# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - May 27, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 27, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5366 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5366?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-05-27 - **Last revised**: May 27, 2021 - **Length**: 14,493 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met via video teleconference on May 27, 2021, at 1:30 PM. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, taking five votes on various motions throughout the meeting. One member of the public provided comments during the proceedings. The commission achieved mixed results on the items before them. Two significant zoning amendments were approved: the Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment and amendments to Articles 8-21 and 8-22 regarding adaptive reuse, flex space, and industrial mixed use projects. However, the proposed amendment to Article 12-3 that would have allowed kennels in the B-6P zone was denied by the commission. The Fountains at Palomar Zoning Map Amendment was postponed for future consideration. The meeting demonstrated the commission's ongoing work to balance development needs with zoning regulations, addressing both specific property requests and broader policy changes to the urban county's zoning framework. ## Attendance All members were present for the meeting held on May 27, 2021. **Present:** • Ivy Barksdale • Headley Bell • Jan Meyer • Frank Penn • Carolyn Plumlee • Zach Davis • Larry Forester • Bruce Nicol • Graham Pohl • Bill Wilson **Absent:** None **Late:** None The meeting achieved full attendance with all ten members participating. ## Votes and Decisions The Planning Commission took action on five items during the May 27, 2021 meeting, with three postponements, one approval, one disapproval, and one approval. **PLN-MAR-21-00005 - Fountains at Palomar Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 02:00] Bill Wilson motioned to postpone this zoning map amendment, seconded by Headley Bell. The motion to postpone to June 24, 2021 passed by voice vote. **PLN-ZOTA-21-00003 - Traffic Impact Studies Text Amendment** [timestamp: 04:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned to postpone this text amendment regarding traffic impact studies, seconded by Jan Meyer. The postponement to June 24, 2021 was approved by voice vote. **PLN-MAR-21-00006 - Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment** [timestamp: 45:00] Bill Wilson motioned for approval of this zoning map amendment, seconded by Bruce Nicol. The motion passed by voice vote, subject to certification of the development plan. **PLN-ZOTA-21-00001 - Amendment to Article 12-3: Allow Kennels in the B-6P Zone** [timestamp: 120:00] Carolyn Plumlee motioned for disapproval of this text amendment that would allow kennels in the B-6P zone. The motion failed to receive a second and therefore did not pass. **PLN-ZOTA-21-00002 - Amendment to Articles 8-21 and 8-22: Adaptive Reuse, Flex Space, and Industrial Mixed Use Projects** [timestamp: 180:00] Bill Wilson motioned for approval of this text amendment regarding adaptive reuse, flex space, and industrial mixed use projects, seconded by Bruce Nicol. The motion passed by voice vote with no conditions. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call, so individual commissioner votes were not recorded for any of the items. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one resident addressed the board regarding proposed zoning changes. **Brittany Rothmeir** spoke about the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, specifically expressing concerns about expanding conditional uses in the B-6P zone [timestamp: 110:00]. Rothmeir argued that the proposed changes could discourage residential and mixed-use development in the area, potentially impacting the community's growth and housing options. The public comment period provided community members an opportunity to voice their perspectives on agenda items before the board's deliberations. ## Contested Items The meeting addressed one contested item that generated community opposition. **Allowing Kennels in B-6P Zone** A proposal to allow kennels in the B-6P zoning district faced significant opposition from community members. The primary concerns raised centered on potential noise issues and questions about whether kennel operations would be compatible with nearby residential areas. The opposition expressed worries that allowing kennels in the B-6P zone could create disturbances for residents living in proximity to these commercial areas. Community members questioned whether the noise generated by dogs at kennel facilities would be appropriate given the mixed-use nature of areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The specific outcome of this contested item was not clearly documented in the available materials, though the community opposition was noted as a significant factor in the discussion of this zoning proposal. ## Fountains at Palomar Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 02:00] The first agenda item addressed the Fountains at Palomar Zoning Map Amendment, which was scheduled for discussion during the meeting. Bruce Simpson served as the key speaker for this item. Rather than proceeding with the planned discussion, Simpson indicated that the zoning map amendment required postponement. He explained that ongoing work with staff was still in progress, necessitating additional time before the item could be properly considered by the body. The decision to postpone was made to allow for the completion of necessary staff work related to the zoning amendment. No specific timeline was provided for when the item would return to the agenda, though it was implied that the postponement would continue until the staff work was satisfactorily completed. The outcome of this agenda item was a postponement, with no formal action taken on the Fountains at Palomar Zoning Map Amendment itself. The item will need to be rescheduled for a future meeting once the preliminary staff work has been finished. ## Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 45:00] The council considered a zoning map amendment for properties related to the Southend Park redevelopment plan during agenda item 2. Key speakers on this ordinance included Hal Baillie and Tom Martin, who presented information regarding the proposed zoning changes necessary to implement the Southend Park redevelopment plan. The amendment involved modifying zoning designations for specific properties to align with the planned redevelopment of the Southend Park area. The zoning map amendment was presented as part of the broader effort to facilitate the redevelopment of Southend Park, requiring changes to existing zoning classifications to accommodate the planned improvements and development in the area. Following discussion and consideration of the proposal, the council approved the zoning map amendment, allowing the necessary zoning changes to proceed in support of the Southend Park redevelopment plan. ## Amendment to Article 12-3: Allow Kennels in the B-6P Zone [timestamp: 120:00] The council considered an ordinance amendment that would allow kennels as a conditional use in the B-6P zoning district. The proposal was presented for discussion during the May 27, 2021 meeting. Key speakers on this agenda item included Hal Baillie and Scott Crosby, who participated in the deliberations regarding the zoning change. The amendment would have modified Article 12-3 of the municipal code to expand permitted uses in the B-6P zone to include kennel operations, subject to conditional use approval processes. The council ultimately voted to deny the proposed amendment. The ordinance failed to gain the necessary support from council members, meaning kennels will continue to be prohibited in the B-6P zoning district under current regulations. This agenda item was identified as item number 3 on the meeting agenda and represented a zoning policy decision that would have affected future development and business operations in areas designated as B-6P zones within the municipality's jurisdiction. ## Amendment to Articles 8-21 and 8-22: Adaptive Reuse, Flex Space, and Industrial [timestamp: 180:00] The council considered amendments to Articles 8-21 and 8-22 of the zoning ordinance aimed at encouraging adaptive reuse projects and clarifying regulations for industrial mixed-use developments. The proposed changes were designed to provide greater flexibility for developers working with existing structures while maintaining appropriate zoning standards for industrial areas that incorporate mixed-use elements. Hal Baillie served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposed amendments and their intended benefits for the community. The discussion focused on how these zoning modifications would facilitate the conversion of underutilized buildings into productive spaces while ensuring compatibility with surrounding land uses. The amendments addressed specific provisions for: • Adaptive reuse projects that convert existing structures for new purposes • Flex space developments that can accommodate multiple types of uses • Industrial mixed-use projects that combine manufacturing, commercial, and potentially residential components The proposed changes were intended to streamline the approval process for these types of developments while maintaining necessary oversight and community standards. The amendments also sought to clarify existing ambiguities in the zoning code that had created uncertainty for developers and property owners pursuing these types of projects. Following the presentation and discussion, the council approved the amendments to Articles 8-21 and 8-22. The approval indicates the council's support for promoting adaptive reuse and providing clearer guidance for industrial mixed-use developments within the community's zoning framework. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-21-00005** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Fountains at Palomar Zoning Map Amendment - **PLN-ZOTA-21-00003** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Traffic Impact Studies Text Amendment - **PLN-MAR-21-00006** — passed (0-0): Approval of Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Map Amendment - **PLN-ZOTA-21-00001** — failed (0-0): Disapproval of Amendment to Article 12-3: Allow Kennels in the B-6P Zone - **PLN-ZOTA-21-00002** — passed (0-0): Approval of Amendment to Articles 8-21 and 8-22: Adaptive Reuse, Flex Space, and Industrial Mixed Use Projects --- ## Full transcript Thank you. State of emergency and the government for sure to take the order regarding social distancing. This meeting is being held by telecom pursuant to Senate bill 150 assigned by the governor on March 30th, 2020 and Attorney General of opinion 20-05 in accordance with KRS 61-826 because it is not feasible to offer primary physical location for the meeting. The Planning Commission has now filed order and we have approved of the April 22nd meeting. Ms. Flimley. Thank you. Move approval of April 27, 2021 minutes. Is there a second by Anthony? All in favor, wave at me. Minutes are approved. I abstain. You abstain? Yes. Okay. Jane Meyer noted that extension. All right. Postponements and withdrawals. What do we feel on the list? Mr. Chair, we have Bruce Simpson. Let's go ahead and promote him to be honest. Mr. Simpson, you should be able to go ahead. Hi, Bruce. