Since you're gone, since you're gone, throwin' it all away. I can't help it, everything's a mess. I can't help it, you're so touchless. When it comes to tenderness. Since you're gone. I can't help it. Everything's the best. I can't help it. You're so generous. Oh, where's that deadness? Since you're gone. Since you're gone. I'm Mr. P sensation Since you're gone Since you're gone I took the big vacation Since you're gone Well, never feel today Since you're gone Well, oh, I ain't so late Since you're gone Since you're gone I've thrown it all right Well, I know Since you're gone Strange I've thrown it out Since you're gone Well Since you're gone Since you're gone Since you're gone I've thrown it out I'm not just every stone I'm not just every stone You're trying to make your mark in society You're using all the tricks that you used on me You're reading all them high-fashion magazines The clothes you're wearing, girl, they're causing public scenes I said, I'm not your stepping stone I'm not your stepping stone Not just stepping stones Not just stepping stones I'm leaving town, baby. I'm leaving town. Everyone. I think it's on now. There it is. You're on. Okay. Good, good. Good afternoon, everyone. Sorry, it's 1.33. I welcome everyone to the Urban County Planning Commission Zoning Items Public Meeting. This is August 26th, so I'd like to call this meeting to order. First up on the agenda, which is not on the agenda, Mr. Penn would like to make a presentation and a speech, so I will open the floor for him. It's not a speech. I just want to recognize that you know Healy hadn't been here for a couple weeks. And I want the public to know and I want those of us down here to know that his family received tremendous honor. Was that three weeks ago, Healy? On Friday, his mom, Alice Chandler, the founder of Mill Ridge Farm, was inducted into the Racing Hall of Fame in Saratoga, New York. And Healy and his family were able to go and be there and represent their mom. And Healy, it's just a great honor, and we're certainly proud of your family for what they've done. Well, you're most kind, Frank, to recognize and yes it's um it's an incredible honor and privilege and so thank you so much for noting appreciate it awesome healing big shoes to fill man i know you can do it uh next on the agenda item we have the approval of minutes of the july 22nd minutes they're here at your side I'm not on. If there's no changes to the minutes, the floor is open for a motion for approval. Move to approve the minutes for July 22nd. Second. We have a motion and a second. Until Mr. Penn gets up, do you want us to raise our hands so he can vote electronically or do we want to wait? She can record. Okay. I'll just raise my hand. Okay. That's fine. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Any postponements and or withdrawals? Good afternoon. Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. Excuse the mask. I'm not an outlaw. This is the only one I could find. So I've got two postponements, so hopefully this will make y'all's day shorter. On page two of the agenda, the first item, Lota LLC zoning map amendment and Brian property lot two. We request a one month postponement on this. We just need more time to get ready for the case. We're asking for one more month. We have sent out letters to the people in the notice area with the new date already on it. Got a little bit ahead of the game there. Okay. So we're asking for one month postponement. That's September 23rd? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Commission members? Floor is open for a motion. Mr. DeMozin? Mr. Chair, I move to postpone a lot of LLC. zoning map amendment and Bryan property lot 2 amended for one month to September 23rd. Okay, we have a motion and a seconded by Mr. DeMovina. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. It hasn't come up yet. Yeah, it hasn't come up yet. It was up and it went away. There we go. There we go. Remember that? All right. Motion passes. Okay, thank you. And then the second item is on page three of your agenda, and it's the Cervantes and Associates zoning map amendment. I think it's PLNMAR 21-8. But before we can go forward with the zone change request, we need to have a meeting with a neighborhood area, and we have not done that yet. So we need another month, and we would like to postpone until September 23rd so we can arrange a meeting. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn? Mr. Carter, as you meet with the neighborhoods on both of these plans and with the staff, do you feel confident that we can get an approval, that we can get this to the point where the staff can recommend approval? Well, I don't feel confident, but I'm definitely hopeful. So, yes. Well, that would be our wish. Yes. Thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? Hearing none, the floor is open for a one-month postponement. September 23rd meeting. Mr. Chair. Move for postponement, PLN MAR 21-8, Cervantes and Associates for one month, September 23rd. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Seconded by Mr. Movelin. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. All right, thank you. All right, motion passes. Thank you. Okay, so that should put us on page four of the agenda. PLN MAR-21-9 Bluegrass Custard, LLC. And we do have one variance request with this. Good afternoon, everyone. This is PLNMAR 21-0009, Bluegrass Custard LLC. We'll be going over just the presentation just for the flow of events since we haven't been doing this in person in a little while. I will present just the zone change application. Mr. Martin will present the development plan, and then I'll come back up for the discussion of the variants. the property that is the subject of this request is 355 american avenue it's approximately 0.5 net and 0.6 gross acres the applicant is seeking to develop this parcel within the corridor place type and a medium density non-residential or mixed use development type currently the subject property is single zoned single family residential r1d the applicant is seeking to rezone that's the subject property to a neighborhood business or B1 zone. The purpose of this zone change is really focused on the, and I'm going to jump ahead just so that you all can see the property as it is now. The purpose of this zone change is to appropriately zone a current parking lot. The parking lot that is located at this location is a grandfathered non-conformity. the applicant is seeking to intensify the use through the application or through the inclusion of a drive-through facility at this location they had previously gone to the board of adjustment to allow for the redevelopment of the property up front located on the corner of burley avenue and South Broadway, just right here. That is the establishment of a Andy's frozen custard restaurant. That was the subject of that BOA application, which allowed for the development of the site to have a drive-through facility. But because of the intensification of this rear property, they are not able to seek to add that type of facility on a nonconforming site. So I'll jump back just a little bit, give you a little bit more of the information of the area. We are located along American Avenue, which is located right to the south of the property, or where we see this white dot, that's the property. And then just to the north of the property, running down this way, we have Burley Avenue. The property or the development also fronts along South Broadway. If we zoom in, we get an idea a little bit better of the zoning in this area. The properties that are fronting along South Broadway are typically comprised of our Highway Service Business or B3 zone or our Neighborhood Business or B1 zone. In this location, you can also see that on Burley Avenue, there is also a portion of professional office or P1 zoning, and also on American, a portion of P1 or professional office zoning. As we move back along Burley and along American, it is R1D zoning or our single family detached residential zoning. And if you go on the northern portion of Burley, we get into our R3, R4 into a bit more of multifamily land use. Jumping into the historic aspect of this just very briefly, you can see that this parking was actually added right around 1966. This is a Sanborn insurance map in which they noticed the different land uses that were occurring on site. As you look at some of these books, they're typically very large books. They have different stickers or pieces of paper applied to show the changing of land use as time goes on. These