I don't know what you think about your sexual extra complication Aggregation is getting through you It's a good little tells you that the sky is falling Even if it was, would you still come falling back again? I bet you would, my friend Again and again and again and again There's something right with the world today And everybody knows it's wrong But we could tell them no Or we could let it go But I would rather be hanging on We'll be right back. Thank you. October 22, 2020. The Irving County Planning Commission Zoning Items Public Hearing. We're going to call this meeting to order. First up, I need to read the mayor's statement. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, state of the emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150 as signed by the governor on March 30, 2020, and the Attorney General opinion 20-05, and in accordance with KRS 61.826, because it is not feasible to offer a primary location, physical location for this meeting. All right. Second item on the agenda, we have the approval of minutes. everyone you did not receive the september 10th minute so we would just have a motion on the september 24th 2020 minutes if there's any questions or revisions miss plumley thank you move approval september 24th 2020 minutes okay we have a motion on the table we have a second to that motion? I second by Mr. Wilson. Any discussion? All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. All right. It's unanimous. Thank you. No, I'm abstaining. Oh, you're saying okay, I'm sorry. That's all right. Yeah, I want to abstain. Ms. Meyer. Thank you. Okay. Any postponements or withdrawals? Staff? All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll move over to page two. Development plan. PLN MJDP-20-60 Sand Lake and Estes Properties. Staff? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is, let me share my screen. Okay, this is MJDP-20-60, Sand Lake and Estes Properties, Section 2, Lot 2. This property is located at the corner of Manowar Boulevard and Richmond Road, and it's next to CarMax. The purpose of this amendment is to revise the layout of lots 2, 5, and 6 that are in the colored area of the plan and show the preliminary subdivision plan for lot 2, which is this middle lot here. So we have our typical sign-offs in the first 10 conditions. Condition number 11 is regarding compliance with note number 14 for the public notice requirement. There is a 21-day public notice requirement for property owners that are within 400 feet of the property, and this condition has been met since notice letters were mailed out on September 30th. Condition number 11, I'm sorry, condition number 12 is a discussion item about the timing for construction of the pedestrian access from Lake Wales Drive. That's on the bottom of this plan. You can see there's a pedestrian access easement shown. This pedestrian connection was first required at the time of the zone change for this property, and staff anticipates that this pedestrian access will most likely need to be a staircase, but we just want to discuss the timing of the construction of that connection. And our final condition, number 13, we need it to be denoted on the plan that the landscape buffer area along Lake Wales Drive will include evergreen trees planted 10 feet on center with a minimum height of 5 feet at the time of planting. And with that, I'll open it up to the commission for any questions. Any questions for staff? Before we move over to the applicant. Okay, not seeing any. All right, applicant. We'll be promoting Tony Barrett and Richard Murphy for the applicant. And Mr. Barrett and Mr. Murphy, if you'd like to start your video and your audio, please. Thank you very much. Tony and I are representing Centennial American Properties. This is the final development plan and follow-up to the zone change and preliminary development plan, which you all heard a few months ago. There's very little change in the development plan. We do note 13 about the landscaping that was discussed at the subdivision committee. As far as note 12 on the timing of the pedestrian access, we had discussed with the staff that a note would be added stating that the pedestrian connection would be built prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for lot 6. and I think the staff is agreeable to that and we are agreeable to the other conditions. I think we can delete number 11 about the notice about the public meeting because we have complied with that. And that would be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Any questions for the applicant? Mr. Penn. mr murphy we were talking before this hearing started what when was the first sand lake case that you did that is a good question because i can't remember for sure it's been it's been over a decade i think uh on that we kind of came up with 206 was it that far back it could be it could be yeah well i just want you to know that i've written the whole way with you and I'm sure glad to see this completes it. We are too. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant, planning members? Anyone out in the audience have any thing you want to speak on behalf of this particular application? You can do so by raising your hand. Not seeing anything. Okay, bring us back to the planning members. Open for a motion or a discussion. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. I have a question. Yes, sir. Number 11, the applicant said that we could delete that. Is that agreeable with the staff? Yes, that's fine. And to clarify, 11 can be deleted and then 12, I believe what Mr. Murphy indicated was that the staircase or the connection would be constructed at the same time as the development for the Central American self-storage warehouse on lot 6. and then it would be constructed and then they wouldn't get their occupancy permit of that building until it was was constructed that's sufficient for staff so if we want to just change that to resolve on condition 12 that would be fine thank you tracy so we're deleting number 11 and on number 12 we're taking out discuss and replacing it with resolve. And of course, in the language that Ms. Wade just mentioned. Anyone want to take a stab at the motion? Okay, Mr. Penn. I move for approval of PLN-MJDP-2060 Sand Lake and Estes Properties, deleting number 11 and changing number 12 to 11 and making it resolved, which leaves 12 conditions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Do we have a second? We have a second by Mr. Bell. Any discussion to that motion? I'm not seeing any. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. It's unanimous. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you all very much. All right, next up, we're on the zoning items. Zone change for Juby, LLC. Amendment to Ramsey-Sullivan property. It's PLN MAR-20-0002. Staff? Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen now. We'll move ourselves past the development plan. This is PLN MAR20-0002, the Juby LLC as amended. This application was submitted at the beginning of this year, and I'm happy to be bringing this to you today. Again, the applicant, this amended application is a request for two changes to the zoning in this area out at 2501 and 2701 Spur Road, as well as 2710 Sullivan's Trace. the applicant is seeking to rezone the one portion of the property from an R3 to an I1 zone or a planned neighborhood residential to a light industrial zone and then for the other section of the property from a P1 or professional office zone to a highway service business or B3 zone you'll see that there are two other areas there that's cleanup for the right-of-way so So there is a portion that will be rezoned from agricultural rural as well as planned neighborhood residential along the right-of-way of Georgetown Road. The applicant is seeking to develop four industrial lots with an associated neighborhood or highway service business that includes retail center and three associated outlots. looking at the uh the area of the rezoning you'll see that it is a long georgetown road located here or us 25 it's just south of the i-7565 interstate and it is located along spur road i'm just going to click forward just because we don't get that much close in because this is a very large site um as you saw from the previous slide it's over 40 acres um so looking at this we can see that there is a host of different zoning surrounding this property. We do have a bit of AR located in this area here. Now, that area is primed to be changed from that AR use to a more industrial use. You'll hear us refer to this section as the turkey neck or the cold stream park portion of the land. There is a small remnant of I-1 located along Georgetown Road here. R3 zoning to the north, R4 and R3 zoning to the west, and then to the south we see a lot more of the I1 zoning. You can see that there is also a bit of P1 or professional office zoning to the southeast. This gives you a fairly good view of what has been developed in the area over the past few years. The area to the north is largely single-family detached and attached. However, we do have some plans coming in or that you have already approved for multi-family located north of some of this single-family here. You'll see the Norfolk Southern Railroad located along the western portion of the site. Some single-family detached here. An apartment complex has been approved for this location and some more single-family detached and townhomes or attached single-family homes over here. To the south, you definitely see that development of the industrial areas that we have in this area of town. And that is really delineated by the current location of Spur Road. going into the site itself here we're sitting at the corner of georgetown road and spur road looking into the site this portion is part of the portion that would be uh zoned b3 or the highway service business zone in our lower left you can see uh going into town along georgetown route road what's interesting about this spot is this is a transition from that five-lane highway that we have extending from Spur Road into town to that two-lane highway associated with the transition to our more rural areas and over towards Georgetown. One of the major changes that will happen in the future is this will be expanded at some point by the state. However, that has not been planned for as of yet. Looking into the site, we can see right here there's a bit of gray drop-off before you get back up and into this area. And then looking out of town towards Georgetown, along Georgetown Road, seeing some of those remnant pieces of industrial land use that is located right around Georgetown Road and only has access to Georgetown Road. As we move into the site, still looking at the portions that are proposed to be the highway service business zone, we can see the school, the Lindley School, located to the south of Spur Road here. Moving along, we can look into the school, looking into the site here. This is an interesting portion right over here. We do have a bus stop located on site. It is just off the road. There isn't much of a place to stand. You can see where this truck is parked. That is basically a pull-off, essentially. And you can basically get into that rear portion of the site. but not much in the ways of facilities located at this location. Now this brings us to one of the hot topics from much of our discussion over the past couple of months, which is the S curve or the reverse curve along Spur Road. As you saw with the aerial, there is that really sharp curve along Spur Road. This is looking into the curve as we're going westbound, and then this gives us kind of a good view of how sharp that curve is. It is going from a 90 to a 90. This area has been an area of a fair amount of crashes over the years. You could also see if you walk along this portion of the road here, there's a fair amount of ruts in the road. That is really caused by a lot of people trying to make sure that they're getting out of the way of oncoming traffic and they're kind of going off the road. Off to this side, you can also see a berm that's been developed to protect the school property. These are kind of important aspects of the site and Mr. Martin will discuss some of the changes that the applicant is proposing for this portion of their frontage. Looking further into the site, now we're getting into the portion that is being proposed for the I-1 rezoning or the light industrial rezoning. What you can see is a two-lane road that is operated by the state. going towards the westbound portion of the city. This side is where we're seeing this proposed application. If we go down to this photo in the lower left, you can look into the proposed I-1 portion. This is the opposite roadway or the industrial roadway that has been built to support these industrial uses that connect over to Georgetown Road. You can see there's a significant amount of buffer between the roadway and the start of the parking and the industrial uses here. And then again, looking back towards that S-curve along Spur Road. So a bit of the history associated with the development in this area. This area was rezoned, or 165 acres of this area between Spur Road and the Interstate and Norfolk Southern Railroad and Georgetown Road, were rezoned in 1982 to the light industrial zone. This was in conformance with the comprehensive plan. At that time, we were utilizing a land use map, and it met those criteria. As you can see, it was utilized as a farm during that zone change period. And