously stated. The planning commission approved the proposal for the Citadel storage over the planning staff's recommendation of disapproval and the facility was constructed and open in 2019. The applicant cannot demonstrate how or why an additional 700 to 900 self-storage units are necessary or desirable less than a mile away from this existing development. Next slide please. In fact figures obtained from a recent demand study published by the self-storage The current self storage association indicate that the need for self storage in the area of the proposed development is more than satisfied by existing self storage facilities. The chart below demonstrates that there is a total 127,012 square feet of self storage space within three miles of the subject property, offering more than 6,117 self storage units. Demand calculations performed utilizing industry formulas indicate that the current need for self-storage space in the vicinity is only 618,727 square feet, which is 110,000 square feet less than what is currently available within the area. Next slide, please. Centennial has recently sought zone changes for the same type of development at two other properties within the urban services boundary. The prior existence of a self-storage unit facility with several hundred units available for rent less than a mile from this proposed development undermines Centennial's stated need for the development. This is particularly so when one considers that Centennial has recently obtained zone changes, allowing for the construction of two similar concept developments at Townley Place and at the Winchester Road and Eastland Drive intersection. Next slide, please. Centennial, which is an out-of-town developer, has decided to bring its modern self-storage concept to Lexington in a big way, proposing the construction of three self-storage facilities that total more than 400,000 square feet and proposed to add more than 2,000 self-storage units to the Lexington market. Centennial has selected prime lots for its concept, all within the urban service boundary and adjoining neighborhoods in mixed use developments. These site selections were made without regard for the current zoning of the parcels. Centennial did not seek out existing warehouses or other adaptive reuse possibilities that our comprehensive plan encourages be used for the future siting of B4 zoning and storage facilities. Instead, the site selection appears to have been based only on the basis of profit maximizing calculations. Next slide, please. As a result, Centennial was required to seek zone changes in connection with all three proposed sites. Centennial justified its parcel-based zoning requests with reference to the supposed need for self-storage and the fact that its proposed structures do not look like the typical self-storage units with which we are all familiar. Centennial was successful in obtaining the first two requested zone changes. Next slide, please. It should be noted that planning staff initially recommended disapproval of the first two zone change requests, but then changed its recommendation to approval after further consultation with Centennial. Both of the prior zone change requests were heard and approved by the Planning Commission in June 2020. Both received an abbreviated hearing with no stated opposition from nearby residents or property owners. Next slide, please. The proposal for the subject property is not in agreement with the policies, goals, or objectives of the Imagine Lexington Comprehensive Plan. and slides 45 through 50 of my presentation lay out the various aspects of the comprehensive plan that are not satisfied by the proposal and these are the same that are set forth in the proposed findings in support of disapproval which I submitted earlier today the Eagle Creek Coalition notes that the zone change in development proposal submitted by Centennial is not in accordance with many of the policies goals and objectives of the imagined Lexington comprehensive plan including but not limited to the following oh can you go back please i can tell you next slide i'm on 45 if you can go back by page and the community is not going to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to building a self-storage facility such as the proposed development does not encourage or facilitate increased housing opportunities. A-DS5-3, building orientation should maximize connections with the surrounding area and create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. A-DS5-4, next slide, please. Development should provide a pedestrian-oriented and activated ground level. The proposed development is focused on the driving public and has emphasized the vehicular movement throughout the site, which is anticipated by the proposed use. A-DS 7-1, parking should be oriented to the interior or rear of the property for non-residential or multifamily developments. Here, the parking is oriented toward the front of the property, as on the proposed development plan. A-DN2-2, development should minimize significant contrast in scale, massing, and design, particularly along the edges of historic areas and neighborhoods. The proposed development far exceeds the scale and massing of the surrounding single-family residences, which again, most of which are less than 2,000 square feet. Next slide, please. B-SU11-1, green infrastructure should be implemented in the new development. development should aim to provide a neighborhood serving use that does not already exist in the vicinity or that fills a specific need. Over the course of the last 10 years, there has been an increase in the amount of interior climate controlled self-storage facilities in Lexington. As previously stated, there is already an excess of more than 100,000 square feet of self-storage over and above the projected need for the vicinity as determined by utilizing industry demand formulas. There is a similar concept self-storage facility less than a mile away with several hundred available units for rent. E-GR9-2, low-intensity business uses that will provide neighborhood amenities should be incorporated into existing neighborhoods. The existing development and zoning already allow for business uses to meet the needs of the neighborhood. Next slide, please. E-GR10-2, developments should provide walkable service and amenity-oriented commercial spaces. D-CO1-1, rights of way and multimodal facilities should be designed to reflect and promote the desired place type. and D-CO2-1. Safe facilities for all users and modes of transportation should be provided. Green space and environmental health trees should be incorporated into development plans, prioritizing groupings of trees to increase survivability, and development should incorporate street trees to create a walkable street escape. Based on the foregoing, the Eagle Creek Coalition asks the Planning Commission to oppose the proposed zone change and development as it is not representative of the intent of Imagine Lexington. Further, the Eagle Creek Coalition challenges the Planning Commission to encourage smart infill of the neighborhoods of Lexington with pedestrian and bicycle usage at the forefront of the design so as to maintain the character of these communities. Thank you. Okay, sorry about that Ms. Winters. Thank you for your presentation. Ms. Commissioner, do you have any questions for Ms. Winters at the moment? yeah I've got just a couple Ms. Winters you said that you attended the I guess Mr. Murphy's zoom meeting on behalf of the concerned neighbors was that the Eagle Creek Coalition Group well at that time they hadn't organized completely there were some concerned residents that asked me to attend and then afterward when it was determined that there were quite a few, they decided to sort of give themselves the nomenclature of Eagle Creek Coalition. Like I said, they're not covered by a neighborhood association, so they weren't really sure how to go about having a consolidated front on opposition. Okay, and how many are in that group again? 24 property owners, or I think maybe actually 25 now. The owners of 24 properties, so. And of the 24, I know one gentleman owns 19 of them. So is a lady. Yes, sir. Lady. So is it the lady plus five? Yes, sir. OK. And then one of the letters of opposition I read from the. I forgot the name of the street that's directly behind it. Lake Wales Court or Lake Wales Drive. The Lake Wales said that he was against it, but he was concerned about the through traffic on his street. Now, there's no through traffic, correct? Well, that I know of. That's right, sir. As reflected on the development plan, there is no through traffic. But that was the concern of the resident. I just passed it along. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss it. Thank you. Thank you. Brother? I know, Stacey, further questions at the moment. Are we going to carry over to the rebuttal stage and the applicant? Excuse me. I'm sorry. Did we have anybody else? Do we have anyone else that wants to speak in opposition of this application? We have a hand raised. Mr. Gaffield. Mr. Gaffield, you can go ahead and speak now. I'm Walt Gaffield, 2001 Bamboo Drive. I'm representing the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. We've been kind of following this development as it's gone along, and I'll try not to duplicate Ms. Winters and keep the presentation very short. It seems to me one of the things in Imagine Lexington is that neighborhoods should have focal points. And it looks like the proposal would make a large warehouse into the neighborhood focal point. What it really needs is places for people to gather and socialize. That really makes for a better neighborhood. walkability has already been mentioned. We've had a problem since the creation of the, during the creation of the 2018 comprehensive plan with the whole idea of context. And we never could really satisfactorily get a definition in the plan. But this warehouse seems to be large in mass and bulk size and it's a different use and the design is basically a rectangle. Mixed use is good for neighborhoods, and this doesn't really promote it. Green space, maybe a buffer, but not much else. Neighborhood engagement appears to have not been successful because the place type and the zone were pretty much picked and done before any of the neighborhood was engaged. And then the neighborhood really wasn't effectively engaged. So that really didn't work. uh i've been to a facility exactly like the one being proposed uh or very close to it and what what interested me is to enter the building there was a keypad or there were two entrances a keypad entrance with people who had storage and there also was an office uh probably to do business and people could get through there uh if they didn't remember the keypad number but it looked like there was very low employment. I only saw one guy there the whole time I was there. I'm certain people come and clean it. The neighborhood doesn't come in. I think I can't hear it. Oh, Walt, are you there? Yeah, I'm there. I also find it a little bit concerning that the R3 zone is right next to the R4 zone, because if the R4 development is successful, the developer could come right back and ask for more R4 zoning and more warehouse. And maybe Mr. Murphy could address that. Sorry if I lost my sound. That's about all I've got to say today. I don't want to take your time, but we are watching it and are concerned about it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. I'm ready. I'm ready. So now we will move on to the rebuttal stage. And what we'll do here in this. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry for the interruption. We got one more. Oh, I didn't see Ms. Clark. I'm sorry. Okay. Ms. Clark, we're allowing you to speak now. Go ahead. Thank you. It's Amy Clark at 628 Castle Road. I'd like to break a speed record if I can. I have one thing to say. This is at the corner of Manowar and Richmond Road. If we're going to do transit-oriented development, A major corner like that needs to be filled with destinations. A storage unit will not do transit-oriented development for us. I'd hate to think we're saving our bluegrass for this. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to this application? there seems to be a gentleman raising his hand Mr. Addison Hosey can you hear me yes thank you I am the secretary of the East Lake Neighborhood Association It's an adjoining neighborhood and one affected by this development. I speak in opposition to the building proposed. I'm not going to repeat Ms. Winter's presentation, of course not. If this building is in fact similar in scale to the storage building on the locust location across from Kroger, it is going to be out of scale with the residences that are 20 to 40 feet away. I would wonder if the developer would consider scaling back with a two-story building perhaps meet the business goals. That being the major concern, just seems to be out of character with the joining neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Okay. Now we'll move on now to the applicant for an applicant's responses. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate hearing all the comments. I wanted to just clear up some miscellaneous things first, and that is that both Ms. Winters and apparently one of the neighbors, Ms. Winters said that we would be feeding into Lake Wales Drive where children play in the cul-de-sac. And I think as was clarified by Mr. DeMobile's question, we have no vehicular access into either Lake Wells Drive or Lake Wells Court. I don't know if children should be playing in the street or not, but we're not going to put any traffic on the street to interfere with that if there are children playing in the street right now. And we did have engagement in this. We had engagement on Eastland Parkway through the COVID situation with the association there. We continued up with Townley. And the reason there was no opposition to either of those is that we had worked with the neighborhood association. I hope you all know that under legal lawyers' rules of ethics, once a party has an attorney, we are prohibited from talking to clients directly. All our communication has to go through attorneys. It is improper for me to contact any individuals directly once I know that they are being represented by a person. After our Zoom conference, we proposed modifications. We proposed modifications to the staff and we sent them to Ms. Winters about modifying the layout of the building and changing and removing the need for variants. And we did not get any response back from the Neighborhood Association. The response was we heard that they were opposing the whole thing, which is their right. But I want you to know that I cannot contact individuals directly after they're being represented by an attorney. I wish I could know if the neighbors knew that we had no vehicular access on the Lake Wales Court. I wish that I had known or I wish I knew if they knew that we had a three-story hotel, same size, same height as this is. I wish I had known if they knew that there's a 75-foot height allowance on this property, and we're only using 40 of it. I wish they had known what our other city's looks of buildings were and that they look much like hotels. I wish I'd known a lot of that information, but we feel we have an excellent proposal here. I do want to mention the demand information. your job is to look at land use. It's not to look at what the demand for a particular use is, whether it is a fast food outlet or a hotel or a facility such as this. I do want to mention, however, that the figures Ms. Winters showed just showed demand by residential households. It did not show demand by businesses, which make up 40% of our business. It did not show that the same study she cited show that demand for this type of commercial use is going up from 10% of households to about 18 or 20% of households in the next 10 years. It did not show that in this area of study, and within two and a half miles of this, that there are only two other climate-controlled facilities, and that 47% of new customers look for climate-controlled facilities such as this one. There is a demand, but I think demand is irrelevant to your discussion of whether this should be approved. It's the land use. And in looking at the land use, we have to look at what is allowed right now, there right now, which is B3, which is a hotel that's approved on our development plan, similar type building, or the other uses I mentioned to you. Again, we feel very, very strongly that among the uses allowed in B3, we are the best use because of the lack of noise, lack of traffic, lack of activity, and being able to buffer that noise, traffic, and activity from the existing car lots and other uses in the area. The other thing I want to emphasize also is the talk about loss of walkable shops and that sort of thing. As I mentioned to you, we have not removed the shops from our plant. They are still there. We are simply using a different three-story building in the rear instead of the hotel building. We're using a building which is going to look much like a hotel building in the rear, and it'll be quiet and lesser activity than a hotel building. and we I have a lot more I could say I'm just sort of leafing through my my items to see if I missed anything but I think my time is about up so again we think this is the best land use for this property we're very proud to present this to you and we'd like to continue to work with the neighborhood association we'd want to talk to them about whether they want access or vehicular or pedestrian access into those streets and continue to work with them as we get to the final development plan stage. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Next, we'll move on to the citizens' opposition. Ms. Winters, I know that you had a pretty lengthy presentation and I want to give you a chance for your rebuttal as well. Go ahead, Ms. Winters, you can speak now. I believe you're still muted. Okay. How about now? You're good. Thank you. Okay. I wanted to be brief and thank you for the opportunity to do a brief rebuttal. I realized that I neglected to formally request that the brief in opposition, the PowerPoint presentation, the letters in opposition, emails in opposition and the results of the online petition and the proposed findings of fact all be placed in the official record of this proceeding and so I'm now requesting that and also I with all due respect and totally recognizing that we are all burdened with the COVID-19 situation and are just trying to adapt as best we can to that it has been a stated concern by my clients that there is a problem with the Zoom process that we're using today and that the applicant gets to show their face and present directly to planning commission members whereas the opposition even when represented by council does not get to show their face or directly present to the planning commission members and likewise any community members who wish to oppose do not get to show their face and present directly to the planning commission members. I don't want to argue that point today. I just want it to be on the record that there is an objection to the process that's been used today. And then also to just circle back to some of the points discussed by the applicant. The applicant refers repeatedly to a 2016 development plan where there was a hotel approved for the subject location. And, you know, saying, well, the neighbors could be stuck with a hotel here and a self-storage facility is better and less burdensome. The applicant did point out, however, that the hoteliers who have been presented with this opportunity declined to pursue the option. So there is no hotel that's possible at this location at this time. What we're here about today is a self-storage facility that's over 100,000 square feet and putting a B4 zone right on the edge of a neighborhood directly adjoining 24 residential properties and that is what we are talking about. I will note that it is part of Imagine Lexington and the comprehensive plan to consider under E-GR3 and D-PL2-1 what neighborhood serving use the proposed development provides. Our comprehensive plan states that developments should aim to provide a neighborhood serving use that does not already exist in the vicinity or that fills a specific need. And I've adequately covered our position on the need for this in this vicinity, so I won't belabor that point. And I will state that the through traffic on the Cul-de-sac, the Lake Wales Drive Cul-de-sac was not, it was not communicated to my clients or anyone in the Eagle Creek Coalition that there was a through traffic that was currently being planned there. If you look at the statements that were signed that set forth the Eagle Creek opposition that were signed by the local residents, any sort of through traffic is not referenced in that position statement. And I, you know, I can't speak to the resident that sent me the email about the through traffic. And I pointed it out only in my presentation to note that the cul-de-sac is on the subject property. And even though it's not included in the development proposal that there would be any through traffic it had to be noted that the cul-de-sac was currently in use by the neighborhood that's all i have and thank you again so much for your time and attention i really appreciate your service thank you ms winters and your comments have been noted okay um anyone else who wants to speak and have a rebuttal to this opposition i think that was Now we're going to move on to staff. Thank you, sir. We'll just make one clarification. There was somewhat of a comment about staff's meeting with the applicant following subdivision and zoning committee meetings. And I just wanted to stress that we meet with all applicants following those meetings. That is one of the requests of both the subdivision and zoning committee meeting members and committee members. going forward following that review process. So with every application that we receive, and if there is any disconnect between an applicant, staff, and the planning commission members on those committee members, the committee behooves the staff or pushes the staff to really meet with the applicants to seek forth certain solutions. That is why we meet with applicants following the recommendations made in the first staff report that you're seeing, either with the previous two applications or with this application. So this is standard operating procedure. It is part of good development in our community and we do it for all applicants. That's all we have for refutters at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Looks like we have a question for Mr. Nickel. Yeah, I just would like to ask a question to the neighbors who are in opposition. As I'm looking through the staff's supplemental report and recommendations, under three, they wanted to increase some further buffering restrictions. And the applicant requested that we remove number or think about removing number five, which is establishments and lots for the display, rental sale and repair of farm equipment, contractor equipment, automobiles, trucks, mobile homes, recreational vehicles, motorcycles or boats or supplies for such items um and i think that the staff was wanting to