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Bruce Simpson on behalf of the Fountains at Palomar, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. We've been working with the staff on this issue, and I think we're getting pretty close. But I need two more weeks, if that's permissible, with the commission to have this matter heard on June the 10th, if the commission please. Mr. Simpson, we've looked at that, and that is a subdivision hearing, and we are going to have a full agenda. So we can't add that to the 10th. We'll have to go to the zoning period on the 27th. That'd be fine. 24th. I'm sorry, Bruce. 24th. That'd be fine. Thank you. So you want to postpone it until June 24th, right? Yes, sir. All right. You've heard the request of the applicant. Chair, entertain a motion. Mr. Wilson. You have to turn your sound off, Mr. Wilson. Okay, thank you. I move for postponement for PLNMAR 21-5 Fountains at Palomar until June the 24th. Sure, second. Second by Healy. All in favor, wave at me. Bruce, thank you. I'm sorry we can't give you the two weeks, but we're full. I understand. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Mr. Chair, if I may, on behalf of the planning staff, I would like to request a one-month postponement for PLN ZODA-21-00003 traffic impact studies. We are still working with the public to refine our language for this zoning ordinance text amendment and we would like to bring to you the the best possible language before moving forward to the zoning committee and to a public hearing on this item. So the staff is requesting a postponement. Can I get a motion for that? Carolyn? Ms. Blumley you're muted I'm sorry. Thank you. Move postponement of PLN ZODA 21-3, amendment to Article 6-1 and Article 21-4 until June 24th. Is there a second? Second. Second with Jan Meyer. All in favor, wave at me. That's postponed. Thank you. Okay. Moving right along here. We're not expecting any other postponements or referrals today, so I think that we need to start back at the beginning of the agenda. Tracy, if I may interrupt. Tracy, have y'all sent out the Google Drive email? I did. I sent it a little early today because I was afraid my email wouldn't send it. Okay. All right. All right. I don't have it, but all right. Thank you. Mr. Bell, we can get someone on that to resend you a link. If you'll just bear with us. Hold on just a minute and I'll send it again. I appreciate it. Sorry. Yes. Thank you. I just sent it to him. That's fine. So now I direct your attention to page three, item two. And Mr. Bailey will present this. And sir, I do believe that there are no individuals that are against this application. And I was wondering if this could be considered as an abbreviated. But we can ask in the attendees section if there's anyone. Let's ask and see if there's anybody help for that. Is there anybody on attendees that wants to speak on this motion? So we have a hand from Brittany Rothmeier. Would you like for me to allow her to speak? Yes. Ms. Rothmeier, you can go ahead. Thank you. And I apologize. I missed, my Zoom was cutting out a little bit and I missed what you all were asking for comment on and whether there was anything opposing it. So I apologize. I just wasn't sure which Zoda you were speaking to. We're speaking to the one on page three, item two, the Urban County Pay Commission for the neighborhood petition is on that amendment of the planned neighborhood. So this is for the south end part? It's for the south end part. Okay, okay. I apologize. I'm not interested in speaking against that, so thank you for clarifying. All right, if you stay with us and we'll try to educate everybody. Will do. Thank you. Thank you, Brittany. All right, Hal, let's do the abbreviated hearing. All right, thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen, and we'll do an abbreviated hearing on this application. This is PLNMAR 21-00005, the Urban County Planning Commission. This is an application for a zone change that our Urban County Planning Commission initiated just two months ago for the properties located at 508 through 619 Derody Street, 564 and 568 McKinley Street, 555 through 565 Marino Street, 800 and 833 Neville Street. 565 through 637 Patterson Street, odd addresses only, 812 and 816 Pine Street. These addresses are planning to be consolidated or in process of being consolidated to 757 Derudy Street. With this application, this is a proposed rezoning to implement the South End Park Redevelopment Plan, which was approved by the LFUCG Planning Commission on November 2003. Specifically, the zone change is seeking to move from an R3 zone or a planned neighborhood residential zone to a highway service business zone for 0.99 net and 1.46 gross acres from an I1 to an R3 zone for the allotted acreage here. And then from an I1 or a light industrial to a mixed use to or a neighborhood corridor zone. The properties that we'll be discussing here are located at the along Oliver Lewis Way and you can also see this is West High Street and we have the viaduct that crosses the rail line at this location. There are a few local streets that are working within this property located here, Derudy Street, Freedom Lane, the Scott Street right here. And that Scott Street ends the area of the South Park Valley Urban Neighborhood Park plan. As you can see, some of this area was rezoned previously with an application several of years ago, in which the early construction of the community land trust occurred. However, at that time, certain portions of the property were not currently owned by the urban county government, and thus the application was halved, in a sense. When looking at this portion here, which is seeking to rezone to the highway service business zone, it is actually trying to expand to the same kind of areas that were envisioned by the plan in 2003, but were not rezoned to at the time of the original rezoning in 2008. This aerial overview gives you an idea of the land use in this area, with the two areas of rezoning in purple. The South End Park urban plan or urban village plan was really in association with the Newtown Pike extension, which you can see here with Oliver Lewis. It was really focused on getting at the economic, social and environmental impacts of the extension of Oliver Lewis Way. There has been significant amount of study and infrastructural change over time. And this is just one more step in the process of moving towards a more developed area in this kind of portion of town, especially following these major projects that have occurred here. just taking a look into the property on your right hand side we're looking down West High Street towards Versailles Road at the top center picture you have the best view into the overall property this is actually looking into the flattened area that will be that B3 or the Highway Service Business Zone portion of the property here we get a look back up into that that flattened portion along the shared use trail that will border the public park that will be developed in this area of town. It was formerly known as Davis Park. It is now going to be South End Park. If we look to the photos on your right hand side, we're looking down Oliver Lewis Way towards the Scott Street connection and Freedom Lane. Here we have the intersection of Oliver Lewis Way and West High Street. Just some more photos looking into the area of rezoning. On this bottom picture we're looking down to Rudy Street in which there has been a significant portion of development on that southern side. This portion over in this area will be the park, and then into that B3 area. Once we come over here, we're able to see a bit more of what is going to be, what is proposed to be rezoned to the planned neighborhood residential. And then just some more looks into the property with the park area, the mixed use zoning area, which is seeking to do multifamily and commercial opportunities and more of the R3 zoning moving back to the rail line. You can also see the sound barrier right at this location. In the bottom right corner, we're also able to look up the road right there as we move over into the more remaining industrial development. As I said before, there are two plans that really cover this rezoning, the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Study, which really looked at the land uses that are surrounding the extension that is now in place with Oliver Lewis Way. There are still discussions about the Scott Street Extension located right here, which would border the proposed rezoning, specifically the MU2 and the R3 zoning. To the right, you'll see the South End Park Urban Village plan that was approved by the Planning Commission in which it really envisioned how this area would develop over time. You can see that there has been, and when Mr. Martin goes through the development plan very quickly, there are very similar elements to what we're seeing here and what they're proposing with their development plan. We are anticipating some changes with a final development plan, but whatever they're proposing needs to match what is outlined in the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Study, the South End Park Urban Village Plan, and meet the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Since these are both elements of the comprehensive plan, that should be something that they should be able to hit. Again, just another view of the overall land use and aerial photography of this site. It is very close to downtown. It is heavily impacted by some of the roadways there, so there is a real focus on the need for services as well as open space, green space. The planning staff is, and your subdivision committee has recommended approval of this zone change. The proposed R3, MU2, and B3 zone, and I will stress that it is a restricted B3 zone, is in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan's goals and objectives for the following reasons. It expands housing choice by accommodating the house responsibly and incorporating a mixture of housing types. You'll see on their development plan, that they are looking at townhomes and multifamily, and what they have already constructed is of a single-family nature, so blending the various different types of dwelling units. They are proposing these at a variety of affordable levels, both single-family attached and multifamily. It will support infill and redevelopment, specifically with a very large portion of land that was targeted for redevelopment while also trying to retain some of the same families that had lived in this area previously. The proposed redevelopment will respect the context and design features, and that's strongly tied with the association of the adopted plan that this commission had adopted. It will provide a well-designed community, increasing that pedestrian mobility, as well as some access to the transit routes along West High Street, along Oliver Lewis Way, and possibly a closer connection to the South Broadway transit stops. Finally, continuing, the proposed development has been planned for redevelopment and will cause minimal disruption of the natural features. The development will protect the environment by reducing some of carbon footprint by having those multimodal options and specifically the access to the various different services and entertainment amenities within the area. And then the proposed rezoning will also uphold the urban service concept area by redeveloping existing underutilized corridors within our city. The proposed rezoning is in agreement with the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Study and the South End Park Urban Village Plan. This recommendation, as always, is made subject to the