it was still being utilized as a farm in 2004 when the applicant, this applicant, sought to rezone from the light industrial zone to a planned neighborhood residential zone, neighborhood business zone, and professional office zone. You can see that the vast majority remained in that R3 or the Planned Neighborhood Residential Zone with a portion that was rezoned to the neighborhood business and the professional office located right down here. You can see that there wasn't any industrial development at the time. However, staff still pushed the need for industrial development and conformance with the land use map. And this resulted, this zone change resulted in a significant shift in how this land was being used and how we were proposing for changes to occur around it. So it remained as I won until 2004. And then we see a major shift to a residential kind of character and the supporting uses for those residential characters. In 2006, we saw another zone change application for this land, which was really focused on removing some of the conditional zoning restrictions that were imposed in 2004. You can see in 2006, there was the start of a fair amount of construction going on on the site. The conditional zoning restriction that was removed was a sound wall that was required to be developed along the Norfolk Southern Railroad site. The council did remove those restrictions and the site continued with their development. Here is what we are looking at now. This gives you a good view of what has developed in this area. A fair amount of that single family residential detached primarily with a little bit of your townhome development located here. There is that proposed affordable housing project that has been approved and is moving forward up in this area. And there was a plan for multifamily housing back here with a small park located in this area. Over the course of the the review of this application there have been three primary concerns. The location of the industrial land uses abutting residential land uses, the integration of new development with historical development, and the adequacy of the infrastructure to support the increased intensity that is associated with industrial land uses. Before the October 1st 2020 zoning subcommittee meeting the applicant adjusted their development plan to include proposed improvements along the property's road frontage that partially met the subdivision regulations. This is specifically focused on this S-curve area here. They are proposing to flatten the S-curve for the westbound traffic, separating it out from the eastbound traffic. I'm stealing a bit of Mr. Martin's thunder right now, and I will allow him to talk about it further as we go along. While the applicant has done much to supplement their application, the two other major concerns remain and have resulted in what is staff's recommendation here today. beginning with the westernmost portion of the site or that site that is being proposed for the i1 land uses um the the applicant is seeking to develop it under the industrial and production center uh place type and the industrial and production center non-residential development type within that they are fitting within a zone type that fits into those areas But with any review of new zone change, it is really important to look at how that zone fits into the existing context of that area. Since the 2004 zone change, there has been significant modification of the area north of Spur Road, or KY 1977, and between Norfolk Southern Railroad and Georgetown Road. Design policy number four states that new development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. Context sensitivity or context sensitive development is compatible and complementary to adjacent neighborhoods and communities. It enhances the existing neighborhoods through land use and development patterns that are sensitive to the nearby built and natural environments and is connected to existing neighborhoods in a meaningful way that brings higher quality of life to all residents by creating a sense of place. the focus in all of this is really on the step downs of intensities and the need for buffering and ensure to ensure the the compatibility of new development what you're seeing here is the initial development plan submitted with rezoning of the uh the portion of the land that we're discussing today as you can see a large portion of the single family detached has been constructed and a portion here in the townhomes has been constructed. What we're really focusing in on is this area here. In this case, the applicant is proposing to increase the intensity of the land use from what was planned for the continuation of single-family residential to one that is more intense and more densely kind of organized. Additionally, by proposing an industrial land use rather than one that is more compatible with the surrounding development, including single-family residential, multi-family residential, or neighborhood-serving businesses, the ability to integrate the new development into the established development is lost. The result is a separated development that turns its back on one portion of the neighborhood and is unable to make that kind of integrated system that staff is really pushing for, as well as the comprehensive plan is really pushing for. So the community within the comprehensive plan really was seeking to make those connections both across sites and between sites. Here, when we're talking about that across site, we do have, or the applicant is proposing a connection here. But with what was proposed previously, there's a fair amount of connections east-west as well, as well as another access point across an innovation drive. Whereas in other instances in Lexington, in which residential has replaced industrial or abutted industrial, there is no clear ability to make some of these connections. However, with a new development like this, they are showing the connection, but not showing cross-conductivity, which is a very, very important aspect of this. Furthermore, the portions of development in which residential is coming to industrial and doesn't have that interrelated kind of connection is based off of the historical development. There is often a hard line between the rear of industrial development and trying to break through and make those connections over. In addition to this, and throughout the applicants petition, there is a stress on the need for land that is available for jobs. This is an important element of any community and can work with the context of the neighborhood. However, in this case, the integration or the live-work situation is not as prevalent and has not been indicated within the types of uses that they are seeking to promote. While the applicant has proposed restricting those uses that can be noxious or produce greater nuisances, they have not restricted the site for uses that are lower employment generators, like self-storage warehousing or outdoor storage. Furthermore, this area has had extensive industrial development south of Spur Road, with a clear land use transition between the intensity of Georgetown Road and within between the intensity of Spur Road and the residential, as well as the intensity that is being proposed for Georgetown Road and over towards this development. When I am referencing what is being proposed for Georgetown development, we're talking about that area of the Coldstream campus or the Coldstream Park, or what might also be referred to as the Turkey Neck. This is an area of development that the Urban County Council has pushed and our government has pushed over the last few years, the urban county government swapped land with the University of Kentucky to gain control over 200 plus acres of economic development land that is really focused on similar type uses in this area. This was also a major component of the comprehensive plan and was part of theme C, goal three. Currently, the staff and a consultant have been tasked with working with the mayor's office to create long-range plans for a publicly controlled cold stream campus located right along this portion of the interstate and with direct direct access to Georgetown Road. The area that is located across Georgetown Road is on this special edition of Lexington Now, Clay's Mill improvements, household hazardous waste, and the MPO participation plan. ... ...while also allowing for them to integrate or interact in a reasonable way. Shifting over to the applicant's other requested zone, they are seeking to develop in a corridor place type, at a medium non-residential development type, or a medium density non-residential development type, in a zone that is currently not recommended within this area. Now, that is not to say that one cannot ask for a zone that is not recommended. In fact, it says in the comprehensive plan that you can. However, there are certain thresholds that the applicant must hit to focus this development and make it fit that corridor place type. The applicant is seeking to develop the highway service business zone, a zone that is intended to provide retail and other uses, and specifically special consideration should be considered to the relationship of the uses in the zone to the surrounding land uses and to the adequacy of the street system to serve the traffic needs. For us in staff, we are really focused on the aspect of having this integrate into the already established area. The focus, I'm sorry, the need for the neighborhood integration is furthered by design policy number 12, which states that the new development should support neighborhood level commercial areas. In many neighborhoods developed decades ago, commercial areas were designed to serve as a neighborhood focal point. The development of focal points is an element that is regularly supported by the comprehensive plan. Within the initial application, the petitioner indicated that they were not able to or not interested in making those real connections into the neighborhood, which is why they shifted to a focus not so much on a neighborhood business zone, but on one that was focused more on the traveling public. Context-sensitive development also plays a part in this, and it gets into some of the things that we are looking for for our corridor areas. The applicant has really focused their development type and their proposed development plan on the traveling public and stressing the connection to the school and the trail system that will extend down Sullivan's Trace to Spur Road and along Spur Road to Georgetown. This provides a route for access. However, it is not focused on promoting connections to the neighborhood. It's focused heavily on that connection to the traveling public. I hit the wrong arrow. There we go. So when reviewing the B3 and the P1 and looking at what it is providing to the current residents of the area and what it is proposed for the use, there are pros and cons. The B3 zone is really focused on that traveling public. It increases the availability of retail in the area, but it also reduces the ability for it to integrate into the established residential development because it is so focused on trying to support those highway services. It also removes the ability to add residential development along our corridors. The P1B1B6P commercial zones allow for a greater mix of commercial, offices, and residential. The B3 actually does not allow that at all. So we are increasing our retail component, but also decreasing the availability of the intensity of the uses by going with a B3 zone. Furthermore, it increases the intensity of vehicular movement throughout the day, not just within certain portions of the day. And that's one aspect of the P1 zone that is advantageous for this site and specifically supports some of those neighborhood uses. There is a focus on providing both office and medical services to the neighborhood and the travel public. It is meant to act as a transition from less intense land uses to more intense land uses. the corridor being one of those. And then it allows for the mix of the uses within the development, including residential dwelling units. Furthermore, the intensity of vehicular movement is not typically during those hours in which you'd see a lot of impact on the neighborhood. It's during those working hours, typically from nine to five. So as staff is reviewing this, while the applicant has focused on the potential gains proposed within their development. There is a significant loss with the proposed shift away from the established residential zoning and the supportive professional office zone. The current planned neighborhood residential zone not only maintains the residential character of the area north of Spur Road and between the Norfolk Southern Railroad and Georgetown Road, but also allows for the construction of needed dwelling units within the urban service area. It has been documented within the 2017 Fayette County Housing Demand Study that the community is in need of additional housing, especially on vacant land inside the urban service area. While this area was planned for industrial uses decades ago, the applicant requested a shift in land use in 2004, which led to the development of numerous residential dwelling units. This also necessitated the expansion of industrial elsewhere, like Coldstream Park. To shift again would take away some of the residential gains that were made during the 2004 zone change and required changes elsewhere. Our community has a consistent