make that restriction in order to um i guess have a better buffer um the neighbors already have car max right behind them where the neighbors oppose um another car dealership behind them which is now allowable under the current zoning, in which the staff wanted to remove that use, but the applicant wanted to keep it. So three, number five, would the neighbors be opposed to having the removal of number five, which allowed for another CarMax dealership? Ms. Winters, you've been allowed to speak. Yeah, thank you. Very good question. The neighbors are actually in support, if the B4 zone is approved, fully support all of the conditional uses imposed by the planning staff. Conditional zoning restriction. Yes, all of the zoning restrictions, everything imposed by staff, the neighborhood is supportive of that if the B4 is approved. Do we have any further questions for staff? I see any. Okay. So I want to bring this back to the commission. Before we go further, just want to make a note that staff has recommend approval based on the revised recommendations and approval for the preliminary development plan with the conditional zoning restrictions. So just want to make sure that's been echoed. Yes, Mr. Wilson. I would like to make one observation and this is strictly for the record. I think Ms. Winters made the point that she was concerned about the process because objectives were not being able to be seen on the screen as the other people have. But the record should show also that other people who have been for things and who have been proponents have not also been on the screen as well. Good point, Ms. Wilson. Thank you. That brings back to commission. Any questions that you have that you want to ask? As I mentioned, we look forward to a motion or further conversation. Yes, Ms. Blumley. Thank you. I think this hearing has related one aspect and that being context sensitivity to the surrounding area and the neighbors have spoken and it's what they want their use and they may want another car lot I don't think they want another car lot but I would would like to move a motion right now if I may if you're ready yes Yes, I don't see any. Yes. Regarding PLN, MAR 20-0008, continual American properties, I recommend disapproval using the findings of fact as presented by Ms. Winters. Okay, we have a motion for disapproval. Do we have a second to that motion? We have a second to that motion. Ms. Meyer? All in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Okay. All right, that motion fails. Excuse me, sir, if you would just give us a brief second so that we can record that on Granicus? Yes. I got three questions. Hands up. Three voting. I think we had a motion by Ms. Plumlee and then a second by Ms. Myers and both voted in support of that motion to disapprove and then the remaining commission members voted in opposition. Is that a correct assessment? Yes. That's what we have. Thank you very much. Thank you for delaying just a second there. No problem. Okay. Does anyone want to take a stab at the motion? I'll take a stab at it. Before I make my motion, I'll just say that I don't know that I see where a transition or not having a transition from the car dealerships on both sides. on this small parcel is really going to be impactful to the area. So my motion is going to be to approve PLN MAR 2008 Centennial American Properties for reasons indicated by staff, removing item 3A5. And I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor please raise your hand. Could we have discussed Do we have discussion? Yes. Okay. May I speak now? Okay. There was mentioned a 20-foot landscape buffer. And in showing from the photos, those are all deciduous trees. So come winter, the branches are bare. so I wonder if the applicant would be in consideration of putting some evergreens in there maybe some off center or something so there was more winter protection a better view shad once winter comes provided by evergreens I think I see Mr. Hamilton shaking his head yes I just want to make sure I'm not sure I don't want to speak for him If we could put that in the conditions, I would really appreciate it. Just to clarify, Mr. Murphy, is that... Ms. Plumlee, are you asking the applicant to address that, or the other committee members to address that question? If it can be a condition, that would be what I would prefer, so that the applicant so that it would be approved and be done okay so currently on the table um are conditional zoning restrictions listed on the staff report under item three item 3d says there shall be a 20 foot landscape buffer adjacent to the residential zoning and you're asking that that landscape buffer include evergreen trees. Yes, in addition. Don't take down what's there. Just put more green instead of just individuals. Are you requesting, are you proposing an amendment to the motion? Yes. Okay. All right. So we have an amendment to the motion that was just made, which is item 3D, adding the additional addition to that evergreen trees. So do we have a second to that motion? Mr. Pohl. Okay, we have a second to that motion by Mr. Pohl. Okay, all in favor to the amended motion to add the evergreen tree. Okay. Sure, by showing way of hands. Okay. For the record, those voting in favor are planning commission member Bell, Meyer, Nickel, Cole, Demobleon, Davis, Wilson, Plumlee, Penn, and Forrester, all. Yes. Okay. Okay. The amendment passes. Yep. Thank you. And now we need a motion for the preliminaries. No, no. If we go back to the original motion. Go back to the original motion. Yeah. Okay. Or if there's further discussion. Do we have any further discussion on the original motion? We're talking about the motion from Anthony. Okay. Yes, the motion from Mr. DeMoltz. Sir, Mr. Jones would like you to refer to it as the original motion as amended. The original motion as amended. Thank you. Okay. All right. Do we have any discussions? All the questions. So we had a motion in a second. I don't see anybody, any discussion. All in favor to the original amended motion. Please raise your hand. So, Ms. Myers, she's the only one. Okay. So we... Opposed. Now that we go back to the opposed. No, you asked for that. Who voted? No, I'm opposed. Please raise your hand. And Mr. Penn, is that your hand? No. Okay, thanks. All right. Now we can go to the preliminary plan. So we need a motion for that. Okay, Mr. Nichols. Oh, the video went out. There you go. I'm sorry about that. Okay. I would like to make a motion to approve PLN MJDP 20-00021 Sand Lake NSC's Properties Lot 2, Section 2, citing the staff's revised approval recommendation. All right, thank you. We got a motion. You have a second? I have a second for Mr. DeMola. All in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Okay. Motion is approved. Thank you. All right. Yep. So what we're going to do now, we're going to take a five to seven minute break. so everyone can get up, stretch your legs, use the bathroom, and we'll be back. Thank you. PLN MAR-20-00011. We have two action items. We have a revised staff recommendation. And we have a preliminary development plan. So I will move out the way and let staff take over. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen right now. Pull up my annotate tool. Thank you. Yes, this is the Gateway Lexington Lofts or Gateway Lofts Lexington application for PLN MAR 20-11. uh the applicant is seeking a zone change for the subject property located at 1016 to 1024 south broadway this is only a one property that number has been added over time for mailing addresses with different uh entities within that property uh they are seeking a zone change from the wholesale warehouse business b4 zone to a neighborhood business b1 zone now i want to stress that that neighborhood business B1 zone also comes with a form-based project association. That is going to be discussed a little bit more by Mr. Martin. I'll go through some of the information that they've provided within the review of the zone change itself. The site is approximately 2.24 net and 2.53 gross acres for this development, and that's why I brought up the forum base, the applicant is seeking to construct a six-story mixed-use business and residential development. The proposed structure would incorporate commercial uses on the first floor facing South Broadway. Above that would be structured parking and a small amount of residential. Above that on the third floor, you're getting that same blend of parking and residential. And then on floors four through six, you're looking at strictly residential. The building would have pedestrian access on points both on South Broadway and Virginia Avenue and sole vehicular access from Virginia Avenue. This is something that Mr. Emmons will discuss with his review of the traffic impact study. The proposed development seeks to include 29 efficiency apartments, 203 one-bedroom apartments, and 25 two-bedroom apartments for a total of 257 dwelling units. This brings us to an approximate density of 115 dwelling units per net acre. This is a very dense site, and we'll get into some of the aspects of that with the place type and development type. The project is seeking to be a form-based project, and with that comes a character and context study for the area and this associated development plan. You can find that in your Google Drive that we sent out to you, and the members of the public can find that on the zone change on the Citizens Portal. So looking at the location of this site, you can see that we're located at South Broadway and Virginia Avenue right here, and Virginia transfers over to being Red Mile Road at this location. Both are arterial roadways, South Broadway, a major arterial roadway, also an identified corridor, urban corridor within the comprehensive plan. Virginia is a minor arterial roadway that connects it from South Limestone over to Red Mile Road. The zoning for the subject property is a mix of various different things. Now, I talk about this quite often, but the mix of zoning at this location really is impacted by the historical development of South Broadway and Red Mile, Virginia roads. So what you'll see here is a blend of residential, your R3 and R4s, business with B1, B6P with shopping centers, B1 here. And then getting into a mixed zone or a mixed use zone, MU3, located at this location. And then into our B4 buffer before you would get into some I1 uses. The South Broadway corridor was largely a corridor for the warehousing and storage of tobacco within the historical context of Lexington. We've seen a lot of change over time with that, with the influx of more B3 type uses with your low level fast casual restaurants, as well as more of the gas station development. You've also seen a fair amount of development that is directed towards multifamily housing along South Broadway. That is driven by the proximity to the university, as well as the proximity to a lot of the transit options. And we'll talk about that here shortly. Just looking at the aerial of this project site, you can see that we do have that frontage along South Broadway with the vast majority of the parking being located along Virginia Avenue. There is the shopping center, the South Park shopping center located here in which most of the parking for that shopping center is right up against this building. You have the Sonic located at this location, and then the Dairy Queen here. The Dairy Queen is important to pick up because it's an actual point that we can reference often when we're discussing the transit stop at this location. There is currently a transit stop located right over here. There are some for the outbound traffic going this way along the South Broadway and Virginia