parking lots, specifically the subject property of 355 American Avenue, as well as the parking lot behind the property at the corner of South Broadway, what was Harrisburg Pike, and American Avenue is also identified as parking. So these are just longstanding uses in this area. and for the purpose of today's discussion, is a grandfathered non-conformity, even though it is zoned for single-family detached residential. So that's just another zoom-in of that property. It gives you a bit of an idea of what was neighboring at one point in time. It's quite interesting just to see the layout of some of these lots, including the multiple filling stations that used to be located in this area. on. Jumping to the aerial photography, we're able to see the actual land use of this area. To the property that is neighboring but still fronting on South Broadway, which is just to the southwest of this subject, I'm sorry, to the west of this subject property, is the former Raleigh's drive-through restaurant. It is currently a Poppy's Rapido restaurant in which they are serving primarily Mexican food. The subject property, as you can see, is a very old style of parking lot. Essentially, it is a paved and asphalted over area with very little vegetation other than what has been growing in weed cover for some time. But you can see that there is the transition from this parking lot towards that residential kind of context that we're seeing here. The proposed redevelopment will demolish this corner building that has been approved through a site plan and is still represented on the final development plan that you will be seeing later in just a moment. But as you can see, it is a through lot that has access from both American and Burley. As we get into some of the inside shots of the site, you'll see how kind of open that area really is. And that brings us here. So just looking, we first have a shameless plug to our wonderful new signs within this area. Those are newly applied on site. But looking into the site, you can see that this is the property of interest that we'll be discussing. This lower center photograph gives you a fairly good idea of how things are laid out on the site. It's two opposing areas of parking with a centralized island or a raised island between the two. That raised island is also the location of an overhead power line, an easement that goes across the property. This picture here, we're actually looking down American Avenue towards that residential context. And then the bottom right photo that we have here, that's looking towards South Broadway. You can see the professional office uses and that parking use that is across the way. This is a photo of, your bottom photo here is a picture or an older picture, but still relevant of the actual building that is proposed to be demolished to allow for this commercial development to occur. What we're seeing currently at the site is some backup parking. This is somewhat of an issue and something that staff has been trying to eliminate throughout our area. A lot of our backing up traffic or parking within some of our developments has been a major problem because it increases a lot of conflicts, not only with other vehicles that are using our local streets, but also with pedestrian movement throughout a site. As you can see, there are no real pedestrian facilities that are located primarily from South Broadway all the way back to the edge of this property. Here is a photo of that building today. Again, kind of just looking at that open space that leads into the parking lot. the current location of the dumpster, and then looking down Burley Avenue into the neighborhood. When reviewing any zone change application that comes through under the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, we must look at a place type, development type, and then look at appropriate zoning. In this case, the applicant is seeking to apply this under the corridor place type. These areas are along our major arterial roads. They are identified within the comprehensive plan with a map. And in this case, the applicant is, with their development, fronting on a corridor and really interacting with that corridor-style development. Staff agreed with the applicant's supposition that this is a corridor place type. When looking at the development type for this site, The applicant is seeking to do a medium-density, non-residential, or mixed-use development type. Typically, we see these in two different forms. We're really looking at both the scale of the structure or the density of the site, as well as looking at the intensity of the land use. The proposed land use in this case is associated with a fast, casual-style restaurant that includes a drive-thru facility. Those drive-thru facilities are more intense style developments. Those are more appropriately located along our corridor road types. However, whenever we're looking at these types of facilities, we also want to make sure that we're not impacting our arterial roadways in a negative way by adding a fair amount of access points. In this case, the access points will be located along American Avenue and Burley Avenue, along where the current entrances are, but in a more delineated and restricted space. Now, when discussing the recommended zones, the applicant is actually not applying one of our recommended zones. While you do see a B1 form base project that is a recommended zone within this place type and development type, it is not a recommended zone just to have the B1. There are slight differences. The B1 form base is looking for a little bit more of an urban style design with a greater amount of density, looking at multi-storied as well as a little bit more urban context. So whenever we have an applicant that is seeking a zone that is not within the recommended list, it adds a greater onus onto that applicant to describe why the B1 zone or the neighborhood business zone is most appropriate in this location. Within their letter of justification, the applicant described some of the surrounding zoning, some of the major pedestrian improvements that they were seeking to make, as well as the orientation of some of their development. Part of that is the review of the surrounding land uses and zone types. Within any type of review of zoning, we want to make sure that there is a continuity of that zoning and the zoning is placed appropriate. In this case, the staff did agree with the applicant that the B-1 or the neighborhood business zone could be appropriate, which necessitates a review into their development criteria. When looking at the development criteria and during the zoning and subdivision committee meetings, staff was very concerned not only with the pedestrian facilities, but the application of appropriate landscaping. The applicant, and with any type of zone that we're doing and use that we're doing like we're seeing here, staff is very concerned with canopy coverage that will help reduce the heat island effect caused by parking lots and drive-through facilities, but also buffering between incongruent or disparate types of zoning and land uses. In this review, what we have is the landscape plan. The applicant is increasing the amount of canopy coverage that is on site. Staff reviewed the various different types of species of plants that they are planning to put on site. And the staff was still slightly concerned about one area. That is this area along the rear parking at this location. with any modification of that area staff was greatly concerned with the viability of the buffered trees at that location there are a fair amount of trees and and very vibrant and very large trees along that portion that staff would like the applicant not to impact in a negative way while they're also adding a few other trees here so within a letter within the first staff report that brought up a real need for that area to have some permeability and viability for those trees. The applicant, as Mr. Martin will show here shortly, is integrating green infrastructure through permeable pavers for all of the parking spaces that they are showing along the rear of the property. A letter from their registered landscape architect has indicated that both with the irrigation that they are planning for this site, the permeable pavers and some of the maintenance that they are planning to do to maintain those trees, this will be appropriate for this location and the viability for those trees. Another aspect of staff's review is just the impact of some sort of land use like this on the surrounding