demand for residential land to support local economic activities. The staff agrees that our current economic situation within the nation, state, and country is difficult. However, the proposed rezoning is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan, and staff cannot currently recommend approval of this application. Staff is recommending disapproval of the development for the following reasons. The requested light industrial zone and highway service business zones are not in agreement with the 2018 Comprehensive Plans, Goals, and Objectives for the following reasons. The proposed development does not provide a context-sensitive development, design policy 4, that integrates into the established residential character of the area north of Spur Road. The proposed development does not support the integration of neighborhoods-serving business and separates itself from the existing development rather than connecting residential uses to commercial uses, design policy 12. Additionally, there have been no major economic, physical, or social changes within the immediate area which were not anticipated by the comprehensive plan adopted by the commission and which have substantially altered the basic character of the immediate area. The applicant has not put forth the justification why the current zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate for the subject property. The current planned neighborhood residential R3 zone remains appropriate as it provides needed dwelling units within the urban service area and maintains the residential character of the area north of Spur Road and between the Norfolk Southern Railroad and Georgetown Road. It has been documented within the 2017 2017 Fayette County Housing Demand Study that we are in need of additional housing units on vacant land in the urban service area and this R3 zone currently provides that. With that, if there's any questions I'd be happy to answer them at this time. I'll stop sharing my screen. Any questions for Hal at this moment? Not seeing any Hal. All right great. I'll start our share back up and I'll hand it over to Mr. Martin and he'll talk about the development plan. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Hal. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. Let's see. I think I've got mine. There we go. This is the preliminary development plan that you see before you that is associated with this zone change. I know Hal has already gone over this with you, but here we see Spur Road, leading to the intersection with Georgetown Road that's sitting right on top of Miss Plumlee in my screen, that intersection. Here we have an extension of Sullivan Trace that will come from the residential subdivision in this area through the proposed development to align with Greendale Road in this location. Here's Innovation Drive and as Hal mentioned this is an area of industrial development that includes big-ass fans, Tiffany's, and other industrial activities. You may recall that Greendale has an approved industrial development. This location, this is the UK property where they have their recording studio and radio and that sort of thing in this location. The applicant is proposing a lotting pattern. Again, this is a preliminary development plan. There could be some changes to this should you approve some change. You can see they're proposing various structures on the lots through here. Lot one, two, three, four. Here's your B3 area where they're proposing commercial building of 20,000 square feet and then three outlot buildings of roughly 3,800 to one that's approximately I believe 4,000 square feet in the corner location. The buildings that you see that are being proposed for the industrial development on this particular plan, they are over 456,000 total square feet of industrial buildings being proposed with 343 parking spaces. To a certain degree, and the applicant will tell you this is conjecture at this time, it's a preliminary development plan, you could see some changes to this obviously depending on the end users. Of particular concern to staff and how touched on this is this area along the residential neighborhood. They are proposing a 25 foot setback with landscaping in this area. In conjunction with that the buildings are set back 100 feet or more off of this which does comply with requirements of your ordinance relative to activities that can take place, garage doors and docks, loading docks and that sort of thing in the rear of the buildings. Again, the idea is to make sure that we adequately buffer the residential use to any uses in this location. One of the keys, of course, to this development, and as Hal touched on it again, is the infrastructure. And it is primarily, in this instance, the street infrastructure. Improvements to spur road. The applicant is proposing and would be required, and they are proposing to do their half street improvements along their entire frontage on spur road. and Sullivan's Trace will be constructed to standards, required standards, and it will taper down as it enters into the residential neighborhood. There's going to be traffic calming and signage and other indications of the change, and that is, of course, to discourage industrial traffic from utilizing this street system to get out to Georgetown. town. They're proposing detention primarily in these areas close to the railroad that is the area it primarily drains in that direction. There's a public space area being proposed here and the setback off Spur Road even though they show parking in some of these areas is also valuable in that the relationship of these buildings to Spur Road should again you approve this zone change and it be developed. This relationship will be very important and staff would be looking to discuss additional landscaping and those sorts of activities to help buffer these uses and their relationship to Spur Road. Now in speaking with that relationship to Spur Road, the S-curve and as you all are very much aware the S-curve is inadequate infrastructure for this type land use and spur road doesn't just serve this proposed area of course it serves this industrial area what will be here off greendale and all the residential to the west and a tremendous amount of residential is developing to the west so spur road is going to be handling a tremendous amount of mixed traffic and of course that's one reason staff has such concern about the infrastructure The proposal is to build the half section in this area through the applicant's property that will separate the traffic so that your eastbound traffic will utilize existing spur road and your westbound traffic will utilize the westbound lane in this location. That would therefore reduce the conflicts. now let's see Al I might need your help how can I get to the B3 area there we go thank you very much again dealing with spur road and conflicts let's look at the B3 area as I pointed out to you before they're proposing three outlots with a commercial building in the in the rear parking in this location. There's a large detention basin here as well. They're proposing a right in, right out into this property. That will be contingent not only upon District 7's approval, but it will be subject to a waiver in the future because of the spacing of this location with the Spur Road intersection. It does not currently meet the subdivision standards, and so you will be seeing this again should you approve it and again a waiver will be discussed they will very likely require a waiver for this proposed location as well out to spur road from this commercial development this is similar to what you saw on sandersville road in georgetown with the b3 and that they requested and you approved with a waiver right in right out along with an access on to Sandersville. So this is similar to that situation. In the future, should this go forward, staff will be concerned about the number of drive-throughs that can be approved on this site because of the traffic impact on the road system and on this intersection. And that's so very important. Again, the infrastructure cannot be understated and its importance to these developments and to the other developments that already exist in the area and to the traveling public as well. So it's very important that this infrastructure be adequate to deal with the demand. So with that, again, the staff report that you see before you has standard sign-offs, a couple of cleanup items, that need to dimension their buildings and complete a few of the site statistics as required from Article 21. These are relatively minor cleanup conditions. Staff is recommending that these access points to Spur Road as well as to Georgetown be determined at the time of a final development plan or a preliminary subdivision plan. Now, both of those types of plans are incredibly important because, again, you address infrastructure at that time. And it's not just the adequacy of this infrastructure that staff would stress with you, but it's the timing of it as well. And it is important that the adequate infrastructure be built sooner rather than later as this property develops. And to give you an example, if a piece of this property starts to develop and the S-curve situation has not been addressed, that's going to be an issue and a timing issue that staff is going to bring to you for discussion and resolution because it is that important to the function of this area. We do have another condition that is the removal of this access point. We don't want it on the plan at all. We're trying to avoid any future confusion about this access point. It is not located well based on the current infrastructure, nor is it necessarily well located for the straightening of this half section to the S-curve. Again, because this is where that separation will start, and that is an obvious conflict point. we would recommend that that be removed from the plan. And again, access waivers can be discussed in the future with any future development plans, preliminary subdivision plans that are brought before the planning commission. With that, your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions? Tom, before we move over, I know we have a traffic study, a brief traffic study from Jimmy Emmons. Next up. Hey, Jimmy, how you doing? Doing wonderful. I have a quick question for Tom. Were there discussions about the relationship to the Lindley School and the effect on operations at the Lindley School? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And of course, being in school and being independent, they have the power to do what they want to do, frankly. And we are concerned they are trying to align their access with the school access, and that would certainly be helpful. And that will be something, and that relationship will weigh in heavily to the future access discussion and the waiver request that we would anticipate being brought to you. I hope that answers your question, Mr. Paul. Yeah, thank you. Anyone else have any questions for Tom at this moment? Okay. I'm seeing it. Okay, African. Oh, Mr. Chairman. Jimmy, I already said you and I'm. Well, in order to be brief, I do have a PowerPoint presentation and several supporting documents, but I think if I can just make some brief statements for the commission and reserve those for if you have any further questions for me, I think that I can do my presentation extremely quickly. the transportation is often you know it's the link between the zoning and the use and the real life impact that it has on our transportation system so I just wanted to make it clear because we've been going over this particular development for months now and I've talked to you several times during your committees I just want to make it clear that transportation planning staff reviews the transportation infrastructure as if the requested zoning were in place, very similar to what we do with the review of our development plans. Previously, I had recommended against the proposed uses of this property because in my opinion, the transportation infrastructure was inadequate for those requested uses and the applicant was not doing anything to mitigate them appropriately in my opinion. However, with the applicant's current proposed development plan that Tom has just gone over with you in great detail, the transportation planning staff is cautiously optimistic that the transportation infrastructure will be adequate for the proposed uses at this time. And I say cautiously optimistic because I do need to point out for the record that several of these proposed solutions, in particular the right in, right out off of Georgetown Road, the half section improvements of the realignment of the S-curve, these are all out of the box solutions. And they will require much further detailed engineering designs at the time of the final development plan should this go forward. And furthermore, both of those being state roads, those out of the box solutions, I cannot under, you know, I want you to understand that those are, those have to be permitted and approved by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet through District 7. So I am very hopeful that these will go forward. And I believe that with the work that the applicants have done and the transportation infrastructure that they are proposing now, I do believe that it will be adequate for the uses that they are proposing. But as Tom mentioned earlier, I do suspect that you will have to, even with that being adequate, you will still have to review a lot of detailed design at the next stage of development. The transportation planning staff does not have anything, any further recommendations for the planning commission other than what Tom has already presented to you on the development plan and what the applicants have put on their development plan and the recommendations that they have made in their August 2020 traffic impact study. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. And like I said, I do have many things pulled up on my computer. We can go into any details that you want. But at this point, the staff is thankful to the applicants for working so hard over the last couple of months to get us from an absolute no to a cautious yes. I believe that concludes my remarks. If you have any questions for me, and I believe that concludes all of the staff presentations, I would turn it over to Mr. Bailey. One more thing, Mr. Chair. Since you're not here with me, I often forget this. Within your Google Drive and for those that are in our office, there were three letters of support, two by the members of the Kearney Hill neighborhood, and then one from the Commerce Lexington. Thank you, Hal. Mr. DeMoblin. Yeah, Jimmy, give me just your opinion as to the change in traffic impact from the current zone to the proposed zone? One of the things that you have with large industrial users, it's not just the, it's not one of the considerations to take into mind. It's not just the amount of traffic that is generated by these uses. It's the type of traffic. So with the large industrial park or a small industrial park that they're proposing. Of course, we're expecting a lot more semi-tractor trailers, and the evidence suggested that traffic trailers, that having trouble getting that word out, but the big trucks were not able to get through the S-curve. But another thing to keep in mind is that typically whenever you're looking at residential and other types of retail and commercial uses, usually they have a very big impact on the peak hour, the morning and the evening rush hour traffic. The industrial uses, it's not just the big trucks, but they tend to be their busiest throughout the day, not necessarily during those peak rush hours in the morning and the evening, but they have a lot of their busiest traffic happens essentially around lunchtime and before and after the evening rush hour. So it's busier throughout the day with bigger trucks. So that's kind of what we're looking at. But so I just wanted to get the, thank you for the question. I just kind of wanted to get those thoughts out to the commission. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Cole. This may be a question for the applicant, Jimmy, but when I'm looking at the S curve, I'm making the assumption that only one lane is being flattened out for financial reasons. Am I right about that? Or is there actually an advantage to separating out the two lanes from a safety standpoint? From the staff's point of view, that the applicant is only building their half section improvements for the realignment, and that at some point in the future, it would very likely be a government project to build the other half of the road and have the better alignment than the existing alignment today. So the reason why the applicant is, the reasons behind the applicant's motivation for only building the half section improvements, I'll let them answer that. But from the government standpoint, this is a good intermediary solution. But it could be intermediary for quite some time. All right. Thank you, Jimmy. I'm not seeing any hands or is it to ask any more questions. Ms. Penn, do you have a question? I thought you had your hand ready. All right. I'm going to turn my camera off, but I will be listening and available for questions should you have any questions for me. All right. Thank you. Move over to the applicant. Chair, we're going to promote Brandon Gross at this time and Darby Turner. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes sir, we can hear you. Very good. Thank you all for the opportunity to be before you this afternoon. I'm Darby Turner and here with my partner Brandon Gross who representing the applicant in this matter. I think Mike, I don't know if Mike Willem is on or not. Yes, Strand Associates. Strand Associates, there they are. And with Mike, Mike is the engineer on the project and with Mike, I think president, his office are the principals of the developer, John Barlow, Julie Barlow, Reese Miller, and Daniel Miller. And they are here with us today as well. You know I want to begin by thanking the staff as it's been mentioned and as you all know have been through several committee meetings on this previously. This has been a much discussed and work through proposal. And I appreciate the staff's indulgence and creativity and, you know, their willingness to address creative solutions here to difficult problems. And I say that I'm pleased with that, except for the final recommendation on the zoning, which will let us here. The one thing I wanted to, that was kind of lost in the presentation, it has to do with the development plan. And let me say this with the development plan. It is a preliminary development plan. We understand there's a great deal of work to go to when that becomes an application for a final development plan with known users and so forth and so on. But having said that, we are in agreement with the staff's recommendation of approval with conditions on that development plan and support the recommendation of the subdivision committee with that regard. So I want to get that on the record and out of the way as we begin. Now, with the development plan, if Brandon can share the screen of the development plan, there is another aspect to this. and if rana pointed out there is a 10 foot intermodal uh way that has been created all the way from the railroad tracks through to the commercial area along spur road that is for pedestrians bicycles runners skaters whatever that you want and coming down from Sullivan's Trace, you have a similar path, an eight-foot path coming down from Sullivan's Trace to meet that 10-foot path. So the connectivity that you're talking about here coming down from between the industrial and the residential consists of Sullivan's Trace plus the intermodal a way that people can walk, run, bicycle, etc. Now, with that, we think that is a significant feature of the proposal. With that, Hal indicated that the recommendation is of the staff that this is not compliant with the comprehensive plan. Obviously, we submit that it is in agreement with the comprehensive plan for many of the reasons that Hal indicated it wasn't, frankly. If you look at the area, and Brandon, let's pull up and look at the slideshow. Let's go to the, well that one's, that one's fine. This is an overall view of the, obviously of the corridor. Back up to the, the railroad, the Georgetown Pike is on the green line there that you can see the subject property is near the top right through there. The line paralleling the Georgetown Pike is the railroad track running down through here. Now as was pointed out immediately across the street from this area is, well, that's the turkey neck, but reasonably across the street, Spur Road from this area, is frankly a very intense, not very intense, but it's Bluegrass Business Park. As was pointed out, you've got the beer distributor ship right across Spur Road from this property. You've got Tiffany's, et cetera, as Hal had mentioned. Additionally, as you can see, you've got the Kearney Ridge neighborhood. You've got some I-1 immediately to the north or portion of this property. So on three sides of this property, you basically have three and a quarter sides. You basically have industrial properties. Now, frankly, the issue, to simplify the issue, the issue comes down to where do you draw this line for industrial and the B3? I mean, well, the B3 is P1, but primarily the industrial. Where do you draw it? Do you draw it where we have proposed it, where the two uses back up to each other? or do you draw it down on Spur Road where you have a residential neighborhood fronting a very active collector, industrial collector street? So it, for many, many reasons, and the backing the uses up to each other with the buffering is a significant accoutrement to this proposal. In fact, in your packet, the three documents from the neighborhood, Ernie Ridge neighborhoods, consist of 17 properties, if you'll look at those documents. And we have had multiple meetings with the residents, resulting in an agreement and an accord. these residents are very much favorable to the industrial use with the proposed buffering and traffic calming devices relative to any traffic coming through their neighborhood and are opposed to further residential development. It was also pointed out, you know, if it did develop as a residential character, you're really not going to have much more connectivity. You're going to have Sullivan's trace that comes through the development, and then you're going to have the intermodal way that goes around it. The residents were adamant they did not want any intermodal way in between them and the industrial property, nor any residential property for safety concern. So, you know, in many respects here, we have come a long, long way in one, satisfying our neighbors, and two, satisfying some of the significant infrastructure issues that the staff has been concerned about. So we have basically solved all the issues and are really down to where do you draw this line? we think spur road is an industrial corridor it has that character it's very difficult to mix that with a residential corridor in this area so you know the bottom line is from the immediate neighbors from the infrastructure we've made a lot of progress and one of the questions is well why do you want it there? And people say, why not? Why not? Let's go to, you know, the, and Hale referred to it as backing up. Actually, it's a way for particularly two uses of this nature to coexist with little impact on each other. the neighborhood retains its neighborhood character and the industrial retains its industrial. You don't mix them up too much. You do have interconnectivity so you get from one to the other. You get through them. You have intermodal paths for recreation etc. But this is a pretty consistent theme in the community and particularly in this area. Brandon if you can get that. As you can see, coming down, the subject property is outlined in blue there. You have already have some industrial connection back to back, right immediately to its north. across the way at the Truckee Neck, you're going to have additional backing up, if you will, to the R3 area there. The Belmont Farm, the same situation. Oakwood, Connor Woods, and then you've the Sandersville-Greendale road area. You've just approved a zone change for the Spring Valley golf course that puts residential right up next to the industrial with actually very little buffer. Four foot stone wall and some setback. Then over, as you go around, you can see where this has been a tool utilized fairly frequently in the community to adjust and buffer these two uses from interfering with each other to a great extent possible. so to that extent let's go quickly through that you can go quickly through each of these properties there's the turkey net in Belmont and you see you've also got Sumitoman electric wiring and eastern freight lines that borders that that neighborhood as well as well as the upcoming turkey neck property. The Oakwood neighborhood, you've got around Nandino and Majan Road, you've got that again. All together, but this is the way that they're buffered and separated. um next yeah and connor woods neighborhood same situation you've got neighborhoods border by industrial i1 i2 uses so this is not an unusual situation and it's frankly has worked very well in the community to accept these these uses which are different from each other. And this corridor, as I showed in the beginning, is a significantly industrialized area. It's one of Lexington's prime industrial corridors or sections, if you will. It's close to the interstate, et cetera, et cetera. the the the the the support of the neighborhood again I think is extremely important they are also looking forward to retail uses one of the things that I talked about before the zoning committee was and you saw it in Hal's slide when he talked about, okay, what's the context? And Hal's slide of the context was a very narrow sliver down to Sandardsville Road, if I recall, and up into the residential area. Well, the context is much bigger than that. The context is the Georgetown Road corridor here in this particular area. you need to draw a bigger circle and see what the context is. There's very little, there's some retail, there's some B3 uses along the corridor, but there are no grocery stores. There's, I think, an IGA, a Super C store along Georgetown Road. There's a McDonald's. There's a few other things, but there are very few commercial services in that corridor to service not only the residential folks that live in that area, that bigger neighborhood, if you will, but also the industrial users, commercial users who have employees who need to have lunch, need to buy gas, etc. May need professional services, may not. professional office space these days is, you know, I'm not sure, you know, with the change in the way everybody's working, professional office space demand is changing significantly, as