certification of the development plan. And in accordance with what has been developed on this site or has been planned for this site and instituted with restrictive zoning, staff is recommending the use of restrictions specifically within that B3 zone. and you'll see the various different restrictions on here. This matches exactly to the prohibited uses as well as the signage requirements that has been established on the currently zoned B3 land. So it is moving it to a little bit closer to a B1 type zone, but allows for just a little bit more flexibility where the B1 does not. So the findings for the conditional zoning restrictions for this property is really focused on the appropriate and necessary infrastructure and ability to develop that corner of the intersection of Oliver Lewis Way and West High Street and protecting the gateway entrance to both the South Park neighborhood and into Lexington along Oliver Lewis way. With that, if you have any questions on the zone change, I'd be happy to answer them, and I can also hand it over to Mr. Martin for his review of the development. Any questions for Mr. Bailey? Carolyn? Thank you. The Lexington Community Land Trust will build and manage this. Could you just briefly explain that organization. Yes, what happens is the Lexington Community Land Trust, which is on the phone call today, what they do is they own and operate the land and own that fee simple, but they allow for essentially the purchase of the structure. That allows for the price of the land to be eliminated often or minimized often from the purchasing of a property. That means that they can keep the cost of a house at a lower rate. They also have several agreements put into place with their home buyers so that if the property is sold or the structure itself is sold at a later time, it's kept to a more affordable rate. So it is a way of creating affordability in perpetuity in a lot of different ways. Thank you. Any other questions for Al? If not Al, we'll move on to Tom Martin's development plan. All right, and I believe Mr. Martin's ready to go. There you go. You'll find that on page four. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. You can see before you the preliminary development plan for this zone change today. And I would add that in your Google Drive, we have given you some revised conditions for this plan. This is a slightly revised plan from the original submission. as uh as hal has explained here we have oliver lewis way this is west high in this location here is the deruby street as it runs through through the development and scott street is at this location coming down here and it terminates now right about in this location and uh as hal explained, the future of Scott Street has extension has yet to be funded. So that is somewhat up in the air as to when that would be accomplished. Here we have what is now known as Freedom Street that comes down here to Darugy. This is the B3 area that Hal was talking about. Here again, at the intersection of Hyde and Oliver Street, you can see the orientation, and this is important to what Hal was telling you, the orientation to the street, which is very much, although a B3 is similar to a B1 with interior parking located at this location. Now, they are proposing access off of Iowa Lewis Way and off of West High Street as well. Here is the South End Park, the large, nice green area, and I would add that this area is not part of the zone change. that was colored up just to help define the area so you could see the B3 and see the park in the area we were talking about. Here we have an R3 zone on lot 29. This was originally intended to be the Nathaniel Mission property. So there is some thought still that this could be an institutional use in the R3 possibly in this location. Of course it can also be developed for residential units consistent with the land trust's goals. Here we have the mixed use. You can see the nine buildings located here and their orientation to the street. This is very, very similar to the original South End plan that was adopted that Hal just showed you, you may recall. Orientation be very important. Now down in this area, we have the R3 residential portion. These are apartment buildings, nine apartment buildings in this location, and then they're showing 21 townhouses located here. In this area, there's an awful lot of green space. This area is similar to the original plan. In a sense, that plan had a lot of rectangular, larger buildings proposed in this area. These townhouses is somewhat different development, But again, it could facilitate ownership and affordable housing. This particular model is certainly conducive to that. Again, as you all are aware, we have an ordinance that controls access and orientation to Oliver Lewis Way. We had that big discussion on the credit union earlier this year. And again, you can see this area and how it is oriented and how it would be developed relative to the street with internal parking. Again, consistent with the plan and with the ordinance. This particular area, the B3, they're showing about 19,000 commercial square feet here. The MU2 area is over 60,000 square feet in these buildings. Now, it would not surprise your staff to bring you a final development plan that could vary. And there's a lot of flexibility and ability to do that with the MU. Although, again, meeting that ordinance does require two-story buildings, but certainly the uses could be two-story or above. Could allow a mix of residential, commercial, office, that sort of thing, all in that area. And again, consistent with the original plan, we have the residential area here. that matches this particular developed single-family home residential area that currently exists. And this curious little lot right here, that is the sound wall. The government's going to retain possession of that lot and be in charge of the wall maintenance of the wall. So again, it's a preliminary development plan for this. It's remarkably, it is consistent with the original vision of this, and staff is recommending approval to you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions from Mr. Martin on the development plan? Bruce. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin, who provided the color graphics on your development plan? Thank you so much for that question. That may very well be the last hand color up that this body will ever see. And I'm pleased to announce that I did that. Very good. And I'm pleased to announce that the staff's easy to work with. You don't have to pay for a designer. The staff's very easy to work with. I hope he got the job done. He did. He had color 101 back in the early part of the century. A long time ago. Never could stay within the lines very well. Any other questions, Mr. Martin? If not, we're going to move on to Mr. Grunwald, and we're going to use him as the petitioner. For lack of a better term, Andrew, we'll just call you the petitioner. How's that? Well, thank you very much, and I'm glad to be before you all today. this marks a very long process. The last time I think I was before you all asked me for a zone change, we had a great debate. We agreed to postpone. I think the term was indefinitely. Well, today we're back in front of you hoping to put this to rest and bring this project to kind of a close, at least dealing with zoning, so that the land trust can get settled into developing and kind of start on its own. We ask for your approval and I'm willing to help answer any questions you might have about the project or the redevelopment or help out in any way I can. Before we ask you questions, how many years have you been working on this project? um since 1999 i think so about what 21 22 years well i hope it's a labor of love because it's been a long time uh yes sir it's been my entire career here at the government any questions for for Andrew. It's coming a long way from what we saw years ago. I appreciate that. Yes sir. Is there anybody here that wants to comment on this? Do you have any back the land trust or is there anybody here from the transportation cabinet? Either one of those? Is there anybody on the call? Yes, Josh Bain from the community land trust has raised his hand. Mr. Fain, we've allowed you to speak. You can go ahead. Good afternoon, and thanks for having me. I just wanted to say thank you to all of you all for your hard work, and certainly Andrew in particular. As he's mentioned, it's been a long project, and we're certainly looking forward to getting one of these final steps taken care of so that we can start to build some permanently affordable housing and bring back this neighborhood that was once thriving so i'm happy to answer any questions directed to me and once again i do appreciate all your all's time and all your all's effort on this so thank you any questions mr spain if not explain i have one for you explain to us how this land trust will operate we've heard different bits and pieces but give us a elevator speech on how this land trust will operate? Yes, sir. So we are a non-profit housing agency that builds permanently affordable housing. And as Kyle mentioned, one of the main ways that we do that is by separating the dwelling of the home from the land itself. We will always retain ownership of the land. We charge a nominal fee as a ground lease. But once again, by removing the cost of that land, we significantly reduce the cost of the property. We also pursue grants and funding that would, you know, further reduce the cost of that land so that, you know, we're operating for folks who are typically in the 60, 70, 80 percent of AMI range. And so that's how we provide affordable housing. This particular project's a little bit different in that we will also be developing commercial space, as you all saw, and that is with the intent of bringing back this community that was displaced due to the Newtown Pike extension. So I'm trying to make that a thriving community once again. And so it was formerly the South End Park and the Davis Bottom community. And now it's currently the Davis Park. The actual park is Davis Park and the community is now Davis Park as well. So you know, that's just a component of what we do. And once again, after we complete this project, we will look to build affordable housing throughout the city in a more of a scattered site model, which is how CLTs typically operate. Any other questions, Mr. Spain? On your commercial part, Mr. Spain, is that a ground lease also? Yes, we will retain ownership of that land as well. So once again, that will, the fees from those ground leases on the commercial space will help us get to self-sufficiency. Once again, due to the ground lease fees being so nominal for the residential, it typically takes volume for a CLT to be self-sustaining. But once again, the commercial ground leases will be significantly higher and will help us get to that point quicker and thus enable us to build more affordable housing throughout the city. Thank you for the education. I personally need it. Thank you, sir. Any other questions, Mr. Fahey? Anthony? Yeah, I've got one. It was mentioned that when the first purchaser turns to resale, there would be some restrictions on the price to keep it affordable. Is that just going to be that they're not buying the land or is there some other restriction in place? yeah absolutely so we have a resale formula and so that is that is one of the key components of our model and why we a create permanently affordable housing and why we would argue we're the most economical way to do so because we only require a one-time subsidy and just a general information about that resale formula ultimately what what takes place is we take the difference between the appraised value of when the individual purchased the home and then at the time of selling the home, and they will take a percentage of that, not the full amount of increase. And so that that subsidy that was initially put onto the property will remain and actually will grow over time. So each additional subsequent purchaser will do so, will need to be approved through our agency, and will purchase at a reduced rate and will need to qualify based on their income level and things along those lines. So once again, not only does that subsidy remain with the property, it actually grows over time, especially depending on how quickly property appreciates here in Lexington. But it also creates homeownership, wealth accumulation and equity for our homeowners who are likely first-time homeowners and likely would be in rental property, otherwise and not accruing any wealth accumulation or equity. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, Mr. Payne, we certainly appreciate you coming today and enlighten us on this. I, for one, learned a lot. Thank you very much. Thank you, Will, and you all have a good day. You've had the transportation department here. Yes, we have Shane Tucker from KYTC. Mr. Tucker will go ahead and allow you to speak now. You can go ahead. Yes, I just wanted to echo Josh and Andrew's comments and extend and very heartfelt thank you to the commission for today's meeting. And this is a tremendous project that, like Andrew stated, has been on the books for quite a few years. And we're excited to bring the project to a tremendous, successful end. Look forward to Josh and the Land Trust being able to take over this property and continue to do what they do. And I just wanted to say thanks to Andrew, thanks to Tracy and her staff and all that has helped us get to this process. Thank you. questions for Mr. Tucker if not Mr. Tucker I would be remiss if I didn't thank the transportation cabinet and also I assume this has been a modern project you want to speak to that yes sir we've actually had several articles written on the project we're actually in the process of writing another article that will be in a national publication due out next spring. It's been a model for projects of this nature across the nation. And we're super, super proud of the project. We know that we've had great partnership with the city, and we know they're proud of it too. And, you know, if we continue doing projects like this, you know, we know that we have that successful model moving forward, and it's just been a tremendous milestone for the cabinet it as well as for the community. Any other questions from Mr. Tucker? If not, sir, thank you very much. And we certainly are proud of the project. Thank you, sir. Have a wonderful day. Is there anybody else that wants to comment on this project? Okay, then we'll bring it back to the commission. We have a, is there any questions or any comments the Commission wants to make on this project? The doctor will take it with two motions. We'll take the zone change motion and then we'll take the development plan. I assume in the zone change motion there's findings? Yes, the recommendation is on the history. So whoever makes the, whomever makes the motion, please include the findings. There's no further discussion. The chair will entertain a motion. Mr. Wilson or Mr. Nichols, either one. Go ahead. Go ahead. Mr. Wilson. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval for PLN MAR21- is that six? I got six. You say five? Six. We have the Urban County Planning Commission's zone change with findings and for the reasons provided by staff. Is there a second? Second by Mr. Nichols? All in favor, wave at me. Thank you, sir. Well, I've got you, Mr. Wilson, you want to move on to the development plan? Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMJD 21-21 South End Park as amended with the conditions provided by staff. How many conditions are there? It's revised nine conditions. Nine with the nine conditions provided by staff. Is there a second to Mr. Wilson's motion on this? Mr. Bell, thank you. All in favor, wave at me. Thank you very much. Mr. Greenwald, thank you. I can't tell you how proud you've got to be of this project. I don't know what they're going to name after you, but it's got to be something. Thank you very much. I'm just happy I'm getting it to a conclusion. I'll have to name the Scotts Creek Bridge after you. Okay. Yes, sir. All right, Hal. Thank you very much, sir. We are now moving to page five of your agenda. This is PLN Zoda 21-00001, an amendment to allow to Article 12-3. This should say 12-5. This is a somewhat changed amendment to allow kennels in the B6P zone. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen very quickly. And ladies and gentlemen, you will see that in your staff report, it does reference the principal permitted uses in the body of the text. It does mention the conditional uses, which the applicant brings up in their letter of justification and their supplemental justification. their supplemental justification. They shifted from a focus on the principal primary uses to a conditional use. Staff found that the change was not outside the parameter of the staff's recommendation from previous and met the findings that are recommended by staff within your staff report. But we'll go through the adjustment to the conditional use in our presentation today. So the applicant has sought an amendment to Article 12 of the LFUCG zoning ordinance. This is the B6P or the commercial center zone. Their specific request is focused on the allowing for the kenneling of dogs within that B6P zone. It was requested by Chelsea LLC. There was a pre-application meeting held in February, filing date in March. and then it was postponed during your public hearing in April. This is when they shifted their focus to a conditional use rather than a principal primary use. The proposed language is on your screen here today, and you should have it within your packet or on the Google Drive. For those who are looking for this on the Google Drive, it is with their supplemental justification letter. Essentially, they are seeking to add a conditional use of kennels under Article 12-5 for conditional uses within the B6P zone. Kennels, and they define it as such, kennels utilized for the boarding and sale of dogs. Such uses shall be located at least 100 feet from any residential zone, shall be soundproofed to the maximum extent feasible by using the existing technology with noise emissions not creating a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood, and shall comply with all ordinances for the operation of a kennel. As you can see within the B6P zone, the conditional uses, various elements of the conditional uses include a distance requirement like the applicant is proposing today. However, what we're seeing is a difference or an intensification of the conditional uses that are allowed within the B6P zone for this application. uh the restaurants cocktail lounges brew pubs nightclubs they're first referred to within the b1 zone recycling drop-off centers for aluminum steel glass newspaper etc and i do want to stress that this is not a recycling center it's a drop-off location for these uh it's first described within the B2B zone. Mining of non-metallic minerals, which is an interesting one, and it is laid out in the code of ordinances. This has actually been in the zoning ordinance for an extensive period of time, and when you ask non-metallic metals, we're really thinking about, for our region, limestone and coal. But it is allowed as a conditional use in all zones, including our agricultural and residential zones. Rehabilitation homes, they are allowable within the AU zone and then the R3 or the planned neighborhood residential zone and above in residential areas. Drive-through, or I'm sorry, automobile and vehicle refueling stations, that is allowed in the B1 zone. And then drive-through facilities for the sale of goods or services permitted therein. They are also permitted within the B1 zone. The main reason that staff is presenting this is that within the B6P zone or the commercial center zone, there is a focus on providing retail and residential as well as some of these amenities and some more intense things. But you'll see that they don't go above what is typically allowed within a B1 or a B2 zone or our residential zones. This is an important factor of the applicant's request, as we'll present in just a slide or two. Just a history of kennels in this area. Kennels are considered a nuisance use on two separate levels. Kennels produce a fair amount of sound, specifically with the kenneling of dogs. You have the barking, the needed movement of the animals, things like that. There's also air concerns when we're considering something as a nuisance use, specifically associated with the animal waste. There was a significant shift in the idea of the downtown pet shop in which there was the puppy in the window. largely because of some concerns about the safety and well-being of some of the animals, but also the impact on the surrounding businesses that occur. I know that there are some questions about pet stores in town, specifically those that sell dogs in town. The Hamburg location of the PetSmart does allow for the sale of dogs, but that is specifically associated with the Lexington Humane Society, in which the dogs are brought from the Humane Society, which is located within a heavy industrial zone, an I-2 off of Old Frankfurt Pike, and brought to the location of the store and shuttled back and forth because of the impact and the need for greater amount of space, as well as cleanly facilities. They are typically located within areas that are able to absorb the impact of those two concerns, while also having adequate room or space for the animals to move. And then modern pet sales, specifically dogs, are not typically located in areas of mixed residential and commercial type use. for kennels in our zoning ordinance today they are defined as a commercial business for the sale or temporary boarding of more than three dogs but not including the ownership and occasional sale of dogs at in or adjoining a private residence that at in or adjoining a private residence allows for an individual to at some point in time if they have the space to breed their dogs have a litter and then sell those dogs. The real focus is on the boarding or ownership of three dogs or more, greater than that three dog level. So currently within our zoning ordinance, it's allowable in four different zones for the kenneling or boarding of dogs and the sale of dogs. The highway service business zone, the B3 zone, that is our zone that is typically located along our most heavily trafficked or traveled corridors. Our wholesale and warehousing business or B4 zone are zones that are typically set back large lots in which there's a fair amount of space and are typically the buffer between a light industrial zone and a less intense zone. We then get into our two industrial zones, which are the light industrial I1 and the heavy industrial I2, those are where we're seeing the greatest amount of production of our nuisance type uses. Light, air, and sound nuisances occur at the greatest amount in these two type zones. That is why traditionally when we're looking at where these types of facilities are located, they are in a real way located in the B4, I1, and I2. There are some examples of kennels that are