properties. With this, the staff is recommending the inclusion of conditional zoning restrictions to reduce the impact on both the neighboring properties and the overall area. Staff is recommending the restriction or a buffering of the property by restricting the height of lights within this parking lot to have a maximum height of lighting of 12 feet and directed downward into the parking lot. 12 feet is the typical height for a more pedestrian and oriented area. And it really allows for the development of this parking lot to be a little bit more focused towards the front of the lot, which is where the intensity is, and not impact the back of the lot, which we're seeing where the lower intensity land use is located. The staff is also recommending two use restrictions or prohibiting two uses. Auto service, automobile service stations, our gas stations, as well as our minor repair, which is allowable in this zone, as well as car washes. In both cases, we are concerned with the amount of light, air, and sound pollution that might be developed on this site because of the establishment of those uses, and staff is recommending the restriction or prohibition of those. So with that, staff is recommending approval for this zone change. The proposed rezoning does address many of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, supporting infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area, while also addressing some community facilities, primarily the pedestrian facilities, as well as providing some amenities to the neighborhood. The proposed development will also, and I apologize, B is not on there. That should not be on this screen in your staff report and all of your information. It is not on there because this is not really supporting local assets so much. The proposed project will improve a desirable community that is focused on people-first design to provide accessible services that meet the quality of life of needs for all Lexington residents, whether that is a Lexington resident who would like to walk to this facility or an individual who would like to drive to this facility. The proposed development will allow for the intensification of the parking lot and the modernization of the layout of that parking area so that it's not the primary visual component of the neighborhood, really focusing in on a lot of the landscaping that is being done throughout this area to kind of shield that from the pedestrian area as well as the primary roadway. And then finally, the proposed development will increase the available tree canopy coverage on site to offset some of those heat island effects caused by some of Lexington's paved areas. Additionally, the proposed development is meeting with the development criteria of the corridor place type and the medium density non-residential or mixed use development type. It is meeting the criteria for the site design, building form, and location as they are pushing their building up onto South Broadway, creating that more urban and pedestrian-friendly kind of feel with their development, but also making sure that they are separating the most intense land use, the drive-through facility, buffering it with vegetation and their parking before transitioning into the lower-density and lower-intensity residential context. Additionally, it does provide safe facilities for the potential users both around the site and through the site. They are proposing a raised island to get individuals from the parking area onto their in-site kind of pedestrian facilities and along the building and out to the front. They are providing a fair amount of benches, things like that, to activate that front building plane, as well as several vegetative kind of features along that area. The proposed rezoning does meet the criteria for green space and environmental health as it is increasing the tree canopy coverage and is utilizing green infrastructure that will help alleviate the impact on the surrounding development and the stormwater system. This does get into the viability and appropriateness of those conditional zoning restrictions that I discussed just recently, as well as the need for this to be subject to the approval and certification of the associated development plan PLNMJDP 21-00038 Oldham property, which Mr. Martin will talk about here just in one moment. So if you have any questions on the zone change application, I'd be happy to answer them now. Any questions for Hal? Robin. There you go. Yeah, so from when we saw this plan the first time and from when we saw it now, What were the applicant at that time said they were not sure of what that tree inventory was in the back and whether or not they would be able to save any? My questions really are two parts. One, have they done that inventory and seen what they will be able to save? And then two, what differences to the actual dimensions of the parking lot were made along that back, if any? So there were no changes along the rear of the parking lot. They are seeking to keep that kind of distance. And if I can go back to, and Mr. Martin might be able to answer some more of these questions here in a second with the development plan. When it comes to these trees in the rear, they are working with the landscaper review, the urban forester, to make sure that all of them are viable trees. If they are viable trees, just because of the size of many of them, they would be considered more significant trees. Those are required to stay. For those trees that are in disarray or in a problematic condition, they would be removed. But they have indicated to us that they were keeping all trees that are viable in that area. Mr. Martin might be able to talk about more with the species and things like that that they are trying to keep. The major change that they are showing between the earliest application that we kind of reviewed in the past was the letter that we received from their landscape architect saying that the trees would be viable in this back area and the application of the permeable pavers. So when it comes to the trees and some of what they're doing with landscaping, Mr. Martin might be able to talk about that a bit more. Thank you, Hal. Thank you. Thank you. Martin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, and the plan that you have before you today. The major development plan, 21-38, the Oldham edition, is the final development plan associated with this zone change. This is the color up. This is not the actual final development plan that was submitted for review, final review. But it is the color up to demonstrate again. Oops. I do this. There we go. Now, again, here's your South Broadway, Herdsburg Road, actually South Broadway frontage. Here we have Burley and, of course, American Avenue in this location that Hal explained to you. Here we have the building. Andy's Custard is only 1,500 square feet. It is a small building, and there is no seating provided. This is a drive-through, stand-up-at-the-window facility. And so their parking that's required for that is only eight. They are proposing 33 total parking spaces. Now, in terms of the parking lot, that's more than a 50% reduction of the existing parking spaces in that parking lot, along with, as Hal mentioned to you, the redesign of this parking lot. And you can see green landscape areas here along this edge. The existing pavement right now goes right up here to the property line. But here now we're going to have a large green landscaping area. Between the drive-through, you can see a large green area. And again, they're maintaining these access points. There's a slight shift, not much, away from South Broadway. There's an access point here, by the way. There's a slight shift down. And again, this is drive-through access only. Brings them around. Here's your order point. Well, here's their stacking area. You can see they're proposing, and they'll have markings with a stop bar here. And they're providing an outlet for someone who for any reason decides, well, I can't get my custard, boom, out. And then they're back to this two-way movement through the parking lot. Now, this access point's been slightly moved this direction as well. It's about 215, 220 feet from South Broadway. Again, it allows through movement, two-way through movement here. And as they come around, there's a stop bar and the drivers have a choice then to go back out to Burley or over to America. And as you know, there's a stoplight out here. This is an offset intersection. And so there is a stoplight available there when traffic's heavy and