we've all read. So, you know, Hale indicates that, or the staff indicates that there are the two, the two surviving concerns is the location of the industrial land use abutting the residential land uses. And we've just covered that. It occurs all over the place and may be the best way to handle the integration of those two uses together. The second is the integration of the new development with historical development. Well, historical development is not just the residential area to the north, it's also the industrial area to the south and to the east. That's the area, so the integration is already there. Again, it's where you draw this line. Do you draw this line where we would like to have it or would you draw it at Spur Road? That's the simple issue here. Hal mentioned design policy 12 and in his comments he mentioned it says new development should support neighborhood level commercial agreements, but I beg to disagree. The design policy number 12 says support neighborhood level commercial areas. And then it goes on. That's the policy. Then the text goes on. In many neighborhoods developed decades ago, the commercial areas designated to serve as neighborhood focal points have become poorly utilized and need additional investment. Slowly deteriorate and need additional investment. That design policy is focused on many and there are three examples of it pointed there where as we talked before the zoning committee as well everyone wants to emulate Romney Road and a few others but where it has been tried and more instances than not those centers have not done well. So it is important to have those centers in an economically viable spot where they can survive and where they can function and thrive. and no economic center in this area can be supported by that residential just to the north of it. It's got to be supported by the larger area, neighborhood area, if you will. So frankly, I don't think design policy number 12 applies. And then when you talk about design policy number four, you want something that's complementary to adjacent neighborhoods and communities. Again, we're talking about a much larger area than simply the residential area here to the north. You want to have connectivity. We have a road going right through it that connects the residential through without interfering with either use. You have an intermodal path, 10-foot path, and connectivity that people can walk, ride, run, etc. between these uses without interference. of the uses to those activities. And so I think that's what design policy, design policy number four is all about, provide development that is sensitive to the surrounding area. So if, you know, again, it's why not put the line where it makes sense, where the users can buffer each other, if you will, rather than directly conflict with each other across the road. So we think, frankly, design policy number four supports compliance with the comprehensive plan. And, you know, those are the only two objections to compliance with the comprehensive plan. We solved the S-curve, that situation, and we thanked the staff for their leadership and innovative thinking along that way. That was terrific. I think as Bea pointed out, that's what you all want us to do if we can. And that worked. Took a while. And Graham, to your point, the obligation of the developer under the subregs is to bring its half section of the road up to standards, which we always agreed to. The issue was, well, who's going to fix the other side of the S-curve? And just fixing one side of it as it stood didn't really solve the, you know, was still problematic. So the innovative approach of doing our road improvements as a new section, as a new lane, let us fulfill our obligations under the subdivision regs while drastically improving that situation by separating the traffic through that area. And therefore, that was a very reasonable compromise that was very workable. Well, that, you know, that's, it took us a while to get there, but we did, and we thank the staff for that approach. We have, I know that there are a couple of folks, I think there may be some folks in the neighborhood, and I know Ray Daniels is on the call and wants to speak to the jobs issue. and so I'll yield the floor to those and then I'll wrap up shortly after that and answer any questions. Thank you, Dobry. Do we have any questions for Mr. Turner? Yes, Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. Two, actually. Number one, will there be a sidewalk along Spur Road? and number two what's the total acreage in the b3 if this should pass thank you yeah go ahead hell sorry who was talking that was mr i think this is to you i'll let you go ahead and answer these ones just with it but i can answer them if if you would like yeah what's the acreage spring off the top of my head I can't know how if I knows that. It's 38 acres to go to I-1. Yeah, so it's 7.98 net, and then it gets into 12 acres for gross. Yeah, and then there's a cleanup stuff along Georgetown Road that's associated with it. 10 foot. Yes. Now, Ms. Plumlee, with the sidewalk, that is the 10-foot intermodal path. Alongs for a road. Right. In other words, instead of a four-foot or six-foot sidewalk, it's expanded into a 10-foot intermodal pathway. Okay. Thank you. And it connects all the way through to, you know, cross, has the ability to cross the railroad tracks and then all the way through to Georgetown Road. Thank you, Mr. Turner. Mr. Wilson. Yes, Mr. Turner, I know that you indicated you checked with the community, the community that was immediately adjacent or abuts to that particular land. Did you by any chance or anyone contact or have any meetings with the Oakwood neighborhood? No, I don't think so. It's pretty far away, Mr. Wilson. I was using Oakwood as an example of where the residential and industrial actually coexist with each other side by side, not across the road, but about each other. Okay. Mr. Darby, you did mention you had two individuals speaking on behalf of the... I think Ray was supposed to be on the line. If you are, raise your hand so somebody can see you. There he is. Daniels, you should be able to go ahead and speak now. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it, Commission and Board Chair of Forrester. Good afternoon. My name is Ray Daniels. and I'm currently the 2020 Commerce Lexington board chair, and I'm just here to make a few comments on the role of this industrial change in reference to jobs. I have a copy of Jenna Greathouse's letter that she wrote to you guys, and I just want to highlight a couple of things that Jenna had highlighted in her letter. Commerce Lexington works collaboratively with many strategic partners. many city, state, and government partners, workforce and minority development organizations, officials in surrounding counties, representatives in the equine industry, and the University of Kentucky. Our mission, our primary mission, is to create new jobs and make sure that those jobs pay more than prevailing wage, while increasing the amount of income and creating greater capital investment in our community. That strategy is to achieve, we try to achieve that in several diversified industries, thereby strengthening our overall economy here in Lexington. As part of that mission, Commerce at Lexington developed the Bluegrass Business Park located at Citation and Boulevard, and we discussed that on Spur Road. That park consists of 97 acres, includes well-known global companies such as Big S Fans, Tiffany & Company, and Webasto Roof Systems. These companies announced 1,688 jobs recently, which an average annual salary of $44,264. And the investment they have made in the community has been over $175 million. We think we have demonstrated in the Bluegrass Business Park, light industrial zone land for strategic economic purposes. and we have demonstrated how essential that is in site selection process and finding and keeping skilled workforce. Unfortunately, the availability of light industrial land has not kept pace with Lexington's population growth. Currently, there are less than 10 reasonable sites of at least 10 acres scattered across Lexington. The 200 acres in the turkey neck, as we refer to, is still several years out due to relocation of dairy research facility and the cost of infrastructure. Lexington needs more shovel-ready light industrial land for the expansion of our existing businesses. We have businesses right now that are looking outside of Lexington because of the lack of options that they currently have in Fayette County. Their departures will not only result in the loss of talent within our community, but the loss of much-needed payroll tax revenue. As quoted in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, One of the primary purposes of moving away from the map, however, was to provide opportunities for innovation and creativity through flexibility. And that spirit still remains. John Barlow's proposal on Spur Road will create needed light industrial land for Lexington. The site's location adjacent to Bluegrass Business Park is a natural fit. We know that this project can work as evidenced by the success of the business park. Commerce Lexington would ask that the Planning Commission address the need in order to enable our community to continue to attract new large job creation projects and more importantly, accommodate the needs of our existing businesses that wish to expand within the urban service boundary. This is a workforce issue as well as an economic development issue. Commerce Lexington strongly encourages you to approve this proposal. I'll be remiss if I didn't share a generous sentiments that everyone needs a job and it's important for our community to sustain our government. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Mr. Turner, you had one other individual? Well, yeah, I don't know if I know that some of the residents are monitoring this and I didn't know if any of them wanted to speak. All right. I can ask right now if you want to speak on behalf of this application, you can do so by raising your hand via the Zoom option. Mr. Chair, it looks like we have a raise hand for Bradley Olson. Okay. Mr. Olson, we're going to allow you to speak now. You can go ahead. Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much for letting me speak. My name is Brad Olson. I live at 2717 Kearney Creek Lane. My backyard butts up to the property under consideration here, or at least the industrial portion of that property. I wanted to just comment from one homeowner's perspective, but a perspective that I know is shared by many of my fellow residents along the south side of Kearney Creek Lane. Basically, there are about 25 of our properties that form the border with what is being proposed to be rezoned from R3 to I1. And as a side note, it was really informative to hear some of the presentations from Hal and others. So I thank you for that. That helps give some context to how we got to this point. I just purchased my property in May, so I've been new to this. But since then, as Mr. Turner mentioned, we've had a series of about five neighborhood meetings with Mr. Barlow and Mr. Gross, where we've negotiated some favorable terms, particularly around the landscape buffer area. As an individual homeowner, and I understand members of the commission are making decisions at a much broader scale and on behalf of a much larger population, the most I can offer is one homeowner perspective. My four questions essentially are what's going to be in my backyard? How tall is it? How far across the property line is it going to be located? And how ultimately does that affect my current privacy, the view that I've come to enjoy, and my property value. My feeling is with the I1 rezoning, we've been able through negotiations with Juby LLC to essentially create some preferred terms that we might not have or might not exist if it was kept as R3. The map of the initial development plan that shows single-family detached homes is certainly encouraging, but as I've read the ordinance for R3, it potentially could have multifamily dwellings, including apartment buildings, and as I've understood the setback distances, it could be a three-story up to 40-foot tall building that is a minimum of 10 feet across my property line. I did submit a letter and in that I included a photo of my backyard of kind of what my current view is. And there is essentially a 25 foot existing strip of grass that I continue to cut on my property. So I can clearly see how close something might be. And with that, I know there was comments and concerns about creating a cohesive community and development. I do think that's important. However, my perspective in our neighborhood, we still have many plots that are unsold. There seems to be plenty of opportunities for single family homes to be built. And as someone else mentioned, there are other areas that are planned for multifamily or multi-unit dwellings still within the main Kearney Hall subdivision. My concern is that if the R3 is kept And that is opened up to a, again, a continuation of the subdivision. To be frank, I have a freight train line to my west. I have I-75 and I-64 to my north. I have Georgetown Road to my east. And I'm in the flyover path to Lexington Airport. I don't know if it's those factors or the downturn in the economy right now as to why we have so many plots unsold, but I fear if we open it up to continued development, it will be that same factor or that same problem multiplied. And I don't think that's going to help contribute to filling in and creating a more cohesive community. as far as the businesses on the corner if they're businesses that I might enjoy going to it certainly would be convenient to have the path that that's been laid out to be able to walk to that corner as far as jobs from the industrial partners I think a lot of that's speculation at this point because we don't know what industries are going to go in and we don't know if that will match the qualifications of the residents of Kearney Hall with that I appreciate you hearing my perspective As I said, my main concern is what's going to go in my backyard and how is that going to change my privacy, my view, and ultimately my property value. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Olson. We have staff up and may be able to address some of your questions. Hal? Would you like me to address any questions now or would you like me to wait until rebuttal time to answer some of those things? let's see you know that we can wait probably a good idea let's see if we have anyone else want to speak on behalf of this application and also against so I'm just doing so by raise a hand yeah and I'd still like to wrap up okay Mr. Chair when appropriate I'm not seeing any hands raised Mr. Turner so the floor is are you done with your initial conversation I am I wanted to sum up briefly. Is that okay? Yes. Thank you. We do have proposed findings of fact in favor. I'd like to briefly with you. But as was mentioned by Ray particularly, jobs in Fayette County are extremely important. And as you know, not only to the individuals who have the jobs and the services for which they pay and so forth, and the generation of money that occurs from a job, but also, as most of you know, the urban service, The Lexington Fayette-Urban County government relies on payroll tax for about 83 to 84 percent of their budget, their total revenue directly or indirectly. It is extremely important to keep the quality of government and the quality of life that we have here to keep the job in Fayette County. That's the state tax policy. I can't do anything about that, but that's what drives the necessity for putting the jobs in Fayette County, if we can, and putting them in an area where it's already highly developed jobs land, and I call it jobs land. but there are jobs associated with the commercial area, but the significant jobs are to be associated with the industrial area. The Bluegrass Business Park is a marvelous example of the success that can occur. And I've been out there to, went out to Webasto's 25-year celebration. and just to see all the faces of all the employees who were in there with a job, with a good job, and it was incredible, and it made me really understand what it is to have that employment sector and those jobs available, and as Ray said, Jenna's often said, everyone needs a job, everyone needs a job. With that said, here are our proposed findings. I think that you have them in your Google Drive, but we propose, we submit that the I-1 and the B-3 are in compliance with the adopted 2018 plan. Again, I went over the request that meets the design policy, the provisions of design policy number before to provide development that is sensitive to our surrounding context. We submit the surrounding context is much larger than the staff may propose. It's a mix of residential and industrial development. It provides a road connection to spur road for the residential. It provides the connectivity with the intermodal and that road connection. And after a number of meetings with the residents, we reached agreement on what they do to buffer them and maximize their land and their green space and their privacy. and that we think those that's that's the spirit of design policy number four and most of it has to do with looking at the larger area of the context what what's the context you put this in it's not limited to just a small box with the residential on top it's a much it's a larger area It's not a huge area, but it's a much larger area than just looking to the residential piece to the north. With regard to design policy number 12, support neighborhood level commercial areas. The proposal is for B3, but it's restricted to B1 uses. And those restrictions are set forth below. But again, the neighborhood is larger in context and therefore those commercial uses are very important and integrate to serve that area. And as I said earlier, it's important to encourage the investment, which means have a good site. And also the opportunity that it's important for that commercial center to thrive and support the larger contextual area. The request also meets theme three, the prosperity policy and livability policy number nine. Creating jobs and prosperity industrial jobs land has been shown to be limited. You heard Ray talk about that. This will increase the availability of jobs and employment opportunities, not only in the I-1 area, but also in the B-3 area as well. So, and below that, if you scroll up a little bit, you'll see the restrictive, the conditional zoning restrictions that we had proposed in our application and subsequent justification letters. and those are to you know to to prohibit the most noxious uses and frankly the those prohibited uses in the I-1 pretty much mirror the Lexington Business Park across the street which you can see how that turned the jobs that were created for that so in in in summary that's our case that's our proposal we have worked very very hard to solve a lot of problems and it was a submit we have and with the staff's help but let's not throw that throw all that progress away to make to put this in place we need to approve we need to these zone changes need to be approved so that we can put them in place thank you I'll answer any questions anybody has Thank you, Mr. Turner. Legal, as Mr. Turner, I did hear you say you had emailed us over to legal as well? Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure that they receive this and get that in the minutes there. Mrs. Jones has received it, and she has been reviewing it. When we get to that kind of point in time, you're welcome to talk to her about what she has reviewed, if you'd like. Okay. Thank you, Hal. Thank you. Is Mr. Olsen still on or Hal, do you want to address this question now? I can let, I think Ms. Plumlee had a question for Mr. Turner. I'll go through with a fair amount of my questions or answers as we get into the rebuttal. Okay, thank you. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. This is for Mr. Turner. Yes. Could you expand a bit on the type of buffering and screening between the neighborhood? Sure. For most, and they're all, I don't want to say they're all different, but they're somewhat individually tailored to the particular lot. There's a 25-foot buffer in the green. The red is a 30-foot buffer. Railroad tracks are over here to your, you know, the neighborhood is to the north, as you can see. Sullivan's Trace coming down. But one of the characteristics is the fencing and hedges, there's a combination of both depending on the landowners, the landowners desire, is going to be placed on the south side of that buffer zone. So it will actually not just the buffer zone to be seen by the neighbors, but also they could be utilized by them if they so desire. Thank you. Does that answer your question? Yes. Okay, it's Mr. Wilson, that's your hand raised. All right, Mr. Polk and then Mr. Bell. Mr. Turner, one of the staff's reasons for recommending disapproval is that the applicant has not put forth a justification for why the current zoning is inappropriate. Could you address that briefly? Yes. I mean, that is actually the statute. And we have never argued. The statute, what it takes to support a zone change, is that you need to find that it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Then it goes on to say in the absence of that finding, and in the absence is a critical word, but in the absence of that finding, you can either find that the current zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate, or you can find that there have been changes of an economic, physical, and social nature that were not present at the adoption of the comprehensive plan that would justify the zone change. So those last two are fallbacks. We have never argued fallback. We have always submitted that it is in compliance with comprehensive. plan. Those are alternative routes that can be taken. Thank you. It's a justification for approval, not a justification for disapproval. Thanks. And Mr. Cole, I'll address that a bit more in our rebuttal as well. Mr. Turner, I might have missed it, but there was mention of, I believe, the access road or whatever, right in the S-turn. did you address that? Oh, the access in the S-curve? Yes, please. Yeah, I think as Tom mentioned, that was a condition and we accepted that. We agreed. Okay, thank you so much. Yeah. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Ben. if i'm uh clear on this this was re-zoned to r3 in 2004 that's my understanding yes so it's your all's contention that had this been needed we would have used this land up and therefore it's not needed for residential it's needed for industrial a lot of things change in 16 years and yes you know there's we've got I mentioned Ray put it very artfully in Jenna's letter as well we are hurting for large tracts of industrial land now in 2004 we still had lots available in the industrial park across the street and that the industrial the bluegrass business park is is full there are no more lots i i understand that mr turner to follow up on that i understand what you're telling me uh because the bluegrass industrial park is is full now it's a success i don't debate the job issue at all what i feel sorry for is the people that bought houses in that development thinking it was going to be residential development. Now all of a sudden we're going to take 38 acres of it and wind up used if it's not going to be residential. And that's my only concern this whole project. Well I think we've again I think we addressed that as indicated we met we've met five times or more with those neighbors and walked through exactly what our proposal was and addressed their concerns and We solved that. You encourage us to do that. And I'm not questioning what you've done. What I'm questioning is, is what we've done. And what we've done is we've identified in 2004 an area that needs to be residential and some other uses, P2. And now we're back changing it. And I don't have any problem with this. My only problem is that we are now having to figure out how to buffer industrial next to residential when we haven't intentionally done that in the past. Now, there's another zone change coming down that's already come down, another development plan that we're going to have to do the same thing on. I'm not necessarily against what's happening here. I'm just trying to remind my fellow commissioners that, you know, the worm has turned here, and we're doing things a little different than we've done in the past. That's my only reason. I understand that things are tight. And, you know, it's always been a main premise of the plan and planning thought is that you try to put industrial where industrial is for the most part. You also have mixed those uses. And we've mixed it in this corridor. terms of residential commercial and industrial and it seems to be working thank you thank you any further questions or mr turnst mr mr forrester did we need anybody in the public that was opposed to this i did ask i didn't see any hands okay but thanks but i did ask for that But thank you. Staff? Thank you very much, sir. There are a few things that I should run through. First, looking at some of the questions. The question that I heard specifically from the member of the public was really looking at the height of structures or the impact that it might have on the neighboring property. The applicant has worked with the neighboring properties on some very variable kind of buffering strategies in the rear. Staff would recommend that if those are going to be implemented, they be done so in a non-variable kind of situation. It is problematic to go ahead and say this portion gets this, this portion gets this, especially when trying to justify those buffers. If a buffer is necessary because the industrial use is this way in one area, it should be the same for the other area. So that is just one of the aspects that as you go along looking at the conditional zoning restrictions, if you choose to go that route that the applicant has submitted, any type of buffering should be included in those conditional zoning restrictions and should be focused on providing something that is not variable across the site. When it comes to a hedge or a fence or a wooden fence versus something else, there can be a little bit of variation in that, which is what we allow within our current buffering requirements. The other aspect was the height. Currently, there is no conditional zoning restrictions that have been proposed to lower the height of any industrial structure in this area. So the max of the height of a building would be 75 feet with a three to one height to yard ratio. that with what the Epcot is proposing right now for the distance of the structures to some of those residential lots there, they would be able to build out to a 75-foot height. A few of the aspects of this that I would like to address from Mr. Turner's presentation, he