permitted within our area in the B3 zone, but typically we're looking at the B4, I1, and I2. They are prohibited in agricultural zones, residential zones, and then our downtown business zones. What's not in there is the kind of within the prohibited is some of the gray area. They are allowable within a vet clinic in the P1 and the B1, but there is a time limit and the dog that is being held at that location is meant to be being treated in some way. So we are looking at animals that are sick and need an overnight stay or something along those lines. But they're not there for sale or they're not there just to stay overnight. So when we're looking at those, that's specifically why we called out the specific different zones that the conditional uses are allowable in the V6P. They are traditionally a less intense zone than what is allowable as a principal permitted use in some of those areas. The commercial center or the B6P zone went through a significant overhaul in 2017. That overhaul was really focused on trying to make these areas a mix of residential and commercial, ensuring that some of the commercial opportunities and the economic opportunities had a base of population that could serve these areas, while also decreasing some of the impact on needing to have a car to get around. We were looking to increase the supply and the mixture of the housing types throughout Lexington. And the major push for that was providing a greater density in certain areas and allowing for a little bit more affordability to occur across the city. So taking that macro view of housing supply and demand. It was also really focused on enhancing some of the investments that had been done previously, while also trying to increase the FAR, the floor area ratio, and the built environment in some of these areas, while also increasing the multimodal options, pedestrian options, and decreasing the focus on the single occupancy vehicle while trying to utilize these sites. What you see in front of you is really the intent from that zone. And whenever looking at a modification of a zone or the inclusion of new uses, whether it is a principal primary or a conditional use, it is really incumbent upon us to look at these intents and see if it is working well or what is being proposed is working well with the potential change. and with what the Planning Commission and the Council envisioned for this portion of the ordinance. So in 2017, it was really focused on expanding incentives for floor area, increasing the incentive for residential, and then also increasing multimodal accommodation. So whenever looking at these modifications, those are our three real focuses with any type of new use that might come in. During our review of the applicant's proposal, staff and the zoning committee could not find that it met those threshold levels of trying to increase or meet the intent of the B6P zone. The amendment was not going to enhance those investments that were already existing in the B6P developments by providing redevelopment opportunities that would allow for better utilization of that land. nor did the inclusion of kennels in the B6P as either a principal or conditional use, nor was it really compatible with increasing the supply and mixture of housing types. The proposed tax amendment does not meet the intent of the mixed use zones within the zoning ordinance, as it adds a potential sound and air nuisance into the area that is meant to blend commercial and residential opportunities. And then finally, the proposed tax amendment is not in agreement with the 2018 comprehensive plan as it does not enable new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation, expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation, and public commitment to expand options for mixed use and mixed type housing throughout Lexington State County. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions on this application. I know that the applicant would like to speak, and we do have one letter of objection in which the writer of that objection is here to speak on behalf of their position as well. Any questions, Mr. Bayless? If not, we'll move on to that. Thank you very much. We have a raised hand for Mr. Scott Schuett. Mr. Schuett, I'll go ahead and promote you to panelists now. we also elevate miss elizabeth weiner she is here on behalf of the property owner i don't see her on the list is she perhaps a phone call yes let me if it's under a cell phone it'll be six seven eight number no that's not her sorry we don't see her on the list that's fine i will go ahead chairman commission i appreciate you all taking the time today to entertain this zone text amendment application uh as far as the staff report we don't I don't technically really disagree with much of what they said. We understand the future development and the plans for the B6P, but at the same time, I think that the commission needs to understand that the majority of these B6P areas are under extended leases for 10, 15, 20, 30-year leases. And these landlords are not going to allow for residential development and changed uses while they're still under lease contracts. And this application will allow for additional uses in the B6P. The applicant has operated these type of businesses across the nation and the country. And they've never had an issue with any sound or noise or animal pollution. It's not as though it's a large 60-dog operation or anything like that. But at the same time, we also understand the concerns that staff and the commission had about this proceeding as possible permitted use and the fact that it could open the door to kennels anywhere. Again, we don't feel as though it's going to be a large group of kennels that are going to be coming into town. I think it may be one or two. but we think that this application with the steps we've taken to try and eliminate any concerns about buffering from residential meets the intent of the B6P and the idea that it's supposed to be one of the more accommodating areas within the city. And with that, I'm happy to try and answer any questions you all may have. Any questions, Mr. Shulte? What was that? I was asking for questions. I believe Elizabeth is on the line and she's on her office phone at 770. Okay, we'll allow her to speak now. You can go ahead. Does she want to? Please mute it. Let's hit request. Can you unmute your phone? I think I'm unmuted now. You are? We can hear you? Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Weiner, and I represent the ownership of the property. And I'm speaking in support of this particular use. I understand the intent is to allow residential to flourish. In this particular case, because of the way this property is developed, there is no way that residential could ever come in to the property without the entire building that this tenant would lease. The entire building would have to be demolished and replaced with residential at some future time, which sort of negates it. the tenant would go away with it. The leases that we have on the property now, as Scott said earlier, span out anywhere between, you know, five to 40 years. We have an existing recorded OEA with target on this property that specifically precludes residential. so we can't put residential on this property even if we wanted to beyond that the adjacent property has a restriction on the parking field just adjacent to where this tenant would go that also restricts the use to be retail and then even goes further to restrict what kind of retail we can develop there. So we feel that this particular use on the property is an enhancement to Hamburg. We don't have that type of use there. And we are hoping that we can get this approved and invite this new tenant into the development. I'd like to remind you that we're talking about use. We're not talking about a particular building. This is a text of evidence for a bit of use, not a text of evidence for a particular building. And there's a difference there. Correct. Scott, would you like to address that? Yes, we understand that it's changing the use, not the actual applicant's property. But I think with any application, it's good to see it based on an understanding of where it originated and where it's come from. And at the same time, I think that that story that was just told about the issues with development is not singular to this property. I think it's going to be rather frequent through the B6P areas as they are all generally the strip mall type of environments. And they're all going to be under these extended type of leases. I think we understand that. Is there any other questions for the lady on the phone or for Scott? Well, if we don't hear any more of that, we'll go to the rebuttal page. We have a letter that should be in your Google Drive, and we will elevate Ms. Rothmeier to make her presentation. Ms. Rothmeier, you can go ahead. Thank you. And I apologize for scaring everybody that I was going to oppose the Lexington Community Land Trust development. I know I ruffled Josh Banks. Anyway, I apologize about the confusion earlier. But my name is Brittany Rothmeier with Fade Alliance. We are a nonprofit dedicated to achieving sustainable and equitable growth here in Lexington through land use advocacy, education, and research. So I want to talk briefly about the contents of my letter, which I do know that you all have in your possession as well. But just to reiterate that the permitted uses in our zones, both principal and conditional, shape development on a countywide basis, as you all know. They incentivize the type of development that we want to see. But if we're not careful, they can also discourage the type of development that we want to see. They say a lot about our goals and objectives as a community and what we hope to see in our future. What we do now, today, tomorrow, next week in our zoning ordinance has impacts for decades. Expanding uses in our zones requires careful consideration of the needs of our community, the intent of our zones, and the consequences, both intended and unintended, that can have long-lasting effects on our city. So in preparation for the 2018 comp plan, Bain Alliance commissioned Lord X Sargent to analyze properties within the USB, identifying over 9,000 commercially zoned acres of redevelopment opportunities, primarily along our major corridors. It was clear to us and planning staff in similar analysis that we had to re-envision and better utilize our corridor opportunities and commercial opportunities to meet our community needs. In 2017, planning staff proposed thoughtful updates to the B6P zone to enable and incentivize redevelopment to take advantage of these opportunities. The goals and objectives of the comp plan highlight community goals for redevelopment, transit-oriented development, multifamily and mixed-use developments, higher residential density, and while this occurs, enhancement and preservation of neighborhoods. To achieve these goals, in 2018, the council adopted amendments to the B6P zone, including permitting multifamily dwellings as principal use, encouraging more residential development, eliminating parking minimums, which are a barrier to mixed use, and encouraging building up with increased floor air ratio. These updates set precedent to help Lexington more efficiently use the land on our corridors to meet our needs in the years to come. The current proposal requests conditional uses in this zone expand to include kennels for the boarding and sale of dogs. This use is already permitted in four other zones, which are away from residential developments and specifically