presents a challenge for anyone who may want to get back out on South Broadway. Access to American, or Burley, pardon me, actually allows alternative routes all through, if necessary, for traffic out to other roads in the area. Now, again, this is a redesign of the parking lot. In answer to your question, Mr. Mickler, about the trees, the good news is they're not doing much work in here other than the new parking lot. And as Hal mentioned, and I am going to now go forward, this is the actual new revised development plan. You can see they're proposing the pavers in this area, as well as in this area as a demarcation of the pedestrian route that leads to a sidewalk in this location, along with a decorative fence that will separate pedestrians from the drive-through. And it will bring them up in here to the custard store. This is an open area, patio area. There's benches. You can see benches along the right-of-way. They have brought the building right up to the 10-foot setback. As you all are aware, the B1 has a build-to line, 10 or 20, and they brought it right up to the 10. Very much like Wendy's. And Hal showed you the exhibit on the landscaping, so there's plenty of room through here, as you saw on that exhibit, for both trees and other types of landscaping along that frontage, which is certainly an improvement. The trees themselves, back through here, will remain. I believe the largest one is a 42-inch tree, which is a significant tree by size. Now, there's hackberry in this area. There's an elm. As we all know, the elms may not survive due to the boar, but it's a good-sized elm. What I've personally found interesting is along this tree line, there's a lot of mulberries. Now, I know there's a lot of people that think mulberries are messy. I like them because they're very, very wildlife friendly and actually very valuable in that regard, as is a hackberry. But this is kind of, you don't see this very often anymore. But there is, down through here, a concentration of mulberry trees. I used to eat them when I was a kid. But with that, this is a new plan. Your staff has provided you with a light blue revised conditions. We had a lot of interactions with this applicant, staff did, and they responded very positively and made a lot of revisions. They are out-of-town designers. Occasionally they struggle a little bit. Sometimes they give us too much information, sometimes not enough, but they've cleaned it up nicely. and so what we have here is a seriously revised report where they address the cleanup items. There's a couple little things. They need to correct their plan title to match our title, Oldham subdivision. For those of you who don't know, we track properties by name in the original name and so we're real insistent upon maintaining those names because that's how planning tracks property. They need to correct their plan scale. This plan got cut off in the one that we currently have and we lost a little bit of information. Again, when they submit the Mylar, it needs to be of correct size and scale and have all the appropriate information. You may notice when you look at it, and we're talking about three frontages and there's no cross sections. They need to add those three cross sections to a plan. That's just some basic information that we require. Now, you all are going to be asked to review a variance on this property and Hal's gonna present that to you. That is right here. That is a Columbia Gas regulating house pump. But it's an old time, been there for many, many years. It's deeded to Columbia Gas. It's not an easement, they own it. Well, so that little piece right there is still residentially zoned. Therefore, it necessitates variances to the landscaping buffers around that little small piece of paper. I mean, piece of paper, piece of property. Let me, again. So there was a discussion about a variance needed here because of the vehicular use area. They informed us this morning that they've reached an agreement with the adjoining property owner, and they're going to be able to meet the landscaping requirement by cooperation with the adjoining property owners. So, again, Hal will elaborate with you on that particular situation. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have about the final development plan. Any questions for Tom? I guess I can do that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll jump over to the variance request. As Mr. Martin described, there were actually two requests for dimensional variances. One of those variants was for the vehicular use area screening or buffering along that one portion of, and I'll jump over to it, one portion of the development plan located right here. essentially there was a concern about the ability to meet the both tree canopy or the tree spacing that is required along these areas as well as the the vegetated area within the zoning ordinance it allows for the applicant to share a boundary as we talked about before this is the poppy's restaurant they are sharing this boundary which does go right along with poppy's parking area The applicant will be planting two trees, one located here and one located right here, that will meet the required tree spacing for the vehicular use area. The established vegetative area, which is approximately 18 feet wide, well exceeds the three feet that is necessary at that location. And the applicant will be providing a fence or a railing that will go along their drive-through facility at that location. By having those three elements, they remove the need for any type of variance for the vehicular use area. So what we'll be talking about is just this one-dimensional variance, which is seeking to reduce the required property perimeter requirements from 15 feet to zero feet for the portion of the property that surrounds this Columbia Gas property that Mr. Martin referenced, and to eliminate all landscaping material. So just jumping into what we're seeing here, it'd be wonderful if those didn't cover up the entirety of the plan. But what we're talking about here is this small portion of property along their drive-through. What we have, this is a zoom in on that, is a 12 by 12 area within the property that was purchased by Columbia Gas many years ago to allow for the establishment of a service facility. While our utility companies are not completely removed from our zoning ordinance and the requirements thereof, they are allowed to utilize certain space and have their property to provide these facilities without needing to meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. So in this case, the applicant purchased this small piece of land off of the prior owners. The zoning stays with that parcel of land. So by the applicant coming in for a zone change today, they cannot rezone someone else's property. This will remain R1D, a small 12 by 12 portion of single family residential, in which no single family residence currently is on that site, nor could one be constructed on this site. That is for a couple of different reasons, but the main reason being they can't meet the frontage requirements, they can't meet the side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, front yard setbacks, or any elements of the R1D zone. This property, should it ever be sold, would have to be sold to a neighboring property so that it could be brought into some sort of compliance. We do not believe that will happen as Columbia Gas is still utilizing this. And they do have a line that runs essentially over to Burley Avenue. In this photograph that you see on the right-hand side of the screen, that is exactly what we're talking about. It is just a very small box. This is a service facility that is associated with their line that runs across the property. The applicant opines that this is not a health safety impact on the site, nor does it detract or produce some sort of impact on the neighborhood. It is established. It is being used. The app can also indicate that this is a unique circumstance and that the removal of the landscaping, and when we're talking about the landscaping, we are really only talking about this portion right here along the drive-through facility. The other portions of the facility, located here and here, are actually meeting the requirements of the buffering. Because you have an open area of 15 feet, there's going to be vegetation located in those areas, and it buffers against the property. So, in this case, the applicant is really just seeking their variance for this front portion along the drive-through facilities. They will and will