is completely correct. This is a focus on where that line should be. The difference between it being in the center of a right-of-way of 70 feet or being adjacent, directly adjacent to neighborhood lots is what we're really discussing. From staff's perspective, a 70-foot right-of-way is a proper buffer between a land use, like an industrial use, and residential uses. putting it up against a residential area necessitates us looking at setbacks, looking at buffers, looking at several other issues. Additionally, if you looked at the photo that we showed earlier in the presentation, much of the industrial space that has been developed across the way in the industrial park has been set back significantly with a large portion of green space in between any of the parking and the building and the right-of-way. So there is already an established buffer and land use transition from the industrial use to the residential uses that are back on Sullivan's Trace and on that northern portion of Spur Road. The applicant made the comment of why not? Why not put this here? And this is largely back to that perspective of best practice within planning. The reasons why not is we already have a buffer. We have a roadway, a right-of-way that is in that area. That area was set to develop with residential in that area. It was set up to have a smoothing out of spur road. It was discussed during the earlier rezonings and it's been discussed through today as being necessary in any type of development. The applicant did mention some of the connectivity within their development plan. They're currently showing a lack of cross-connectivity east-west. We acknowledge that they are making that north-south connection along Sullivan's Trace, but there is no cross-connectivity. So what we're seeing here is a proposed development. Now, we understand that this is speculative at this time, But they are showing a proposed development with an access to the neighborhood, but then four distinct I-1 uses or developments, and then one distinct B-3 development. So we really are getting a separation of sites across that east-west kind of transition. The applicant has talked a significant amount about jobs, and we agree that our industrial lands are typically those job-producing areas. However, that is not a guarantee. The applicant has left in several low generator or low job producing uses within their conditional zoning restrictions, including self storage warehousing or outdoor storage. There are also a fair amount of other things in there that are a little less of those job producing high revenue jobs kind of situations or uses within the I1 use that might not produce exactly what is happening across the road. So there are a few other aspects of the application that are very different also from what is occurring around town in which we see some of the residential abutting some of the industrial. I take a little exception with the fact that there is a four foot stone wall and a setback associated with Spring Lake. There is, in fact, conditional zoning restrictions that require a buffering. there is a planting that is required within that buffering and with any transition from an industrial to a residential use there is a fence that is necessary beyond just that four foot stone wall there are a few other things in here but I'm running out of my own time so if there are any questions I'd be happy to answer them at this time but that is staff's rebuttal. Thank you Hal Commission members, do we have any questions for Hal at this time based on his recent comments? Okay, Hal, I guess you did a good job. You don't have any questions. Well, thank you very much. And we do have Tracy Jones here from law. If you have any questions about what the applicant has proposed. Yes. Okay. Not seeing any questions or hands raised. I want to close the hearing and bring this to the commission members to have further discussions about this particular application. The floor is open. Ms. Plumlee. Thank you. I think the staff made a very good point of their issue and their conditions. it the connectivity issue the effect on a neighborhood and I have a motion whenever you're ready I want to see if any other hands are raised for the question a conversation Mr. Bell you know like so many of these things it's just a matter of finding a balance I think there were points made on both sides. I would personally like to see them get back together. The industrial use seems more logical, and yet the points that Hal makes with regard to buffer and respecting that further, I think it's valid. So I'm in between personally on things and would like you know i'd like i think i'd like further discussion for the two to get back together i think we're much closer but um but that's my point thank you thank you bill yeah i i would have uh liked to seen what a recommendation from the donning subcommittee was and it was referred to us so i don't know if any of the commissioners want to speak on their decision to just refer rather than to give an opinion Well, as a member on the zoning committee, just from my perspective, I was in between as well. Staff made a good impression on me, and so as the applicant, so we want, you know, my opinion was based on the motion that came up, we thought it'd be a good idea to bring it to the full committee. But I'm just speaking for one. and i mean i was in the meeting as well and we were given the opportunity to approve disprove or refer and it was split just like we're probably here right now it was um good arguments on both sides and um the recommendation was made to refer and i think we all agreed with that but one comment I'd like to make is that this is, it's going to be a difficult decision and we have to make a decision. That's what we're asked to do. And in my mind, we've got two needed, really needed things for our community that are opposing each other, which is jobs versus housing. And I thought we heard an interesting argument from Commerce Lexington about our need for jobs. I fully understand our need for housing as well. Once again, my statement would be that this was a compelling argument on both sides. I think it all has to do with jobs versus housing. We're tasked with making decisions, and we're going to have to make a difficult decision. Paul, I see you had your hand. Mr. Paul. I just one comment and that is the argument for jobs would depend on certain kinds of facilities going in there and we don't know what they are. And if we're talking about warehousing, we're not talking about very many jobs. So I'm a little skeptical about that. Thank you. Mr. Bell. Yeah, Frank, you've been following this for a while. I'd be curious about your thoughts, if you don't mind. Thank you for putting them on the spot. You know, there's an old form of expression, damned if you do and damned if you don't. I think that's where we are right here. I really don't have a strong feeling one way or the other because I see really good thoughts on both sides. the ability to be able to put something that's 75 feet tall within 30 feet of a yard that somebody right on you got their house that stirs you a little bit too there's no there's no really right answer here the question becomes what do we think is the best thing for our community at this time and that's really as far as you can go that's why i asked the question about 2004. you know we can make the argument that housing is really needed and it is but evidently it's not needed in that area as much as as because that's a long time to be zoned that and that's the reason i went that way i think you vote your conscience and you go on and you see how this works out i don't i can't lead you one way or the other because i'm on this bench too and it's do you think uh frank do you think getting back together they can come back together with something that's more in the middle well you know i think it boils down to the fact that this is not the final development plan we're going to see okay uh this is the placeholder if you will we're actually just changing zones is what we're doing and so until i see a final development plan i I can't answer that question because I don't know. Thank you. But Frank, I'll ask this question of you as well. I know Mr. Darby has some prohibitive uses, and I know that Mr. Pol has some questions about that. If we would add, potentially ask more prohibitive uses to that, that may get some traction, I'm not sure. I think you're free to do what you think is right. I don't have a crystal ball here. I really see both sides of this more than I'd like to. Yes, Mr. Wilson. I think that was the dilemma that we were in at the zoning committee meeting. I think we both saw both sides of the ledger on this, and we were hoping that by giving people an extra few days to work on it that they could come to some type of general concession and because we thought it was a decent project at least i did and at the same time we understood very clearly what the staff was saying so we kind of punted on that hoping that they would come together and have some kind of resolution for us at this stage of the game i have a suspicion that they've said that they've done as much negotiating as they can do with the staff. It's going to be just left up to us to make a decision about it one way or the other. And it does come down to a business of interpretation related to how we want to interpret the comprehensive plan and how we wish to execute it and implement it. It's a real tough decision, okay? And I don't know how to manage it in another way. I wish they would come to some conclusion or some accommodation on some things. but I guess it's left off to us to make them pull the cord. Okay, hold on, Mr. Bell, Ms. Barstow. Yes, I just have a question. When you spoke with the residents, and I'm going back to Mr. Olson's comment about an R3 would allow a 40-foot building, and then to hear that actually the industrial zoning would allow a 75-foot building, what was said to the residents to make them feel comfortable in the industrial scenario? Mr. Turner? Yes. And height was discussed. I don't know if I've ever seen a 75-foot industrial building other than a rickhouse or something of that nature. Typically, and I don't, you know, that's an issue that we could certainly leave up to final development plan. And typically the industrial users are as high as they need to get the equipment they need to utilize. They're not multi-floor. You don't have multi-floors. The height is needed relative to the hoists or equipment that you need to utilize in whatever manufacturing or other endeavor you're into. so height I would certainly be I think we would certainly be willing to say let's you know we'll reserve that issue to final development plan because it may you know we had we said the same thing to the neighbors is that these typically are not going to be multi-story they may be 30 feet you know whatever height they need to carry whatever equipment and we moved it further back as well. So, again, we're speculating in the sense that we don't know exactly what users may be there. And I think I told the zoning committee, and this is, you know, Jenna Grayhouse indicated, she had a user that was looking for 20 acres. She didn't say and showed them the site. Now, that may or may not ever come to fruition, but it's an indication that there is an interest of folks now for that type of location. I don't know what the industry was, but what the user was, because she wouldn't tell me. But the point being, I'd be glad to reserve that issue to find a development plan when we know what we're talking about. Thank you, Darby. I want to reserve something for Hal. Hal, do you want to chime in? Typically, when we're looking at industrial, the average currently from the research that I've done during this kind of review, as well as some of our background, is anywhere between 45 and 60 feet. You do have the opportunity to go to 75 for places that build things that necessitate that. Mr. Martin was talking about any type of cream manufacturing like we have in town would necessitate a building that would allow them to go up to a certain height like 60 to 70 feet. However, Mr. Turner is right. I mean, generally, when we're looking at some of these I-1 buildings, they're anywhere between 40 and 60 feet, but allowed to go higher. Okay. Howie, Mr. Penn has a question. And also Mr. Neal and Mr. Bell has questions. So they'd be up there for a while. Hal, let me ask you this question. If we put additional prohibited uses in, such as self-storage warehouses in I-1, outdoor storage in I-1, and billboards in B-3 and I-1, does that help our concerns? It takes away some of the concerns for the self-storage and the outdoor storage. The self-storage would definitely be one of the low employment sectors. Generally, you get a 100,000 square foot building that employs three people. When you come to the self-storage or the outside storage, you get into an issue of it being visibly distracting, as well as some of the noises associated with moving around those materials. So those would be better to remove than what is currently there. The billboards as well takes away from a visual character along our entryways into our urban service areas. However, from a staff perspective, the biggest concern is putting I-1 land uses across the road into an area that is directly adjacent to the residential areas. So that is a nice way of saying those are ways to make the I-1 more palatable, but currently