prohibited in zones with a mixture of commercial and residential uses for the important reasons that staff outlined earlier. Permitting uses in the B6P zone could undermine the updated intent of the B6P zone, wouldn't enhance existing investments in that zoning, are not consistent with the COMP plan, and could also discourage the residential and mixed-use development we want to see in this zone in the future. Expanding even conditional uses to include these types of uses in the B6P zone, which was so thoughtfully and intentionally updated just three years ago, sets negative precedent that can last far into the future beyond this one particular business. How we want to grow and how we're able to grow as a community is dictated by the uses and allowed in each of our zones. Our ordinance incentivizes, encourages, discourages, and induces specific sorts of development based on our community values. Choosing wisely what type of development that may be is something we must keep top of mind as we continue to update our ordinances, especially in our commercial areas, which hold the most opportunity for positive redevelopment throughout the community. In light of the above, we respectfully recommend disapproval of Zota 21-1 and appreciate your consideration. Thank you, Ms. Rothbauer. Is there anybody else in the attendees that wants to speak for or against this? I don't see anybody. Okay, fine. If that's the case, we'll go back, we'll close this part of the public hearing, and we'll go back to the rebuttal stage. And Scott, we'll let you rebut first, please, sir. Yes, I won't take too much more of your time. We just would reiterate again that the B6P and the future intent you all have outlined of trying to move to this mixed-use residential commercial is a great idea. and it's a thoughtful step forward for Lexington. But we believe allowing this to go as a conditional use will provide the BOA that extended oversight for any future kennels or any possible kennels that attempt to come into Lexington. And the BOA will be able to look at that B6P and say, you're right, that's not going to survive as a B6P. And the kennel should not be allowed there, and it should move more towards the residential commercial mixed use. In other areas, it's simply going to stay commercial forever. And so there's no real reason to eliminate potential uses of commercial property. And with that, we request fully respect approval of this. Thank you, sir. Staff? The staff won't speak too much. I do want to highlight that, unfortunately, while commercial operators may limit themselves with certain agreements, when it comes to the zoning ordinance and some of the restrictions therein, as well as the intents for the future development. When we're looking at future development of the B6P, we are not looking at the next five years, but we are looking at the next five to 20 years. And while the intent of the B6P has been to increase the amount of intensity and density of residential within these areas, it was not meant to increase the intensity of the other uses that were to be brought in. The increase in the intensity of use and the potential push towards a greater nuisance type use would be staff's greatest concern when we are trying to shift directions, despite the private agreements that a organization might make. We are just looking at the governmental regulations here. Thank you. We'll close this portion of the hearing and we'll turn it back over to the Commission. And is there anybody wants to comment on this? Ms. Plumlin? Thank you. Has the applicant presented a type of figures, documents, numbers, that this is a crying need at this time in Lexington? I'll let them respond to that. No, there aren't any numbers on that. I guess the only numbers I think would be a survey of the surrounding residential people to see if they're interested or currently own dogs or interested in purchasing dogs. but there are no real upscale or higher end dog sale facilities. That's how I mentioned in Hamburg. There is the one that offers dogs from the main society, but ours would be a little bit different in that it would be more purebreds and more different dogs as opposed to dogs that are older. It's more of the puppy gear than it is towards dogs in the Humane Society that may be older or cross breeds of the such. Thank you. We're just trying to respond to this plumbest question. Any other questions? Carolyn, do you want to follow up? Yes. Thank you for permitting me to answer that or to ask that question. And I have a motion anytime you're ready. Let's see if there's anybody else that wants to comment on before we move to the motion phase. I see Mr. Wilson. Yes, one of the things that any time that there's a zone change of any kind, according to KRS statutes, only one of three reasons that you can give for a zone change of such. But one of the things that this thing apparently from the staff's recommendation is that it does not meet the 2018 comprehensive plan. That's one of the primary things that you have to meet in order to have a zone change. So I'm concerned about that particular aspect of their proposal. Anybody else before we entertain Ms. Plumlee's motion? it's not see any other comment miss plumbly what was yours thank you regarding pln zota 21 one and was there a 12-5 in there somewhere or no anyway um amendment to article 12-3 allow Kennell Ma'am, if you could just reference Article 12. Anyway, I move disapproval because of the staff recommendations and there are three as listed in our Google Drive. I'll second. Most have been made and seconded based on staff recommendation with the three reasons. All in favor, raise your hand, wave at me. Mr. Chairman, the motion is to support the staff's recommendation of disapproval or to simply disapproval? Are we voting in the negative or the positive? Which way? Let's go to the positive side. I would ask that the motion be revised to suggest that the motion say that we support the staff's recommendation for disapproval. And that would be voting the positive. I agree with you. Ms. Plumley, do you understand that? I'll go along with that. Thank you. All right. Mr. Dickens, will you take the second on that one? All right. You understand the motion? You understand the question? Thank you. Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Parton-Oterian. All right. All in favor of that motion to support the staff presentation, raise your hands. Wave at me. All opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Al, he's back in. He's got the old man job today. We're moving right along, sir. We are on the same page, page five. This is PLN Zota 21-00002. amendments to Article 8-21 and 8-22, Adaptive Reuse, Flex Space, and Industrial Mixed-Use Projects. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. And you all have heard me talk about this quite a bit over the past couple of months. And I will try to re-brief while also trying to cover all the language that we are discussing here today. Lexington as a community has been looking at adaptive reuse within our zoning ordinance for some time now. It is defined within the zoning ordinance as the means or the process of adapting abandoned vacant or underutilized buildings and structures for new purposes. It is really focused on incorporating the changes that rejuvenate and or increase the sustainability of a site and or neighborhood while retaining historic features of the original buildings and or structures. This zoning ordinance tax amendment that staff is presenting to you today that was initiated by this planning commission is really focused on upping our game in a way or really focused on expanding the opportunities that are available for adaptive reuse within the Lexington community. Adaptive reuse is referenced in three different places within the LFUCG zoning ordinance in the adaptive reuse projects, which was established in 2008, the flex space project, which was established in 2013, and the industrial mixed use projects, which was established in 2006. The interesting aspect of this was that all of these applications that were submitted for the zoning ordinance text amendments to establish these were submitted by members of the public. It showed a real need and a want for these kind of preservation activities, as well as the increase in flexibility that would allow for these projects to occur. And it's not just a planning best practice. Much of what we're going to be discussing today is an expansion upon some of those early ideas and a reflection of what has occurred in the past, trying to get to the best possible projects for our next 15 to 20 years. The adaptive reuse project, as I said, was established in 2008. The applicant was the Pepper Distillery LLC, so what we think of as the Distillery District West project, as you can see in this picture. It has been applied throughout the infill and redevelopment area. It's permitted in the B4, I1 and I2 zones or our warehousing, wholesale and warehousing, light industrial and heavy industrial zones, really looking at trying to revitalize the underutilized and often deteriorating properties that are typically bypassed for redevelopment because of the constraints on those areas, as well as some of the issues of trying to get the rezoning for these properties to get the types of flexibility. The really interesting aspect of our adaptive reuse is it has been our most readily used type of adaptive reuse project out of those three that I mentioned before. You can see it throughout town. When we were doing our analysis of these projects, we really focused on what was working, some of the citizen complaints, some of the operator complaints, and what our community needs from these types of sites going forward. One of the things that we were really focused on was trying to reorganize while also trying to make sure that we're getting the next best thing. So for the requirements for an adaptive reuse project, currently it does focus on just hitting nine elements and that there be a single building that is going to be adaptively reused. In this case, we are keeping that single existing structure that shall be adaptively reused, because if we don't have that, it's not really an adaptive reuse project, but we're adding public art or a public art easement. This is called for within the comprehensive plan in our goals and objectives, and it's called out in several policies, but it was also utilized in every single case of adaptive reuse that has been applied for since its establishment in 2008. Staff saw that as being a want of both the community and a aspect of development that the developers were quite interested in getting to. It was also a little bit on the low-hanging fruit for a lot of these things. So it is now we're shifting that from one of the criteria over into a requirement of some of these areas. Also, what is being reused, some of the perspectives of the size and age of these properties. Staff is recommending that when looking at this, the properties that are being reused, the site has to be a single building of over 30,000 square feet that is 75 years old or older, or a total project area of 80,000 square feet with at least two adaptive reuse buildings over 75 years. The big thing that is changing on there, while it is red, is the shift from a 50-year time span to a 75-year time span. The shift in the age there is something that has been described quite a bit within the historic preservation community as well as the cultural resource management community as to what is a significant time frame. We are aging into a period of