continue to have access to this facility as well so that there will be no hindrance for the use of the Columbia Gas property. Staff agrees with the applicant that granting the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor should it affect the character of the general vicinity, especially since it is currently there. This is such a small lot, and they are able to utilize it currently for this use, but it would not be able to be used for a single-family residence. The need for the variance does arise from a special circumstance. This is not something that we see in our community that often. We see a lot of these facilities, but not all that often do we see a small portion of our 1D property right next to a, or surrounded by commercial. The strict application of the property perimeter screening would modify a lot of what they're trying to do on this site. And it would actually push a lot of the more higher intensity land use, the drive-through facility, closer to the residential kind of low density, low intensity land uses. Finally, this is not a result or a willful violation of the zoning ordinance by this applicant. They are going through the proper procedure to go through a variance request. Additionally, this is made subject to the following conditions that the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council approve of the requested zone change to the B1 zone. The development must be constructed in accordance with the approved final development plan, as Mr. Martin described to you, and that would be voted on or amended by this body. All necessary permits shall be obtained by the Division of Planning, Traffic Engineering, Engineering, and Building Inspection prior to the construction and occupancy of their proposed building that fronts on South Broadway. And then the action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on the development plan for the subject property. I'll also note that whenever we do this type of action, there is a certificate of land use restriction that is filed associated with the deed that individuals are able to see during a purchase process. So if you have any questions on the variance, I would be happy to answer them. Any questions? Okay, I'm not seeing any. All right. Thank you very much. Nicholson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant of Bluegrass Custard. I certainly did not expect to be in front of you all today. I'm standing in for Bruce Simpson, who unfortunately is acting as a pallbearer this afternoon, and so he was not able to be here. And so I've had a bit of a crash course over the past 24 hours trying to learn the history of this property and the application that has been in front of the urban county government in one way or the other since about February. This will be the second, actually technically the third time this has been a public hearing about this specific kind of user as it already has gone through the board of adjustment process and actually has been approved for a drive-through facility on just the B1 portion of this. We made sure to, at the time of the Board of Adjustment, basically approval of that site to throw in a modification to the condition that would allow you all to basically amend the site plan approved by the Board of Adjustment if you all do decide to rezone this property to B1 in order to allow for more room for the kind of access aisle and for the drive-through. But I get into that kind of history, so you all are aware that basically regardless of the outcome of today's hearing, this site is approved for a drive-through and can be constructed. We just think that this is a much better plan that we wanted to put in front of you all in order to see if we could not improve the area as a whole. This zone change is more about kind of acknowledging reality versus actually asking for a change. As Hal indicated, this property has been a parking lot and drive aisle for more than 50 years. We are only asking to basically modify where those parking spaces are and how that drive aisle will actually function. And basically continue for that exact use that it has been there for 50 plus years. We work with various divisions of LFUCG in order to make sure that this is a plan that's in front of you that does not have a single discussion item. It's very rare that I get to stand up here and be able to say something like that. But the reason why we've been able to say that is because we have gone through a litany of agreed changes. We have, from the original, basically submittal from the Board of Adjustment, we have rotated this building sideways, similar to what Wendy's did. Originally, it was a long shotgun building that mimicked what was there today. We had the drive aisle actually go out right next to South Broadway. In agreement, we basically flipped that building, put it up next to South Broadway in order to make sure that it was very clear South Broadway is for pedestrians. The cars are contained entirely off South Broadway on this site, and that area is meant to be for basically pedestrians. We have added significant internal and external pedestrian infrastructure for them. As kind of Hal showed you, right now, this site is just a drive-up. It is truly you can drive up and park on the side of this road right off of Burley. There's no curb. There's no guttering. There's no sidewalks. We're adding all of those things, and we're making sure that on site as well, there's clear pedestrian infrastructure through the impervious service kind of modification to take it from the parking lot to be able to walk up without having to interfere with any of the external kind of traffic. We are adding the green infrastructure that Mr. Martin, Mr. Bailey, and Mr. Mickler kind of were talking about. We are not encroaching any further into basically the landscaped area that exists today. The pavement is basically the exact same place. We are just removing asphalt and adding in the type of pervious surface and the irrigation system in order to make sure that that will continue to thrive as it has for the 50 years that this has been a parking lot. We are eliminating an existing access point. Right now, there are four access points on this site. We are eliminating one of them, and we are eliminating the one that is closer to South Broadway. We want to be able to force, basically, any type of traffic movement further off the corridor in order to make sure, once again, that the core use of this site is dedicated to the type of pedestrian activities that we want on South Broadway right here. We are adding substantial landscaping, And not just throughout this site, but we've even agreed with the poppies site in order to make sure that we're adding trees to their site as well. And finally, we are in agreement with the conditional zoning restrictions that Mr. Bailey walked you all through. And so the reason why there are not discussion items before you on this list is we have been working really hard with every different facet of government here to make sure we would be able to stand in front of you all today with approvals across the board and without a major discussion item because I can't tell you how different this site plan looks from what it originally was. I'm happy to answer any questions. Normally I would have much more of a presentation for you all and certainly know much more history about this project. So I do apologize if I cannot answer any specific questions, but I'm happy to answer if you all do have them. Any questions for the applicant? All right, not seeing any, Mr. Nicholson. Thank you. Thank you all. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on behalf of this application? You can step up to the podium. Yes, that's fine. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. State your name and address. I will. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jenny Daly. My name is Jenny Daly and I live at 136 Burley Avenue, which is about two blocks from this site because it sits on the corner of Burley and South Broadway. I'm here to oppose this development as proposed for several reasons, three main reasons. A drive-through at this location will contribute to an already confusing traffic configuration, several confusing traffic configurations. It's almost impossible to get out of my neighborhood without using one of the two streets that have traffic lights. And American Avenue at the corner of American and South Broadway is one of those. Because that's the main way you get out of the neighborhood. The other one is over on Waller. You can kind of wind your way through streets and get out at a light at Waller. But there at American Avenue, the stack becomes pretty deep, even at like 1 o'clock on a weekday afternoon. So this stack blocks the entrances to both Poppies and this proposed drive-through here. Also, the two lights, I forget what either Howell or Tom called it, but the two lights, one is right there at American, And then there's another one about 20 yards away at, is it Gibson? That comes out. And then there's Burley. I mean, it's a traffic nightmare there. And as it currently exists, a lot of people run those lights all the time. It's very confusing. So you sit there waiting to get out there. You have to sit and make sure everybody's going to stop, too. Also, one of the things that was not pointed out is that American Avenue and Burley Avenue are connected with a series of one-way small streets and alleys. And the back section of this parking lot is used as one of those one-way cut-throughs. And it will continue to be used, since you're leaving it open on both ends, as a cut-through for the neighborhood. So this just further complicates, having a drive-through there further complicates everything about this location. My second issue is I have concerns whether a frozen custard change will be successful at this location. We already have a Dairy Queen and a Sonic within spitting distance. Two other chains with drive-thrus, with a generic product. There's plenty of that there for people to get. But far be it for me to be a marketer. People can put in there whatever they want. My concern is I don't want this to become a vacant property again in two years. Lucky's market? What I see happening frequently in Lexington is that we get outside chains coming in, they're not successful, and the properties sit vacant for longer than they sit in use. And for some reason, this is apparently not a problem for the investor. They make their money one way, or they write it off as a loss another way, I don't know. But we have a problem with vacant and underutilized properties in my neighborhood, and this business at this location does not seem like a good fit. Thirdly, and the most important reason I think this should not be here, this use at this location does not fit with the Imagine Lex vision for the long-range planning, for the long-range growth and development of our city. Current long-range planning initiatives champion walkable neighborhoods and high density among major corridors. My neighborhood is a campus neighborhood that's very walkable. A custard shop with a bunch of outdoor tables with trees for neighbors to gather and sit and socialize would be great. Sitting at a table next to a drive-thru, choking on exhaust, not so much fun. sitting on a table next to South Broadway, you won't be able to have a conversation in here, not to mention all of the dust and dirt and exhaust from South Broadway. On paper, this might look great, but in reality, this is not going to be a fun, this is not going to contribute to walkability or fun in the neighborhood. Trying to navigate drive-through traffic while walking down to the bus stop or to pick up my car from the repair shop or to meet friends at Poppy's or even Andy's if it was cooler, just sucks the life out of walkability. Tearing down a fairly large two-story building. You saw the picture of it. This thing is big enough to have two to four big apartments on the second floor. Tearing down a fairly large two-story building right on a corridor, right next to a bus stop, and replacing it with a small, single-story, single-use building with an extensively paved drive-through area in the back flies in the face of creating high-density mixed use along our corridors. And quite frankly, if I was in long-range planning, I would really be offended that this is coming through. If this were a custard shop with no drive-through and a true neighborhood-friendly connections, I would not be standing here in front of you. If this were a custard shop downstairs with four apartments or several stories above it with residential, I would not be standing here. I am asking you, please do not be the disconnect between long-range planning's vision for Lexington and what gets built here. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bailey. Yes, yes. Advocate, let's step up for your rebuttal. Thank you all. With regards to adding to a very confusing situation, we think we are improving that situation. We are eliminating existing access points. We are also putting in a use that is fairly low intensity with regards to how drive-thrus do in fact function. This is a true custard shop. There are not other food items that are basically associated with this like the kind of other locations that Miss Daly did kind of point out specifically. These are just kind of the frozen custard type tasty treats that are kind of advertised at Andy's. Now, as far as the one-way connections, the kind of putting basically drive aisles on both American and Burley where they exist today, we have basically cut that down to one coming in one way and basically two kind of two-way connections. So we are eliminating an access point, but we are focused on providing the connectivity between these two roads that is encouraged by our comprehensive plan that we often hear from so much. This body has heard a whole lot from neighbors throughout the year that they don't want connectivity. And we keep on coming out with comprehensive plans that do encourage these types of connections. And we are not adding to that in any way, shape, or form. We are, in fact, decreasing what is the existing conditions today. As far as the success of this market, we don't judge market success in this room. We allow property owners to determine what they would like to do with their own property because that is the American way. This is also a very successful company. It is in 11 different states, and it specifically chooses this market and this site for some of the very reasons that Ms. Daly pointed out that she did have concerns, because they do believe it will be successful, because they do believe that this is a walkable neighborhood, because they are adding the type of pedestrian infrastructure that she says that she wants. The location that we have put our kind of seating outside of the facility where we are putting the walk-up windows are not connected to the drive-through. They are on the opposite side of the building. So you would not be sucking down exhaust where we are asking people to sit down. We are actually adding amenities to our corridors exactly as called for by our long-range planners and by our comprehensive plan. And I do also want to point out that we discussed we are not talking about tearing down a building today. We are just talking about the parking lot. That is it. What we are proposing today is going to continue to be a parking lot. The ability to basically ensure that this use does go in has already been approved by the Board of Adjustment. We just want to make sure that the best plan is put into the best location to serve this neighborhood, that we do want to become walkable, and we do want them to encourage us to use this facility. So I'm happy to answer any questions, but we are in complete agreement with the planning staff that did do a very thorough job and works with long-range planning to come forward and say that they believe that this is in complete compliance with the comprehensive plan. Thank you all. I need to get Ms. Dilley first. Ms. Daley, do you want to step up for a rebuttal? Sure. Thank you. I'll be succinct. Lipstick on a pig. All the pavers and the trees in the parking lot in the world does not make this more pedestrian-friendly, walkable, usable, sit in the parking lot and have your custard. It just would not get used that way. Thank you. Thank you. Hal? Thank you. I just want to clarify a small amount of what we're talking about with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is an adopted document from the community's vision and the community's want for Lexington to go into the future. It is adopted by this body, is worked on by long-range planning, as well as our other sections within the planning division. but it is in reality not long-range planning's vision, but the community's vision for future development going forward. So I just want to make that slight clarification on some of the statements that were made. Thank you. Thank you, Hal. All right, we'll close this part of the session out. And commission members, do you have any further