that is not what staff's major concerns are. Thank you. Mr. Turner, hold one second, just because Mr. Bell had a question, and I skipped over him. Thank you, Chairman Forrester. Hal, you can maybe guide me. I'm out of my element with this, but you can guide hopefully. So, you know, if I, if I favor the industrial side of things versus the residential side of things and yet favor the buffer and things like that, I don't know. Can you guide me on, on, on how I, how I can navigate this? The best way to navigate some of those concerns of the buffering or adding buffering or requiring certain things is to talk to your legal advice more so than just your staff. The staff would recommend that if you were to apply conditional zoning restrictions in a buffering stance, you make at least the buffering distance the same throughout the entire boundary of the property because that is consistent and recognizes the shift from that industrial use to those residential uses. I would also recommend within your language that you go ahead and say either a fence, hedge, or berm between X and Y height limit so that that is clear and stated so that nothing changes as time goes on. If we don't have these unconditional zoning restrictions. They would or could be on a final development plan with restrictions there, but conditional zoning restrictions go along with the land in perpetuity. They would necessitate a zone change to go through the entire process to remove those. It also makes it very clear to anybody coming in and buying up that property that this is exactly where it is right now, and these are your responsibilities no okay how i got how if with the current setback requirements on i1 if it's a 75 foot building they'd have to be 225 feet which is three times um three times they would have to use me so they the three three to one ratio yeah so they would have to be essentially moving back that 25 feet to get 75 feet. So the three to one the other way. So it's height two yards. So the height of the building is your three. The yard is your one. So it is technically a 25 foot buffer. So with the buffering that is recommended with on their development plan or what they've showed you today, they would actually be exceeding that because they are proposing, 25 feet for the majority of the areas and 30 for another section of that. It also, they have their building set back with some parking in between there. And I believe that they have talked to their neighbors about some plantings and things like that. Okay. Mr. Turner could probably get into some of their restrictions or their buffering that they are proposing in greater detail than I do. Okay, if we were to put buffering requirements, all of that would be associated with the development plan, correct? No, you could do it as conditional zoning restrictions, or you could do it as a development plan note or a depiction on the development plan. Okay, so... Conditional zoning restrictions carry a heck of a lot more weight because it does need to go through that zone change process. It is within the certificate of land use restriction, and it is noted within the ordinance for the zone change. So there is a significant amount more weight when it comes to conditional zoning restrictions than what a development plan note or depiction on a development plan would be. Okay. I can understand development. I can understand conditional use during the zone chain, you know, restrictions during the zone chain process, and then maybe the buffering on the development plan. I'm just speaking out loud to the committee. That's all I have. Thank you. Oh, yeah. Great conversations up to this point. Does any other commission member have any concerns or questions that you would like to speak on. Hearing none. Mr. Turner. I'm sorry. I'm not a commissioner. Yeah. I want to close this out. I wanted to respond to Mr. Penn's suggestion and we are agreeable to eliminate to add to the restricted uses storage self storage outdoor storage forgotten what the other one was but we're agreeing billboards yes we're agreeing to that okay thank you and Mr. Turner how about the buffering question yes we're agreeable 25 feet yeah okay thank you Ms. Plumlee oh i'm sorry i was are you ready for a motion or not yeah yes well yes ma'am your hand was raised excuse me darby could you clarify one thing i was reading through the letters that were delivered to me and there was on that buffer some it appeared some of the neighbors had marked a 30 foot buffer another other a 25 foot buffer if you could clarify between before our motion I think we put up an exhibit that was made to those. The 25-foot buffer is basically from Sullivan's Trace to Georgetown. The 30-foot is on the other side, I think. Well, not exactly. 30 feet is down by the detention basin. so with regard to mr bailey's comment about the consistency of the buffer with 30 feet across everything is that what you were saying hal or were you saying based on the adjoining zone i would recommend if it is 30 feet for some of the neighbors it's 30 feet for all of the neighbors That is a negotiation that the applicant had with the neighborhood to develop a distance. If you're going to indicate, especially since that area is the detention area, if you're going to indicate that 30 feet is the appropriate distance between residential and industrial, that should be the case across the entirety of the area in which there is an intersection between residential and industrial. Thank you. Thank you, Alan. Okay. Any further questions or comments? Okay. The floor is open for a motion. Okay. Mr. Penn. I didn't know whether Ms. Plumley wanted to make a motion or not. Yeah. I did have a motion if it's time. I didn't know if it was time. Yes. Yes. OK. Number one, I really appreciate my colleagues comments of recently here. And I they all have merit and I can find many things to agree with. I appreciate that. And the other thing is about jobs. I'm as concerned as a next guy about jobs. But the thing that really bothers me is there's no assurance what kind of jobs these will be. And for that reason, that kind of gives me a little bit of botherment. So I would move for disapproval of Juby LLC BLN NAR-22 for reasons that the staff suggested. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? We have a second by Ms. Meyer. All in favor, please raise your hand. So we have three that are in favor. All opposed, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. Zach, did you? I'm going to abstain, Chair. Okay. And Mr. Davis is abstaining. So we have one, two, three, four, five, six. And if you could hold that for just one second, Keep those hands high for those who are against. It would be Forrester, Penn, DeMobilon, Cole, Marksdale, and Bell, and then Nicklin. And Nicklin, they keep switching on me on the screen. Okay, that motion fails. And Mr. Davis abstains. So it goes to the table. Okay. Mr. Penn. I will attempt a motion here if that's if we're ready for this and I guess what I'll do is I'll move for approval and ask Ms. Wade to put the some of the additional conditions that we want to put up there so we can all read it from the screen rather than me just read it out loud to you. Well I'll let you go ahead. All right. I move for approval of Judy llc zone map amendment ranchus sullivan in adopting the findings presented by the applicant raising additional conditional probit use prohibited uses of self-soil warehouses and i1 outdoor storage in I-1, billboards in B-3 in I-1, and a 30-foot buffer with a fence or a berm between zones. And Mr. Penn, this is for the zone change only? This is for the zone change. Okay. All right, we have a, oh, okay. I can't see everybody anymore. All right, thank you. We have a second by Mr. Bell. I'm sorry, Mr. Penn, you added something about berm. Yeah, that the buffer between zone changes, between zones, there'd be a fence or a bottom. Correct, Mr. Forster. All right, thank you. Any discussion to that motion and second? All in favor, please raise your hand. One second, sir. We just need to go back to the full screen so that we can get everybody's hands. Yeah, I got. everybody see that? I'm going to stop share. There you go. You got Forster, Plumlee, Penn, Demovalon, Meyer, Wilson, Barksdale, Bell, and Nickel. And Mr. Davis, staying on this one. Oh, Mr. Poe, and Mr. Poe. I'm sorry, is Mr. Poe for or against? It's four. Motion passed. Thank you all very much. Appreciate all your time and attention this afternoon. I'm sorry. We have a development plan. Yeah, hold on one second, Mr. Turner. You're still getting your billable hours. Excuse me. I'm sorry, sir. Who voted against that? Did we have one against? No. No, Mr. Davis. He is saying. Yes. Okay. All right. Now we need a motion for the development plan. Page four. Yeah, it's back there. Take your time, man. All right. Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir? I move for approvals of development PLNMJBP21 with the 12 conditions. We're going to delete number 13. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Mr. DeMoviland. Any discussion to that motion? If none, all in favor, please raise your hand. all right how it's uh miss plumley demoviland meyer wilson barsdale bell nickel pole forrester and finn well of course and mr davis sustained okay motion passed did you get that out yes sir okay thank you thank you mr turner thank you all very much appreciate your time and attention thank you all righty next up we have commission items we need to adopt the 2021 meeting and filing schedule for commission item A. So we will need a motion on the floor to adopt the schedule that we went over last week. Mr. Polk. Got a motion. Second by Mr. DeMovillin. All in favor, please say aye. Well, raise your hand. Excuse me. Unanimous. Now, we need to make another decision for that. Oh, yeah, that's the next one. That's B. Okay. Yes, sir. I'm keeping me straight there. I'm going to, man. Mr. Penn is keeping me in line here, so I'm going to go ahead. The next item, commission item, is item B, work session. We need a motion. Come on. Oh, well, great. The hand's got. So we got a second by Mr. Davis, Ms. Plumley, Ms. Meyer, Ms. Nichols, Mr. Bell. Ms. Barclay. You can pick your poison. I think that's a unanimous vote. Unless you just want to come back. You can come down all you want. You want to see your poison. And so we'll move over to any staff items. Anything needs to be discussed? Mr. Chair, Jim Duncan here. Sunshine on my shoulder, it looks like. Thank you all for the work today, for canceling the work session next week, but in exchange for getting an extra Thursday off, we would invite all of you to participate in our training that we have scheduled tomorrow, Friday, starts at 8.30. For those of you who are coming to the office, please make sure you bring your masks. We will be on the third floor, and so we'll be socially distanced there. Lunch is on your own, but it's a quick 30-minute lunch, so you're free to bring a snack or something if you'd like as well. and then but but we will have a full robust day of presentation and I hope you'll enjoy it whether you're with us live or whether you're with us virtually so thank you Jim is there a will they send another reference or contact or whatever or is that sent last week or whenever it was for the for the zoom for the zoom I'll check with Hal Mr. Bell and and we'll make sure that if that has not been sent out or if it needs to be resend we can do that as well thank you you should be receiving another uh invite within an hour of the start time of that meeting so you should be good to go yeah and how well have you um was was there a google uh drive that went out today or was the one is it the one yesterday that we used today um i believe that uh miss whitaker had sent something out if she had not you will have it by the end of today well i'm talking about for today's meeting was there something sent today or was just one sent yesterday yesterday okay i just want to be sure a day in advance okay we notify it 24 hours in advance about where the google drive is open um and we load things in but they're not always ready um at that 24 hour point sometimes we're getting things the morning of the hearing. In fact, we opened it up for public comment to be sent to us till 10 a.m. So there can be some changes still as we approach the hearing day. It's very helpful. And Hal, especially you sending it out an hour before the meeting, I'm sorry, but it's really nice when it's that close up on your email, you know. So thank you to do that. Hal, is there any way for you on that hour before Zoom notification to include the Google link in it that's a good idea we're having to look at lots of different emails to find i don't know i don't know if it does it we can look into that definitely and uh there's there's an option there let's see y'all spoil this it's terrible isn't it love it good suggestion thank you b all right we're good to go okay any further questions All right. Oh, Ms. Plumlee? No, no. I'm leaving. Ms. Plumlee, you keep putting your hand up and I'm just, you know, I'm... I'm waving. Are you waving at me bye? I'm just going to my bar to leave. All right. Well, if nothing else, this meeting is adjourned. uh miss wade and uh mr duncan if you could hold on for just a couple of seconds that we might have missed mr duncan um once we're done recording mr bailey yes sir very rudely i sent you an email before our meeting asking about the schedule for tomorrow um because i have to