construction which we saw a boom of historic construction that was of and not in a pejorative way but of a less stable quality. There was a shift in the late 1950s in which we really saw a shift from a lot of our industrial buildings being built out of brick, stone, kind of those hard buildings to a more steel clad type structure. We wanted to push the envelope while also allowing for in the future some of those properties to age into this classification. We also applied that to the second aspect of what is being reused by putting into a construction date, as well as still allowing for the National Register of Historic Properties to be utilized as a justification for that property. So those are three focuses on age. So when looking at this, we are seeking to raise the bar. So previously, there were just nine categories you had to choose three of, and one was repeating, so you couldn't do two of that. So it was really you needed to pick three categories out of eight. Within what we are calling for here, we're shifting to a point scale, or we're proposing a point scale in which there are three elements, and you choose categories that would allow you to get to that point scale. Of the elements, you have building land use, building form and design, transit, infrastructure and connectivity, and then quality of life components. I hope these look very familiar to you because they are the elements that are outlined within the comprehensive plan, specifically within the place builder. For each of those, we do go into specific aspects and categories that are weighted for things that we really need in our community. As you can see on the top, we are looking for affordable housing that is weighted at a scale of six points for at least 20 percent of the units for at 60 percent AMI for 15 years. For a lower level, you're looking at 80% AMI, 20% for 15 years. These are kind of pulled from some of best practices within the historic tax credit program, as well as some of LIHTC, the low income housing tax credit program. So if an individual was seeking to do an adaptive reuse of a project within and seek to get some of these credits, they would be doubling down on the opportunities that they have to restore or adaptively reuse their project. We're also pushing for green rated site design, green buildings, green infrastructure, renewable energy, mixed use residential and commercial site-wide, not just vertically, it could be horizontally. And then at the bottom, an innovation credit. So this allows for some greater flexibility over time, allowing for new technologies to come in that we didn't think about. With any type of zoning ordinance, it is hard to allow for a little bit of flexibility with some of these projects. And this is our opportunity to allow for flexibility of an innovation credit for land use, building form, and or design. And you'll see those in each of the other elements as well. So with transit infrastructure and connectivity, we are looking at a parking structure. This is a large scale investment for a site, but utilizes our land in a greater way. Riparian buffer restoration, daylighting of streams, stream channel restoration, accessible transit shelter and bench, really trying to help some of the facilities that we have out there. A multi-use path or open space oriented amenities, publicly accessible property that has some cross connectivity. What we've seen with a lot of our sites is you get to the property edge and that's the edge. There's no ability to cross between them, which creates a bit of a problem with some of the traffic that we have on our main streets, as well as trying to integrate sites in a greater way. And then again, the innovation credit. And then finally, we come down to the quality of life components. A brownfield recovery site, we do not have many of those identified within our urban service area, but it is a really important aspect of the current adaptive reuse project, and it would be a very important aspect as we move forward. increasing tree tree canopy coverage at different levels, a special funding or governmental incentive. This also can apply to low-income housing tax credits as well as historic tax credits, universal design for ground floor space, community open space that's not specifically associated with residential, community gardens, and that innovation credit. We are looking at adding a new use of publicly accessible parks within this, suggesting a removal of conditional use to a prohibited use, specifically associated with drive-through facilities. The adaptive reuse projects are focused on our infill and redevelopment area, that kind of bound in area. That area is really focused on a more pedestrian oriented development. And staff is recommending that this be pulled out. Oh, and then changes for the parking calculation. Currently, there is a host of different reductions that can be applied to a site. this would give a very clear delineation of how the amount of parking would be for a adaptive reuse project. This is very similar to what you have adopted for the B6P zone and it actually evens out with a lot of the projects that we have out there that are adaptive reuse projects. It allows for a fair amount of flexibility for them to come in and get to the parking that they need and will fit their site. These are tight sites. It does allow for a little bit of expansion of adaptive reuse projects. However, it really focuses on making sure that any expansion, with any expansion, the applicant would be providing the same amount of skin in the game that the prior developers put in. What we've been seeing with a lot of our adaptive reuse projects is that there has been a lot of adding on and expanding out. With those projects, we haven't had the same input or the same amount of focus on adaptively reusing or enhancing a site that we did with the initial application. So this pushes applicants to do one of two things, to really continue to add on to the good things that a project has already established, or to come in as a comprehensive site development, including all of the properties that they were looking to include from the get-go. Now, that allows for a bit of that modification to occur as time goes on. That is the adaptive reuse and much of the language that we're pushing for or suggesting to the Planning Commission here today. and you can find all the specific language in your packet today. I should have referenced that before. You have redlined ordinance language within your Google Drive and Mr. Penn in front of you. You should have that as well. The second project that we are recommending for a modification is the FlexSpace project. This was established in 2013. It is permitted in the B4 and the I1 zones. It is specifically focused to allow for the reuse of industrial sites that are not likely to redevelop as industrial because of the constraints of the property, specifically the large size of structures and the small size of lots. These are allowable outside of the infill and redevelopment area, whereas the adaptive reuse project is really focused on the infill and redevelopment area, Those industrial buildings that have kind of aged in place and has had residential come to it ever since we've seen the suburbanization of our community. This is really focused on the areas outside of that infill and redevelopment area. Areas that have had a significant amount of residential start to creep towards them as well. However, with the FlexSpace project, there is still a need to make sure that we focus on protecting that industrial land that is appropriately located. So specifically for the good and the bad, the good, it has allowed for some variation while protecting areas that should remain industrial outside the infill and redevelopment. the problematic or the bad on this, the name, the FlexSpace Project. It has been confusing for a lot of our real estate and development community individuals as they are seeing this from a national perspective of a building that is flexible in its interior for the user, not so much flexible in its uses. So there is a significant overlap with the office warehouse mixed use project and it does not ask for the improvements to a site in the same way that an adaptive reuse project might. So our first recommendation staff is making to the Planning Commission is that we rename this project to the Industrial Reuse Project. This will eliminate some of the confusion that both staff and applicants have had over the past couple of years. I we would like to make sure that we are still focusing on those locational and compatibility factors still being located outside the infill and redevelopment area it shall be located or shall not be located on an arterial road arterial roadway our arterial roadways are where our industrial projects should or our industrial sites should be located and we don't want to limit or seek to destabilize some of those locations. The project should be located in an area of mixed uses or zones. Again, this is talking about that residential or that more neighborhood serving type uses coming to an industrial space that might not be appropriately located for continuing as an industrial type development. the project should be located in a B4I1 use area in which due to the large or the small size of the lot and large size of the building, it is not feasible for the continuation of it as an industrial type property or use. You can't use it as those truck terminals, manufacturing facilities, or large warehousing facilities. And then the property has an existing building coverage that does not allow for substantial expansion of the structure or parking facilities. So like what we were talking about previously, the project must include one building that will be adaptively reused, and then a public art easement, really talking about beautification and incorporation of art in our community. The applicant should provide documentation that demonstrates they meet at least one of these criteria. The building lot and age, this again, is similar to what is established right now. However, we are focusing on that age of 75 years rather than just 50. The building size and age, and then the association with a historic element, whether it's the National Register of Historic Places or the NRHP, or in a national district, or a certain age. So we also do allow for state and local inventories on this as well. So that's important to note if an individual hasn't gone to the NRHP process. The applicant should include one of the elements. Again, we're looking at the same type elements as what we would see with the adaptive reuse. So because it's the same as what we discussed previously, I don't want to belabor the issue. It is the same categories and elements that we discussed with the adaptive reuse project. So we're going to skip over reiterating that and go to a shift in the uses. Since we are looking at this as being a more supportive type development. Staff thought it was quite important to include a significant amount of the uses that are allowed within the adaptive reuse project. As you can see on here, the previous flex space, what we're now calling the industrial reuse Project did not allow a significant amount of uses. It was really focused on I-1 uses or B-4 uses that were allowed previously, schools, places of religious assembly or private clubs, offices, healthcare clubs, athletics clubs, and spas. This would be a large expansion of the allowable uses. With the exception of one, staff is not recommending that hotels, which is allowable in the adaptive reuse project, be brought