questions, further discussions about this particular agenda item? Yes, sir, Mr. Nickel. I'm sorry sir is your microphone yes I think it's on now can you walk me through the process from variance to the zone change here so it's currently R1D it's grandfathered in as an existing parking lot. Does that mean by right it has the ability to be a parking lot? Yes, sir. So within any type of grandfathered or grandfathered non-conformity, it is a legal non-conformity of that lot. So the parking lot, if it were to just change configuration or anything like that, would be able to continue forward. The issue at hand really is the inclusion of the drive-through facilities. Initially, this applicant did seek to go through a variance process to allow for that to occur on this back portion without a rezoning. Staff rightfully stated that this is an intensification of the nonconformity, which is not allowable to go forward under the BOA review. So at that time, the applicant just sought the conditional use to allow for a drive-through facility to happen on that front portion of the property. Currently, with their approved site plan from the Board of Adjustment, it has a drive-through facility that is coming off of Burley Avenue coming into the site and then looping back out onto Burley. It's a shorter drive-through facility, but it does meet all the stacking requirements and was approved by the Board of Adjustment. The applicant reached out to staff seeking to allow for the development of the rear portion, and it was told to them that they would be required if they wanted to utilize it in that increased capacity or increased intensity, that they would have to go through a zone change either to a B1 or a B3 type zone because that's how it's working with that front portion of the property. The applicant came forward with this application for the zone change to allow for both the parking to remain and to allow for those drive-through facilities to go across 355 American Avenue. Now, there's the added complication in the fact that there's another variance that's associated with this. That variance, whenever there is a zone change application, an applicant can seek a variance to that property or to the development in association with that. This is the long time that the Planning Commission has the ability to review any variance or conditional uses. This is that kind of opportunity only during a zone change because it is that public hearing aspect. That was actually identified a little bit later than at the start of the application just because that strange little node of R1D. But in this case, the applicant could not seek some sort of intensification of the site keeping the R1D. They wanted to utilize this portion of the site for their drive-through facilities. And they worked heavily with the Division of Traffic Engineering to kind of orient some of those things to create a better situation for the area. Thank you. It almost sounds like there's been an additional layer of compliance or oversight through this process, where originally they got the variance for the drive-through, all good. then it came to your attention that it's better for us to review it as a group here because it's an intensification of the site plus the variance. Therefore, that's why we're here. So we're not really talking about a drive-thru. We're not talking about the business use of the custard itself. We're talking about the intensification of the site gives you all an additional oversight or look at the project itself. They needed to come to you for that zone change to allow for the use to occur. Within the B1 zone, drive-thrus are allowable within the B1 zone and the B3 zone. The B1 zone allows it to be done when there's a development plan on site. So when they're coming to you so that they can have that drive-thru facility and continue to utilize that parking in the front. So for the purpose of the zone change discussion, no, we are reviewing it in terms of the site plan, but it is not impacting that front portion of the property that fronts onto South Broadway, no. Well, I mean, from my perspective, I guess this added step has led to a better overall development. Mr. Robin? I guess my question comes back to that intensification of the use with the added of the drive-through in this non-conforming residential lot. Going back to the, I guess my confusion here is going back to the comprehensive plan, along a corridor we're seeking place types that create more of a feeling of a corridor and more intensive uses. And so we're coming here today and looking to add a drive-through to a parking lot. I don't see how that fits in with the place type that you're saying is – I don't see how that fits in with the place type that you are saying the comprehensive plan is asking for. And when we're talking about the intense, so there's both density and intensity of that corridor. And this is something that staff has been working with, with our development community, as well as within our internal structure to try to understand how these things are developing over time. The applicant has applied all of the development criteria that are associated with the place type and development type to the best of their ability. Yes, there are some that are not applicable and some that work well with this. But in this case, we are seeing an intensification of the use of the site with a downgrade in density. I agree with you there, most definitely. What we are also seeing with this type of development is a shift to a more pedestrian-oriented development. while it is auto-centric in nature with a drive-through and something that doesn't so much have tables or chairs inside of the structure. They are adding quite a bit of pedestrian facilities along the sides of the properties, delineating locations for vehicular movement and reducing conflicts with pedestrians. Those are elements that are called for within the corridor place type and the medium-density residential development. non-residential development type. So there are elements, and with all applications, we're looking at how this is meeting it as a whole. Staff's opinion, the whole of staff's opinion is that this is currently meeting the goals, objectives, policies, and development criteria of the comprehensive plan. I just want to remind the Planning Commission that you have a sister organization, Sister Boddy, the Board of Adjustment, who has the authority over conditional uses and variants on an every day, every month basis. And they granted approval to this site plan with the drive-through that way. The same staff works with the Board of Adjustment to make sure that those same ideas are put forward. But they are not held to evaluating that site plan based on the comprehensive plan. That's not the criteria established in Article 7. So they, while we talk about it with them, those are not the same criteria that they're evaluating their applications by. I will note that we are, they have asked for a presentation to learn more about the comprehensive plan, which we are absolutely all for. And Chris Woodall and I will be doing that in October of this year. Yes, sir. Mr. Nichols. I got a question for Ms. Wade. I use the term, I mean, the term by right. Can you give us a definition from staff that we can understand as a planning commission, that's not my language, but your language on by right or use by right? Sure. The zoning ordinance establishes uses for every zone. The first group of uses are called principal uses. So those uses, if you have that zoning category, you as a property owner are allowed to develop your property with that particular use. What is under your all's purview, though, is how they do that. So a use of a restaurant is permitted in every B1 zone. But how they orient the building, parking, access, sidewalks, that's what the Planning Commission is empowered to review. And you're not empowered to put your site plan on that lot. You're empowered to review what an applicant proposes. And so it's a delicate balance. Sometimes the Planning Commission asks for things that an applicant isn't willing to agree to. And again, they're the property owners, so there's private property rights. And there are other things that the Planning Commission might ask for that another applicant would say yes to. So it's a- It's a great explanation, I appreciate that. Sure. It's important for us to understand that this is private property and there are rights associated with that private property. Yes. Thank you. Seeing any other hands raised. The floor is open for