Avenue intersection here, as well as one further back closer to that Dairy Queen stop. Looking at the site itself, you can see that we have the Grogan's Building. This has kind of been a staple along this corridor for a very long time. You can see the sonic located at this location associated with the South Park shops. And then over here, we get a better view of just that intersection of Virginia Avenue and South Broadway, which includes this older structure located at the corner. This is not currently part of this application. And we have not received any indication that it would ever be part of this application. The applicant has indicated that the current owner wasn't interested in the parking lot. One of the major aspects of this application that will be discussed will be the frontage on South Broadway. This area has been pinpointed as an area of conflict with the turn lane onto Red Mile Road right here and a fair amount of slowdowns at this location. Mr. Emmons will bring that up quite a bit in his review of the traffic impacts. Moving over to the southern side of the building, looking at Grogan's, into that shopping center, down South Broadway as we're getting out of town, and then up South Broadway as we're going towards downtown. Another view along Virginia Avenue. This is looking back into the site, which you can see that older structure here. And then we have the warehouse at this location. You can also see that there is a second building associated with the development of this lot, which is a steel clad building right back here. That is usually used for the storage of materials and trucks associated with the B4 use on the primary location. Across the way, we have some non-conforming uses. We have some apartments that are actually located in a B4 zone. Looking at Virginia Avenue towards the university and then Virginia Avenue towards the intersection with South Broadway and the changeover to Red Mile Road. With looking at any application, and you might feel like this is getting a little redundant with our presentations, but we want to walk you through each of the steps of staff's review. The applicant has chosen the corridor place type. Staff agrees that this is appropriate as South Broadway is an identified corridor within the comprehensive plan. And Virginia Avenue is also a minor arterial roadway, which is important in the fact that we have the confluence of two major roadways and a fair amount of transit infrastructure located at this site. a great location for more transit-oriented, more dense development. Within their application, the applicant is seeking to utilize the high density non-residential or mixed use development type. This is primarily regional serving commercial uses plus a high floor area ratio. But mixed structures are typically multifamily residential, multifamily residential units. They also include entertainment and employment options and retail and commercial options. Now, again, when we talk about mixed use areas, we're not just talking for this. They are required to have mixed use in the fact that it's a business zone. They need to have a business use. They're also adding to a fair amount of the mixed use horizontally. So adding residential at the front or at the confluence of two major roadways that have a significant amount of retail and restaurant and service right behind it. So staff agrees with the applicant's application of the development type as a high-density non-residential or mixed-use application. Now, the staff has also looked at the applicant's recommended zone or their requested zone, and it falls into the recommended zones within the place builder, which is the B1 zone. And then I want to highlight form-based projects. This is really meant to focus on both developing something that is setting the character of a corridor, but also respecting what is around that area. And that is one of the major issues that staff had during the original staff report and during the committee review. So this just gives you, again, a better view of what is going on around it. And I do want to highlight a few areas that the applicant calls out in their contact study. They do review the historical change over time that there has been a shift from those warehousing type businesses to a more B3 type highway service and professional office type development. They point out areas like the hospital, St. Joe's down in this location, and it's multi-storied large scale development. They do point out the high FAR or the higher FAR associated with the Campbell House. And then they look at a few more of the newer developments associated with Virginia Avenue with the Hub 2 and some of the university buildings and offices. This is a page from the applicant's context study in which they're showing some of those lower-lying businesses. And as you can see, they are more of that highway service business type feel. They're set back further. There's a fair amount of parking up in front of these buildings. It's not the up front built on the corridor type of density and intensity that staff and the planning commission and the public were calling for within the comprehensive plan. They also reference these larger structures that have developed over time, which fit more of the urban form that is promoted within the comprehensive plan. Within their context study, they did provide elevations. Staff looked at these heavily when we were reviewing this application. Specifically, how does this connect with some of our multifamily design standards while also being focused on that business mentality? This is the Virginia Avenue Elevation, in which they have their primary location for pedestrian entrance. And what you can see is they've two-tiered a patio that will allow for a little bit more social interaction, hopefully when we are able to be a little more social. and also it throws a fair amount more trees and foliage up against the right-of-way, creating that vertical kind of feeling that we're looking for for an urban-style development. On this bottom side here, this would be the vision from South Broadway with businesses located along the front down here and residential up above. From the southwest end elevation, you can see this is the rear of the building facing the shopping center. You can see how they are setting up their parking below, with some parking on that third level as it leads into the residential development. Staff was particularly concerned during the subcommittee meetings with the activation of this space. The applicant is showing some windows and staff had recommended the potential use of a mural at this location as it is recommended within the comprehensive plan. The applicant has reached back out to staff and said that they felt that a mural might take away from the architectural elements that they're trying to provide at this location. Staff's concern with that really is the need to activate this entire frontage without having much in the ways of blank space. This area located here is specifically a kind of blank, and it's meant to be that way because that is their ramp up to the next level of parking. Now, staff is concerned that we have a large swath of kind of blank wall or monotonous wall. And within the comprehensive plan, that is an element that is called out as something that we do not want. And it will be brought up with the development plan and the review of notes that should be added that this should be discussed further at the time of the final development plan. So to alleviate some of the conflict that we might have in discussion today. Additionally, this is the southeast elevation or the access point off of Virginia Avenue. The cars would come off of Virginia into the main entryway here. This area is for dumpsters or compact. So within staff's review and following the concerns that staff raised with the applicant with the committee meetings, Staff is now recommending approval with the modifications that the applicant has made and with some really focused notes on the development plan, which Mr. Martin will go over. The requested zone change from the wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone to the neighborhood business B1 zone is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan's goals and objectives for the following reasons. The proposed rezoning will expand housing choice by accommodating the demand per housing in Lexington and incorporating a mixture of housing types, prioritizing higher density housing types, the May goal 1B. The proposed development does provide those variety of dwelling units, which produces a high density at this location, but is also different from some of the single family residential that you'll see elsewhere off of our corridors. The proposed development will support infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area as a strategic component of growth with a development that will respect the context and design features of the area surrounding development projects and develop design standards and guidelines to ensure compatibility with the existing urban form. This goes back to staff's concern early on about how does it both meet the kind of context of the area, which the applicant is seeking to utilize similar material types, as well as build in some of the hype that has been developed over time, but also set a new context. new context and that new context being a more urbanized feel moving the building up to the sidewalks creating a more pedestrian friendly frontage trying to work with uh lex tram to develop a stop located along out in front that uh that dairy queen location including a shelter to be uh built into the future and i'll get to that here shortly as well so the proposed development will provide a well-designed neighborhood and community by focusing on pedestrian mobility to the nearby amenities, including the shopping area to the south, while also connecting to other nearby land uses and transit routes. One of staff's early concerns was making sure that individuals from the building could get out and easily access the shopping center without having to go from the frontage on Virginia Avenue all the way around the building, since there is that kind of interconnectivity. So the applicant has provided an example within their most recent or supplemental application, and that included points of access to get to that shopping center quickly. The proposed rezoning and the associated development will protect the environment by reducing Lexington-Urban County's carbon footprint by providing multifamily housing serving diverse prospective tenants who can walk to employment, healthcare, education, dining, and entertainment uses. This location is very advantageous for all of those things. It is not far from the University of Kentucky. It is not far from the downtown area. It is directly adjacent to various different entertainment and employment options with the hospital nearby. So staff sees this as being a wonderful location and putting a high density development does push for a transit oriented development going forward. The proposed development preferences bicycle, pedestrian, and transit routes through the incorporation of new infrastructure, including bike parking and transit shelter, and prioritizing multimodal options that de-emphasize single occupancy vehicle dependence. Because of the location and because of the infrastructure that they are adding, staff believes that this, again, really connects this development to the whole of the city. The proposed redevelopment will cause minimal disruption of natural features while upholding the urban service area concept by redeveloping existing underutilized corridors, South Broadway, and allowing development of an underutilized parcel on a major corridor. This is also important to recognize that they are in fact decreasing the amount of impervious surfaces on this lot. They are increasing the tree canopy coverage and they are seeking to develop in a way that kind of fits this spot without overburdening it or not utilizing to its fullest potential. In addition, the justification of the Corollary Development Plan are in agreement with the policies and development criteria of the 2018 comprehensive plan, including site design, building form and location, transportation and pedestrian connectivity, and green space and environmental health. Finally, this recommendation is made subject to the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 20-28 Gateway Lofts, Grogan and Grogan, which Mr. Mark will describe here in a second. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have for me at this time. hey you have any questions mr bailey not seeing okay mr poe uh did you say something about can you hear me okay yes sir yes okay did you say something about uh uh commercial use on the first floor yes sir so as this is a b1 or a neighborhood business form-based project. They are required to have a business on the first floor. It is part of this mixed-use zone. So for them to be able to go ahead and build the way that they are with the flexibility that they're given with this, they do need to incorporate some element of commercial activity. So as I look at the architect's plans, there is no indication of any commercial space in the floor plans. And the furthermore, there are no entrances facing Broadway, it's all windows. Oh, I'm curious about the conflict there. Let me pull that right back up and try to answer those questions. So with the South Broadway elevation, I think what they're showing here are doors, not just windows, and that is meant to access the building in any commercial operation that that might have. Currently, they are indicating that this would be a retail operation. I will say that during our conversations with the committees, staff did indicate to the applicant that they needed to incorporate that type of parking in their overall parking calculation. The applicant went ahead and has provided staff with a joint parking agreement, and that has some restrictions that Mr. Martin can get into within his review as well. So we're just to ignore the architect's plans showing residential units on the first floor along Broadway. Sir, I think that is actually the second floor. They actually have one drawing in which it's an empty or open area. I'm sorry, I don't have a depiction of that currently. I can get you that here shortly. But on that second floor, you have residential facing the street. Oh, I see it. I see it. Thank you. Yeah, I apologize. We just miscommunicated real quick on that one. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Okay, we'll move on to Mr. Martin. All right, I will share the screen real quick again, and Mr. Martin can go ahead with his presentation. Mr. Martin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, as you can see before, you have the preliminary development plan, 20-28 gateway loss that is associated with this zone change. And again, as a preliminary development plan, you are well aware you will see a final development plan on this site before anything can be developed or built. That is particularly important in this situation because of the request for the B-1 form-based zone. It is important to note that under the B-1 zoning requirements, you are required to make a finding on their compliance with their form-based study. However, that requirement is associated with the final development plan and not with the preliminary development plan. And in fact, that's what Mr. Bailey was referring to as one of the notes that we routinely place on this type of proposal. This station was similar. I believe the hub had similar situations where they came in with a polemic claim and a form-based code study to demonstrate their commitment. And this is particularly true about the form-based B1 provisions. Staff believes they do complement place builder, particularly in these corridor locations. Now, with that little bit of speech, I'll describe the plan that you see before you. And again, here we have the building that covers most of the property. Entrance off Virginia into the parking structure. You can see the areas of activation along Virginia, as well as more activation along Broadway. and it is a challenge and the applicant will be happy to discuss that with you. The challenge of activating this commercial space along Broadway, part of the issues, again, the heavy traffic and the possible need for additional improvements along Broadway in the future. We did insist that they close this access point and again, we believe that will actually help with their efforts to properly activate that space along Broadway. Now, they are proposing a six-story building with 205,000 square feet, 257 dwelling units. They are predominantly one-bedroom units. There is just over 6,000 square feet of commercial space being proposed in the area on the first floor along Broadway. They have taken their, excuse me, they have some slight reductions that are available to them in their parking, including bike and transit, which they are utilizing to reduce their overall required parking. In terms of open space, which is another item in in the B1 form-based code, they are required 10% when they have dwelling units in the B1, and they will ultimately have about 20% open space. Now, that will be utilizing built features. This is primarily, again, in this area, you're going to have plazas and patios and that sort of thing, but there's also balconies and an area, of course, within the building confines itself that will provide open space for the residents. Now, again, as a preliminary plan, this has some standard sign-offs on the property, and then there are several conditions that, of course, we refer to the final development plan. They're going to have to address stormwater and quantity and quality controls on the site. Now, this is a developed site, and they're granted some leeway because of that. And Mr. Bailey touched on the fact that they are reducing some of the impervious area on this site. So that will certainly assist them in addressing the water quality issues, particularly at the time of final development plan. In addition, they're going to have to address the transit facilities that Hal mentioned, possibly in this area there's some that exist down here in at the time of the final development plan and they will also they need to pardon me and this is uh back to what i mentioned before item 12 condition 12 they're going to have to denote that the proposed development plan shall comply with the form-based project study that they have submitted and what's going to happen should this move forward at the time of the final development plan is we're going to take another look at the context study what they're proposing we're going to look at the renderings and we're going to want to discuss the types of materials that are appropriate for this we're going to look again at how they activate their space and engage at the street level and with the surrounding properties at that time. They need to denote that the parking structure activation along South Broadway should also be determined at the time of the final development plan. And that is that area here that Hal mentioned earlier, that there's some concern with that. And again, we will revisit the context study. We will revisit these issues and make sure that at that time they are complying with the study as presented to you today. You are just not officially required to make a finding on that study until the final development plan is being approved. And with that, I will answer any questions you have for staff. Any questions for Mr. Martin? I don't see any hands. Great. All right, we'll move on to the applicant. If you're with the applicant's team, we ask that you raise your hand electronically now, please. Mr. Chairman, I do have the report on the traffic impact study. Okay, Mr. Emmons, let Mr. Emmons speak first, and then we'll move on. Thank you. Thank you. Let me share my screen. Here we go. Can everybody see the traffic impact study? Opening slide. This traffic impact study was done by Palmer Engineering. The traffic impact study, and As Hal mentioned, one of our original concerns early on going all the way back to the original pre-application meeting with this applicant, our biggest concern was that the intersection of Red Mile Road, Virginia Avenue, and South Broadway, that is actually known to be one of our highest accident rate in this area. And it's also one that the state is looking at to do safety projects already. And the traffic in this area, it does get so congested that you could see even from the applicant's development plan that during rush hour that the traffic backs up all the from the applicant from the intersection past the applicant's property near the shopping center intersection. So it was quite important early on that the applicant saw that we were serious that the division of planning, division of traffic engineering and our partners at the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet District 7 were all opposed to accessing South Broadway. They agreed not to do that and so we were able to focus the traffic impact study on just looking at the South Broadway and Virginia Avenue intersection and the intersection with Virginia Avenue for the new access point. I just kind of want to go over just a few things just kind of the the broad broad brush on that. South Broadway is an arterial road. It has an annual average daily traffic of about 26,000 vehicles up and down South Broadway every day. Virginia Avenue is also a minor arterial. It has over 17,000 trips on any given day. The proposed development will generate about 700 trips per day, but whenever we look at our traffic impact studies and we're looking at the morning and the evening rush hours. We're only looking at about 100 trips in and out of this location during those peak hours. One of the things that I did want to point out that this is actually a conservative estimate because the current ITE manual says the Institute of Transportation Engineers has studied that and in the latest edition they've created a whole category for uses that are called off-campus housing and that's for housing that is near college campuses and they break it out between a half a mile and more than half a mile and one of the things that we also recognize is that early on had they used that generator this actually would not have necessarily met the threshold for generating enough peak hour trips. One of the things that's interesting though those types of uses actually generate more traffic throughout the day, but less traffic during the AM and PM peak hours. So just kind of keep those things in mind. As we looked at, we knew that this was, you know, on the threshold of a lower end of significant traffic generation. And as we looked at the intersections, once the applicant had agreed to remove their access, even their service drive access to South Broadway, then that really allowed us to focus in on the impact that this would have at the Virginia Avenue. and as the traffic has been to that already difficult intersection. One of the things that the traffic study clearly shows is that the Red Mile intersection is of concern, but the proposed development is not going to do anything to make that situation any worse. One thing that the