over to an industrial reuse project. With those projects that are located within the infill and redevelopment area, it is focused not only on allowing amenities for some of the neighborhoods, but it is also tied heavily to some of the more transient or tourist population that's coming into town. We want to allow for that to occur in those areas, but it might not be appropriate for an industrial reuse project or adaptive project that is focused on providing amenities or services to surrounding neighborhoods, not really close to the downtown development. so uh again when it comes to the form and the process staff is recommending and matching of what is going on with the adaptive reuse as you can see here and in your documentation uh flex space uh projects this is another aspect uh whenever we're seeking to change something in a dramatic way like we are for the shift from a flex space project to an industrial reuse project, we want to make sure that those projects are still legal and tied to some sort of documentation. So staff is seeking to allow for the previous projects to be continued based on the development plan, aiming for an August 1st, 2020 date. The final project or area of adaptive reuse that we would like to discuss is the industrial mixed use project. We've talked a lot about the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan over the past couple of months, and this was one major element of it. It is only permitted within the I-1 zone, and it was pushed by the Manchester Development LLC. I will stress that this, at the time, was very innovative. However, as time went by, the Adaptive Reuse Project, as well as the FlexSpace Project, eclipsed this, not only because this project, the industrial mixed-use project, is so focused on the Oliver Lewis Way area and that area associated with the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan, but also by the fact that the adaptive reuse project was so much more flexible than what was allowed within the industrial mixed-use project. To date, we have not had an industrial mixed-use project be constructed. We've had one applied for that was approved, and it was not particularly in the location that was called for by the Newtown Pike Extension Corridor Plan. Staff is recommending the removal of the industrial mixed-use project as those previous zoning ordinance text amendments made it functionally obsolete, to be completely honest, and that many of the Newtown Pike Extension and corridor plan areas have been filled out without this project designation. The adaptive reuse, the flex space, aka the industrial reuse projects, will continue to make this type of project obsolete. And staff is recommending that this be removed from the overall zoning ordinance. So staff is recommending approval of this tax amendment, and the zoning committee did recommend approval of this tax amendment at their committee meeting for a variety of ways, specifically that it is in meeting with the 2018 comprehensive plan for the adaptive reuse and the greater utilization of our industrial environment. It allows for the expansion of more adaptive reuse while also expanding some of the context and design features of our community. It provides and promotes green building, sustainable development and transit oriented development. It also is encouraging development that promotes and enhances tourism and provides certain elements of entertainment, quality of life opportunities that might attract new residents to our community and retain those that we have. And then the protection, promotion, and enhancement of our cultural and historical resources. That is a significant aspect of any adaptive reuse project. Staff believes that the renaming of the FlexSpace project will clarify the adaptive reuse of developments outside the infill and redevelopment area. and the removal of the industrial mixed-use project will modernize our zoning ordinance and will take something out that has not been built and has been effectively replaced by adaptive reuse. So with that, I am here to answer any questions that you might have on this proposed text amendment, but I would like to also thank all the individuals on staff and the members of the community that have helped us with this application. It has been a real team effort with everybody that has worked on the zoning ordinance text amendment for this, but also that has provided insight that has led to some modifications of this text. Any questions for Mr. Bayer? Mr. Wilson? Yes. First of all, I think the revisions that you all have put forth are very appropriate and very good, but I'm a little long in the tooth and I forgot why you went from 50 to 75. Was there any empirical reason from going from 50 to 75, as opposed to 50 to 80, to 50 to 65? Why are the numbers? Yeah. That is specifically on two levels, actually. So when looking at construction events within the United States, there was actually a sincere change post-World War II, once everybody started to come back home a little bit more, and we saw a little bit more economic activity. So in 1954, a lot of construction techniques and strategies shifted from a more focus on brick and mortar establishments to more steel clad and quick frame structures. Now, from that perspective, staff saw a need to kind of delineate that change while also allowing for some properties to age in. So as time goes by, some of those more historically significant properties that have been able to hold on for that timeframe will age into that process. The 50-year timestamp was actually an interestingly arbitrary timestamp that was put into place in the 1990s, associated with the National Register of Historic Properties and aging into that. There has been significant conversation about shifting again to this 75-year time span. This gives us a little bit of a way to get ahead of any change that the NRHP or the National Program might do, but also is focused on the built environment in our community. Lexington has had that 1954 date, which we did a fair amount of research on and we shifted back to 1950, just so that it was a little cleaner, was a delineation point for a more mass produced architecture that we see in our community all over the place. So we are looking at those more historically significant properties for 75 years. Thank you, Mr. Bailey, for that very comprehensive answer. No wonder I forgot it. Bruce? Yes, sir. Thank you for your question, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Bailey, I'm having a little bit of difficulty truing up. We have the Board of Architectural Review telling us that a building on Vine Street that's 50 years old should be historic, and now they're suing the Planning Commission over that building and you're telling me 75 years is appropriate i agree with you but we need to go ahead and stamp it for planning commission that 75 years is the date we can't have it both ways because it discourages development in our community if we just arbitrarily choose you know move it from 75 to 50 so we need to fix this in place some way And with that, I believe it is a building that is within a historic district. That building specifically has, and I don't want to get too far into it without getting afoul of Ms. Jones. if it is within a district and has applied to the National Register for Historic Properties, hasn't changed a certain level of significance within our community, they could still apply that to a building. It is still allowable under that kind of regulation that we have on there for recognized local kind of things. Well, then we need to take that same consideration into the documentation that we're getting ready to vote on now. I mean, we can't be inconsistent in any way. We can't have it both ways. So, I mean, my recommendation would be to fix it on either end. I don't care which one, but we can't do this because it can be used to discourage development. And I'm not for that. Any other questions? Bruce, the only thing I'll add to this is the fact that the 2018 comp plan for us to implement, we had to do things like we're doing today. The Texas amendments had to be updated, the terms had to be updated, and this has been in the works in our work session for a long time. I think you make a very valid point, but some of this discussion probably all went from work session because of pending navigation. I understand. I just wanted to make... It's just hard to true it up when we've got multiple definitions of historic property. But I'm for this. I mean, I like the 75 year. I think that's the way we should go. So maybe I will propose a different ZODA for historic districts. Remember, Bruce, when you get to 75, you're going to be a stork. I'm getting close to 50 to be a stork. so i'm down with that too we're gonna do away to 50. any other questions for how okay the staff obviously has recommended approval of this uh i don't think mr bailey would be giving his thumbs up endorsement of this if there's no further questions then we need to we need to move this forward. If you follow my drill. Yeah. I'll make a motion. Okay, Mr. Wilson. Let me say I appreciate the staff's work on this because this did involve a lot and we've heard this for quite some time. So in my mind, I've done a really good job of trying to think of all the elements and what have you. With that thought, I move for approval of PLN Zota 21-02 amendment to the Articles 821 and 822 Adaptive Reuse Flex-Based and Industrial Mixed Projects as for the conditions identified by staff. Okay, second by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion? Yeah, Frank, did we hear any public comment? I didn't ask for it. Thank you for bringing that up I think before we vote we probably don't ask for that I don't see any I don't see anything there Mr. Chair the audience is made up of staff members and Ms. Rothmeier. Well Ms. Rothmeier we already spoke on another issue Ms. Rothmeier if you want to speak on this one would you raise your hand please? So I don't see anything there Anthony thank you for keeping me on track All right, we have a motion we have in second. All in favor, wave at me. Thank you very much. How nice job. Thank you very much. And, sir, I think that's enough for me. Well, I understand that. And my question to the staff is, is I think we're going to adjourn and then come back in a work session. work session. At least that's what I've been told. Do you know if there's anything else that we need to cover before we adjourn and come back at the work session? Do you know anything, Hal? Not that I know about if Ms. Wade has anything or if Mr. Duncan is on the line. Ms. Wade is not here right now. Mr. Duncan, do you know of anything we ought recover before we go on the work session? I do believe that what the plan is, sir, is that we'll go ahead and we'll adjourn from this meeting, stay on the Zoom, we'll allow for GTV to go do what they need to do next and then move on. Just looking at the staff items and the work session, I know that Mr. Duncan often talks about your next work session, which will be just following this. So you do have a long-range plan activity report in your staff items and a transportation planning MPO report, as well as a zoning compliance planning activity report. But at this time, I don't believe that there were any audience items that anyone wanted to be heard on. So if you would like to, we can move on to the next stage. Before I adjourn, I want you all to know that Mr. Bell is facing the council this afternoon, and we wish him well in his endeavor. And we will adjourn and come back in a work session. Thank you.