traffic study did show is that during the evening rush hour, It might be difficult for people that are coming in and out of this property on Virginia Avenue to make left turns in and out because traffic could back up all the way from that intersection to their entrance, at least in modeling it would. As we move into this though, just to try and speed this up, without the access to South Broadway, the staff is quite satisfied with the traffic impact study and the access that they had to Virginia Avenue. As we looked at the automobile and vehicular transportation, we found that with the closure with no access to South Broadway that we have an acceptable vehicular levels of service for this. We also know that this area, Virginia Avenue, is actually one of the highest pedestrian travel corridors in our facility primarily because of its close proximity to the University of Kentucky. And we feel that there is also acceptable bicycle and pedestrian facilities in this general vicinity. And that left us with our last major mode of transportation, which was transit. And we feel, and as it's, that we go through here, and as both Hal and Tom have talked about, we recommend that the applicant work with Lex Tran in order to work on a better bus stop in this area. So I've got kind of just an aerial photograph of the subject property leading up to the export street. intersection or in front of the Dairy Queen. And as we look at providing a bus, some sort of bus shelter in this area where we only have a bus stop, we feel that it would be appropriate anywhere along through here. When planning was working with Lex Tran, it was already identified that there would be three or more possibilities of doing things in here, each with their own pros and cons of what could be done. So the most important part here is not deciding what needs to be done today, but really just decide, oh, that's the location of the existing bus stop at River Street. The most important part is not really figuring out what the specifics of the design would be, but just try and get the commitment and get the design intent down. And so this is really, Tom was my with the condition on our development plan that we would resolve the transit stop at the time of the final development plan. I've recommended just a language that we could put on there to resolve that. And the most important part is that the developer would partner with LexTran and other necessary government entities to provide a functional and accessible transit shelter on Virginia Avenue, including any necessary engineering or site work. And that's important because we're looking at the area, We could be looking at something on the applicant's frontage, but it also might be better to put something closer to export street. We've looked at it. We do believe that there is enough existing right-of-way to do work within the right-of-way, but because of grades and drop-offs, there might be a little bit of engineering and site work that would be needed to accomplish that. I believe that concludes all of my prepared comments. I am trying, as always, we can go into more detail on any questions that you have, but I tried to give you a very brief overview. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Definitely thorough. Thank you so much. Do we have any questions for Mr. Emmons? You do not need to do anything. If you wanted to incorporate my language, it's already covered under the development plan recommendations. I'm not asking the planning commission to add anything to that. Okay. Staff recommendation. Thanks for the additional info. Before we go to the applicant, I wanted to ask a question. Is there anyone out there that has any opposition to this application right now? And you can show that by a raise of your hand. Okay. I don't see anything. All right. With that being said, we will move to the applicant. And Mr. Murphy, because of that, I don't see any opposition. Could you abbreviate your presentation? Mr. Murphy, we are moving you in now. You can go ahead and unmute and show your video. Thank you very much. Hopefully you can hear me. I'm representing Gateway Lofts Lexington and I will say I saw the smiley face on Mr. Emmons' presentation slide. And I want to say that we worked hard to get that smiley face on his presentation slide. Our first iteration of this did have entrances on South Broadway. and the project has been redesigned a couple times in order to take those away. So we've worked real hard on this. We've had a couple of redesigns. Hey, Mr. Murphy, did you hear my statement before we got you on? Yeah, I'm going to go short. Okay. All right. I'm just making sure. I didn't know. My microphone is acting up on this side. Yeah, we paused a few seconds as we get on, but I heard that before I got on. Okay, thank you. The staff has presented our context study to you. And as they mentioned, we actually don't have to have that until the final development plan stage. But we wanted to present it to you now. You don't have to take a vote on it because we're going to have to present it to you at the final development plan stage as well. So the Mr. Emmons discussed Lex Tran. We have had discussions with Joey David, the transportation section liaison with Lex Tran, and we've agreed to work with them about the bus shelter situation. And just in summary, we were near so many employment centers, so many health care centers, entertainment, restaurants, the Red Mile. I think this is the ideal place for what you all called for in the corridors when you revise the comprehensive plan. So I'll hush at this point. And we'd be Will Kirk is here from Gateway Lofts. Chris Mischel from Palmer Engineering. Ryan Pearson is our landscape architect from Edge Landscaping Architecture firm. And Rick Kirk may be here somewhere. I don't see him, but that's our group from Gateway Lofts Lexington. And we thank you for your consideration. Okay, thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions for the applicant? No. All right. Let me just bring this back for commission to, it doesn't seem like we have any questions, so I'll obtain a motion. For discussion. For discussion. Okay, Mr. Poll. I move to approve the zone map amendment PLN NAR 20-11 Gateway Lofts, Lexington. All right, we have a motion. We have a second by Mr. Nichols. All in favor, please show by a raise of hand. All right. Motion approved. Now we have the revised preliminary development plan for PLNMJDP-20-00028. Mr. Poe, you're making that motion as well. I'd be happy to. Okay, thank you. Regarding PLN MAR20-00011, move to approve the preliminary development plan. All right, we have a motion. We have a second. I have a second. Mr. Davis, all in favor, please show our hands. One, two, three. All right. Have a unanimous vote. Motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks very much. Thank you. Okay. Next on the agenda items, we have a Zota item, PLNZOTA-20-00003. And up is Mr. Chris Taylor. It looks like Jim Duncan's up there. Thank you all. I am filling in in Mr. Duncan's account here. I'm going to make this a very short presentation given that I know we've discussed this a number of times and I know it's, it's getting late in the day, so I'm going to make it even more brief than I was expecting, but we're going to talk about the affordable housing parking text amendment. Very briefly, the genesis for this text amendment is to provide relief for affordable housing projects under our ordinance. The short, short version is that we require considerably more parking than what most all affordable housing developments need, and oftentimes considerably more than they can afford to provide. Oftentimes, these parking spaces are built at the expense of other housing units or other amenities or other design considerations that are very important for affordable housing. In our ordinance back in 2008 and 2009, we created a mixed income housing unit that was only allowed in the P1 and B1 zones that allowed up to a 10% reduction in the amount of parking for an affordable mixed use, mixed income housing development. You won't be surprised to know that under those sorts of restrictions, that provision was never once utilized in the 11 years since. and what constitutes a mixed income housing. Under the definition in Article 1, it's any unit that doesn't exceed 80% of the medium adjusted gross income. But under this definition, also any fully affordable housing development, such as what you saw last week at Winburn, would fully qualify under that designation. And so the adjustments that we're discussing in this text amendment are to maintain the framework that exists in Article 1 and Article III where we regulate the mixed income housing units, but to consolidate the parking reductions in Article VIII to under Article XVI and remove the P1 and B1 requirements and allow it to work for any zone where housing is allowed if it qualifies as a mixed income housing development to meet the generator of one space per dwelling unit. So here you can see the two deletions in Article 8 and P1 and B1, and the addition in Article 16. That's the short, short version of the staff report that was provided to you at your zoning committee meeting. There is no change. The zoning committee recommended approval subject to the three conditions or the three, under the three provisions from the comprehensive plan, particularly if they made goal one to allow additional flexibility for affordable housing. I do want to point out that we've received about 10 letters of support, a couple from some very experienced engineers that worked on our Hope 6 project and the design of that project and speak very well to the issues related to design for both stormwater and the other considerations for affordable housing. We received letters from FAA Alliance. We received letters from Habitat for Humanity, the No Lie CDC, as well as affordable housing developers, AU and Associates, and LG Development. We did the Winburn project that you just saw. And if you haven't taken a look at those letters, I think in particular the LG development from Winburn makes a great point about how our parking requirements cost them another building, which is 24 to 36 additional units, 50 to 80 additional people who could use affordable housing in this community were unable to be provided on that site due to parking requirements that are above and beyond what's needed and what's appropriate for a development such as that. But if you have any questions on this text amendment, I'll be happy to answer them. Okay. Do you have any questions for Mr. Taylor? Yes, I do. Okay, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. So Chris, if you have a development with 100 bedrooms, how would the difference be now and then the difference if we had this ZODA in place with the number of parking spaces? We do not measure parking based on, in this case, we don't measure parking based on the number of bedrooms. It would be on the number of units. and again it puts it exactly on par with how we determine parking for single family residential regardless of the number of bedrooms that it has in it what we know is that a homeowner or a renter or someone who lives in an affordable housing development is nine times less likely to have a car at all much less multiple cars and i can tell you in single family residential we've never worried about whether one space was enough we always allow for more but in this case we're we're treating it the exact same and we're leaving open the possibility that if a development can and needs to provide additional spaces over the one per unit that that option is still available but we would not be counting parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms what about if okay you go to units you have 100 units in one and 100 units in the new what would be different it would be 100 spaces is what the requirement would be and oftentimes a developer may want to do a few extra and they would be allowed to do so but right now at our one and a half per bedroom or one and a half per unit or 0.9 per bedroom that pretty much means that you have to have one parking space for every bedroom in a multi-family development maybe every fifth or sixth unit you don't have to have that at 0.9 per bedroom but we massively over park affordable housing at the 0.9 per bedroom and most affordable housing addresses families so it has more bedrooms so the parking generator as it is is much more exclusionary for affordable housing than it is for market rate housing. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Bundy. Mr. Nickel. Just kind of follow up with that with a comment going off Fayette County's area median income. So we actually have a high area median income here in Lexington. So a four person AMI is 74,000. But if we're talking about individuals that make 80% of area median income, that's individuals that are making $41,000 a year. So if you're building transit oriented, affordable housing to serve that population, under our current zoning requirement, you must do 0.9 parking spaces per bedroom or 1.5 per dwelling unit whatever is greater therefore that one person making 41 000 would have to be parked for 1.5 parking spaces and what we found in the market is in the in market rate housing most developers are parking at 0.9 to to one you know, one per bedroom. So what this does, it really eliminates the need for about 50% extra parking that you don't need. So that was just a quick analysis on how this can help provide transit-oriented, affordable housing in, most importantly, our infill environments. There was one other letter of support that we received from our Office of Affordable Housing from Rick McQuady stating that the one space per unit was very helpful and he's conferred with other affordable housing developers that they've worked with and that they are in full support of him as well. And that letter you can also find in your Google Drive. Okay. Thank you very much, Chris. Do we have anyone who wants to speak on behalf of this Zota? At the moment, I know we had an opposition, but do we have anyone who wants to speak in favor of this? Mr. Chair, I see one hand. That is Ashley McGuire. Okay. I'll go ahead and allow her to speak. Now, Ms. McGuire, you can go ahead. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ashley McGuire, and I'm speaking on behalf of Brittany Rothmeier, the Executive Director of Fate Alliance. As you know, we are a nonprofit dedicated to achieving sustainable, equitable growth in Lexington. I'd like to express the support of Fade Alliance of the Zota to reduce parking requirements for mixed income housing developments. I'd also like to commend the planning staff for their work on another update to our ordinance that is so necessary to promote the type of equitable growth we are trying to achieve as a community. The need for affordable housing as well as diversity of housing types must be addressed through policy, reducing the significant costs of development associated with parking requirements and encouraging a more efficient use of our land to address one of the most severe issues. to sorry about that to address one of the most severe issues facing our city housing our citizens must be a key focus of implementing our infill and redevelopment growth strategy to see success we must remove regulatory barriers and encourage affordable housing development in any way that we can extensive research shows that parking requirements most negatively impact the type of housing we most desperately need. This ZODA works to rectify those effects and we strongly recommend the commission approve the same for the betterment of our community. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your comments. All right. Next, do we have anyone who wants to speak in opposition? Please raise your hand. Mr. Chair, we have Ms. Amy Clark. Ms. Clark, I'm going to allow you to speak now and I will pull up your presentation. Thank you. I'm Amy Clark at 628 Castle Road. I do not want to characterize my remarks as opposition. I am very much in favor of affordable housing. It needs all our support. I'm also very much in favor of limiting parking. The worst waste of land is for needless parking. I do think we need to look closely at the numbers here. What you're seeing right now is the area that will be most impacted by this and the FAR, ZOTA. If you can see it as brown to the north of Maine, all of that is R3 and the darker brown is R4. So these are exactly the apartment building zones that could foster affordable housing where smaller lots and houses stand today. I'm going to move as quickly as I can. I think the way to do it is if you could go directly to slide five, please. Slide five. It's called Can We Do Better? I'm not seeing it, but I guess you're... We're working on it. Okay, fine. I'll talk while you're working then. What you're asked to do in the ZODA here is, here we go. Okay. The ZODA is leaving unchanged the definition of affordable housing and the way it's regulated. it's simply adding the affordable housing parking at one per unit. These are the elements I think are most worthy of close scrutiny. It's 80% of area median income that is defining affordable housing for this definition that gives you the reduced parking benefit. I think 60% of Lexington median income targets the greatest need instead of 80%. And if you could go to slide eight. I won't go over this again because Mr. Nickel went through it. I think he used last year's numbers. But if you look at your blue arrows, the top half is the median income for a family of four. The bottom half is for just one person. 80% are the numbers in blue. And because... pay by the month, I think by the month, $1,588 would be what a family of four would have if it spent 30% of its income earning 80% of the median on its rent and utilities. And below, if you were just a single person, you're earning at 80% of the median income and you spend 30% on rent and utilities, that's what you spend. So that figure in blue, that's termed low income. Very low income is when you're at 50% of the median income. So that's the bottom quarter of people. And those numbers are quite, quite low. The next slide, please. I think the green arrows, the path between at 60% of area median income is the more suitable definition and target for this parking reduction. And there are a couple of reasons why. The next slide, please. this is from Mr. Taylor's earlier presentation to you regarding how many vehicles people drive this is Bureau of Labor Statistics information it's obviously from 1972 to 2001 so we could hope for better. His conclusion is that the average vehicles for the household in the bottom 40% is one car or less. If you go to the next slide, please. This is the identical chart. It looks as though the average vehicles is actually one and a half vehicles per household in that bottom 40%, that second quartile. And now some more anecdotal experience, but actually very good experience. The next slide, please. It seems that affordable housing providers at 60% of AMI do reckon with one and a half spaces per unit being what they need. So the applicant for Winburn Estates, the person who wrote a letter, described the apartments that Planning Commission approved as having a range of 40 to 80% AMI. and Mr. McQuady said that all four of those projects that are so important to Lexington this year came in at 60 percent AMI. Each of them came in at 60 percent AMI in aggregate. The LDG representative Ramona Vasta said a lot of the municipalities we deal with, the parking requirements are one and a half spaces per unit. the problem is in lexington they add on to that the greater parking requirement either one and a half per unit or point nine per bedroom and so it makes the three bedroom the larger family sized apartments very expensive the land claim um mr nickel asked exactly the right question are you doing all that are you providing all this parking because that's what your market demands And she answered no. Typically, we're around one and a half to one and a 1.7 spaces per unit. It's our normal. It's normal for our developments. But Lexington's requirements are too high. Ms. Clark, you have one minute remaining. Okay. So I conclude that, next slide, please. Removing the 0.9 per bedroom alternate maximum requirement would satisfy the need. I conclude that 60% is going to meet the greatest need. It's going to get more affordable housing. The other thing to consider is the term. Excuse me. is the term of this affordability. The way it's written in Article 3 of our zoning ordinance, the requirement is for five years only. The deals we do through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the deals that Mr. McQuady directs with all kinds of funding, they ask for a 15-year term of affordability. And I think before we institute this ZODA, we really need to think about what happens afterward. I think it should be at least a 15-year term, maybe a 30-year term. If you think about our elderly housing parking reduction, which is 0.75 per person, the elderly housing is perpetual. It doesn't have a deadline. But I have a deadline, and I thank you for your attention. and I thank you for giving really special consideration to this vote. I would note that this was, in my view, never initiated as a ZOTA. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do we have anyone else that wants to speak to this item? I'm not seeing any hands raised. Okay. we're bringing back to the commission we do have staff recommendation of approval so we're looking for a motion all right Mr. Nickel all right I recommend a motion of approval for PLN Zota 20-0003 articles 8 and 16 revised parking requirements for mixed income housing developments upon the staff's recommendation. Thank you. We have a motion. I have a second by Mr. Bell. All in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Mr. Plumlee. Okay. Motion passed. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. All right. In commission items, staff items, The only thing, Chairman Forrestra, I would just remind, oh, am I muted? No, no, no, don't. Yeah, okay. Just remind the commission that we have five weeks in July, and so next week we will have our work session, and again, we'll be on Zoom on the teleconference, but that will be Thursday at 1.30. Okay. That being said, I'll take a motion for adjournment. We got a motion from Mr. Bill. Mr. Wilson. I'm not going to ask for any hands. I'm pretty sure everybody's going to vote yes. But we'll put our hands on it. Yes. Have a good weekend. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The rules and it didn't matter why When dad got home I told that story Just like I'd rehearsed Then stood there on those trembling knees And waited for the worst And he said let me tell you a secret About a father's love A secret that my daddy said Was just between us He said daddies don't just love their children every now and then It's a love without end, amen It's a love without end, amen When I became a father in the spring of 81 There was no doubt that stubborn boy was just like my father's son And when I thought my patience had been tested to the end I took my daddy's secret and I passed it on to him I said let me tell you a secret about a father's love A secret that my daddy said was just between us I said daddies don't just love their children every now and then It's a love without end, amen It's a love without end, amen Last night I dreamed I died and stood outside those pearly gates When suddenly I realize there must be some mistake If they know half the things I've done they'll never let me in And then somewhere from the other side I heard these words again And they said let me tell you a secret about a father's love A secret that my daddy said was just between us. You see, daddies don't just love their children every now and then. It's a love without end, amen. It's a love without end, amen. All of her days have gone soft and cloudy All of her dreams have gone dry Thank you. Who said I do not know? Silence like a cancer grow. Hear my words that I might teach you. Take my arms that I might reach you. But my words like silent raindrops fell. Echoing the waves of sight of you And the people bowed and prayed To the young God they made And the sign flashed out its warning In the words that it was forming And the signs of the words of the prophets are written on the subway wall The tenement falls whispering the sound of silence Thank you. Yeah, I'm sitting on this bar stool Talking like a damn fool Got the 12 o'clock news blues And I'm giving up hope for the afternoon soaps And a bottle of cold brew Is it any wonder I'm not crazy Is it any wonder I'm safe at all? I'm so tired of losing, I got nothing to do at all, day to do it. I go out cruising, but I've no place to go, and all night together. Is it any wonder I'm not a criminal? Is it any wonder I'm not in jail Is it any wonder I've got too much time on my hands It's taking away with my sanity I've got too much time on my hands It's hard to believe such calamity I've got too much time on my hands And it's taking away, taking away from me Too much time on my hands T-t-t-ticking away Too much time on my hands I don't know what to do with this smell We'll be right back. Now I'm the chance to achieve your psyche Solve the world's problems without even trying I can't cause it with your friends And the fun never ends That is as long as I'm buying Is it any wonder I'm not the president Is it any wonder I'm nothing more Is it any wonder I've got too much Time on my hands is taking away with my sanity I've got too much time on my hands It's hard to believe such a calamity I got too much time on my hands And you're taking away, taking away Too much time on my hands Taking away I don't know what to do Too much time on my hands Too much time on my hands Taking away Too much time on my hands Too much time on my hands Too much time on my Thank you. I love you. What a little gold ring you wear on your hands. It makes me understand. There's another big moment to learn to be mine. I'm wasting my time. Thank you. I love you. I'm out. In my midnight confession When I'm telling the world that I love you In my midnight confession When I said all the things that I want to La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la La, la, la, la, la, la, la La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la Thank you. We'll be right back. 700 liter records All blues, rock, rhythm, and jazz But when the sun went down The volume went down as well Say, I'll be, say, the old folks It goes to show you never can tell They bought a soup-dump chicken It was a cherry red 53 And drove it down to New Orleans and celebrate their anniversary. It was there where Pierre was waiting to the lovely Madame Moselle. C'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, c'est la vie, We'll be right back. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm not feeling like I usually do I think it might have something to do with you Every time you're near me My body gets hot Don't need a doctor I know what I'm about I call the church of your love It came old overnight I love the hell you're too tight Last night, call the church of your love Your affection has affected me I'm feeling kind of dizzy and weak in the deep I've been in love before but never so bad You're in my system and it's driving me mad Called a touch of your love It came on for a night I must have held you too tight Last night and caught a touch of your love Fever from your kiss tears me apart It starts from your lips and goes straight to my heart No use pretending cause baby I'm sure There's no cure and I just gotta have more Oh, call the church of your love. It came on overnight. I must have held you too tight last night. And call the church of your love. Thank you. ¶¶ Fever from your kisses tears me apart ¶ Starts from your lips and goes straight to my heart No use pretending cause baby I'm sure There's no cure and I just gotta have more Oh, I call a touch of your love It came on overnight I must have held you too tight Last night and call a touch of your love Thank you. through this crisis better and stronger. We know there's a lot of uncertainty in our community. At City Hall, we have strong leadership and dedicated employees. Remember, you are not alone. We're all in this together. So, keep up the good work. Your commitment to social distancing is helping us save lives. Please continue to stay healthy at home, practicing enhanced hygiene. Enjoy this time with your family. Stay healthy both mentally and physically. Lexington has a history of coming together to face challenges. Our social service community has really stepped up during this crisis. So has the private sector. Please continue to support our local businesses. It's going to take all of us working together to be successful. From our doctors and health care workers. To our first responders and public safety partners. And our restaurants and grocery store workers. down to our farmers and our agriculture partners. Thank you. While it may be hard to see right now, our future is still so bright because of you. Thank you for your courage. Your patience. Thank you for your understanding. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your commitment, your strength, your support, your loyalty, your flexibility, your diligence. Thank you for your leadership, your selflessness, your faith, your sacrifice, and your resilience. Thank you. Thank you. Wash hands now. Wash hands now. Wash hands now. Wash hands now. Hand washing is one of the best ways to stay healthy all year long. Thank you. Thank you. People who make good corrections office are people that are driven, high energy, that are willing to be a part of a team and work together for a common goal. The decision makers, being able to make decisions on your own, because you are the supervisor at that point when you're in the housing unit. Yes, you have to report to other people at the same time, but the decisions primarily come from the officer themselves, basically the boots on the ground. I think a good correction officer comes down to the basis of being professional, being honorable, and just having a good, positive outlook on your career. I like working here because every day is a different day. Some days are busier than others, but even on those busy days, we still work together as a team. I like working here from the teamwork factor. I like it because it's different every day and you never know what to expect. It's really exciting. You have a lot of opportunities to expand what you do as an officer. You also have a lot of opportunities to promote and become a sergeant, lieutenant, or even a captain. My name is Corporal Tingle. I've been here since August 2015 and I am the Canine Officer for the Division of Community Corrections. I am with the inmate services department. Intelligence Officer for gangs. And I am a corrections officer. Come join our team. The way you do the things you do The End I'm out. No, no. Goody-toot, goody-goody-toot, goody-goody-toot shoes. Goody-toot, goody-toot, goody-goody-to shoes. Don't drink, don't smoke. What do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke. What do you do? Something in you and don't follow. There must be something inside. Don't follow fashion. That'd be a joke. You know we're going to set them, set them. So everyone can take note, take note When it's all you need and Quiet words that you need Open in the eyeballs, eyeballs Pretending that you're our queen, our queen Goody-toot, goody-toot, goody-goody-toot shoes Goody-toot, goody-toot, goody-goody-to shoes Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do? Subtle innuendos follow Must be something inside No one's gonna tell me What's wrong with my heart Or tell me If we sleep with A bad one on the big bad big night The crowd will tell you You're right to put your Two weeks to learn how some legend I think the game's a go-to far If the world's not spoken I guess that it's the lowest Saying the judges don't be token Ride it on a pound note, pound note Don't drink, don't smoke What do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke What do you do? Subtle innuendo Must be something inside Is that don't drink, don't smoke What do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke. What do you do? Subtle, innuendo, follow. Must be something inside. Is that don't drink, don't smoke? What do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke. What do you do? Subtle, innuendo, follow. Must be something inside. Is that don't drink, don't smoke? What do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke. What do you do? Subtle, innuendo, follow. Must be something inside. Is that don't drink, don't smoke? What do you do? Don't drink, don't smoke What do you do? Stop looking new and don't follow There must be something inside Sunshine, blue skies, please go away A girl who found another and gone away With her went my future, my life is filled with gloom So day after day, I stay locked up in my room I know to you, it might sound strange But I wish it would rain Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah Gone so badly I wanna go outside Such a lovely day But everyone knows That a man ain't supposed to cry Listen, I gotta cry Cause crying is the pain Oh yeah People just hurt, I feel inside Words could never explain I just wish it would rain Oh, let it rain Rain, rain, rain Oh, let it rain Oh, yeah Let it rain The End To the world outside my tears I refuse to explain Oh, I wish it would rain Let it rain Let it rain I need rain to describe the tears in my eyes Oh, let it rain Oh, yeah, yeah, listen I'm a man, I'm a man, I'm a man I'm going to be inside. Let it rain. Let it rain. Let it rain. Why'd you tell me this While you look For my Reaction What do you Need to know Don't you know I'll always Be the one You don't have to Be to me You're beautiful to strangers I've got loving eyes Oh, my own You belong to me in this life Anyone can tell And if who could see Who you need, I know you want to wear You don't have to prove to be a beautiful two strangers I've got love in eyes And I can tell Tell him You belong to me Tell him you were foolish You belong to me Girl, you belong to me You belong to me Tell him he's a stranger You belong to me You belong to me Thank you. You belong to me. Yeah. You belong to me. Please, darling. You belong to me. You belong to me. You belong to me. You belong to me. Child, I do a fool. I do a fool. When I think of those eastern lights, muddy nights, curtains drawn in the little room downstairs. Bring the Donald, Lord, you really should have been there Sitting like a princess perched in her electric chair And just one more beer and I don't hear you anymore We've all gone crazy lately My friends out there rolling round the basement floor Someone saved my life tonight, Sugar Bear You almost had your looks in me, didn't you, dear? You nearly had me right