a motion. Okay, Mr. Penn. Yeah, I'm going to make the motion, but before I am, I want to say to Ms. Daly that we have looked at this every way, shape, form, or fashion. And we think this is the best of a tough situation. And what you outlined with the traffic out there with those three stoplights is a tough situation. But this lot still presents itself, it still has a right, as Mr. Dickles mentioned, for it to be used. So therefore, I'm going to move approval of PLN MAR 21.9 for the reasons provided by staff. We have a motion, a second by Mr. DeMovlin. Any further discussions to that motion? All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. You want a separate motion for the variance? I said the motion for the variance, yes please. You want three motions then? You're going to have three. You're going to have the major development plan and the variance. Let's do the development plan, we'll do the variance after that. I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2138. I'm sorry, Mr. Penn. We just need one more vote to register, either for or against, or abstain. Abstain. Do you have to give reasons for that? Thank you. Abstain? Yes. Does he need reasons for that? No. Okay, great. Okay, now we're ready? Yes. Okay, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2138 with revised 10 conditions. It's presented by staff on this sheet. Okay, we got a motion. We got a seconded by Mr. DeMovlin. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor, please vote Villagranichus. This is the very end. No, this is the development plan. Development plan. Yep. All right, thank you. Motion passes. And the third motion grants the variance as requested by the applicant as presented by staff. Second. We got a motion and a second by Mr. DeMovulin. Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote Villagranicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Okay, that should put us on page five. We're on the PLN Zota 21-5. Staff? So yeah, I'll lower this down because I'm short. Okay. Good afternoon. My name is Samantha Castro. I'm a senior planner in long-range planning. I'm here to discuss the, I'm here to discuss PLN ZODA 21-5, which calls for expanded notification for upcoming zone changes and BOA public hearings to go beyond just owners and include renters and tenants. This was an action that came directly from the public engagement toolkit, which you all passed in. I presented to the zoning committee on July 1st of 2021. In that meeting, we received some public comment regarding the need for further explanation of what we meant by occupant of an address as it relates to public hearing notification requirements. We have since clarified that text, and we presented that again to the zoning committee on August 5th, receiving unanimous approval. Let's see here. Okay, as part of the PET project, public engagement toolkit, we not only focused on engagement between developers and the community, but also how we as the division of planning could improve upon our process for engagement. We've made great progress in a lot of our action items so far, which we've shared with you all over time. We're here today though to tackle another way planning can engage the community on a broader scale, and that is through widening our notification demands. KRS standards require the notification in the form of a letter be sent to an owner of every parcel adjoining the subject property. LFUCG goes above and beyond that and requires notification of all property owners within 500 feet of a zone change or conditional use and 200 feet of a variance, as well as supplemental notification for properties within an ag zone. We established early on during the process of the PEP project that we need to acknowledge that there are all manner of stakeholders that have a vested interest in the growth and development of Lexington. And those people are not necessarily always just property owners. Through a few simple edits, we're wanting to also include renters and business owners who lease their space in addition to those property owners. So as you can see here, for a zone change, the amendment would move from notifying just owners to be owners and the property addresses if the property is not the owner's primary mailing address within a 500 foot radius. It's a little wordy but law says that's a good way to go with it. As you can see here, these are just a few recent examples of zone change cases showing the potential percentage increase of who else we could reach through this ZODA. So right now what you see kind of within that black circle are the properties that were required to notify and anyone that's shown there in green are already being notified as owners. But all the properties that are shown there in yellow are people that that's not the owner's primary address so we assume it's a renter or a leasee of a business, etc. So that would we would then go on to expand and include around 175%-ish increase in who we're notifying. So same thing here with the text change for a BOA variance, which notifies within a 200-foot radius. And here for conditional use, 500-foot notification. And finally, changing the wording a little bit on directions on how to create the list of addresses and who needs to receive it, including particulars on notifying each owner of a condominium or co-op, as well as the president or chair of that owner group. Again, here are just some examples from our recent BOA cases showing the increase. BOA cases obviously tend to fall more within residential areas, So there's slightly less of an increase, but we're still getting a lot more people notified. So in summary, the proposed ZODA would still notify property owners. We'd reach renters who make up 46% of Fayette County's housing units, so that's important to remember. We'd reach business owners and employees, all of whom should be given equal opportunity to engage in our planning process. The staff recommends approval for a whole litany of reasons outlined in the comprehensive plan, theme E, theme F. And this wouldn't go into effect until January 1st of 2022, but we've already worked with the PVA to figure out exactly how we could simplify this process. So it basically becomes an automated step in how they would notify. So, questions? Any questions? Yes, Mr. Nickel. Yes. When we were in our work session, Mr. Murphy had some comments on the legality of this. We all agree that the intent is what we need to strive for. But did you address his concerns, and where are we on that? I'd like to know before I make it. Yes. So the first time we presented it to the zoning committee, we had been using the terminology owners and occupants, and that didn't seem quite specific enough. I think the concern was just making sure that there could be a loophole of who you consider an occupant, And did you notify the 10-year-old that also lives there? Because they're an occupant. So by changing the wording to owners and the property addresses, if the property is not the owner's primary mailing address, we feel like we've resolved that. And if Tracy Jones has anything else to add, I'm more than happy. No, she's giving me the... And Mr. Murphy's was good with this? Yeah, we sent this along to Mr. Murphy, And he also looked at it. Thank you. Any other? Yes, Mr. Mulder. Yeah, just, you all shared with us the new GIS from the city. Is it feasible that the future of this notification? The data hub. Data, Lexington data hub, yeah. That would go through the city's site instead of the PVA? No, we would still work in conjunction with the PVA because David O'Neill is the one that collects a lot of that very specific information about addressing and how we work with them. So we would still work in conjunction with them hand in hand as we do today. But we've just streamlined that process a bit. Don't see any further questions. Okay, thank you. The floor is open for a motion for this Zota. Mr. Chair, I move to approve PLN Zota 21-5. We have a motion. And I'll second. Seconded by Mr. Davis. Any further discussion to that motion? Not seeing any. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you for your work. Thank you all. All right. Okay. Any commission items, staff items? Mr. Duncan? Mr. Penn is going to take over for the last two minutes. I don't know whether I can handle the responsibility or not, but I'll do the best I can. Mr. Chair, thank you all for being here today and for getting us through the agenda. I will tell you this is a luxury. We've already had a peek at what's coming up, and they will not be like today. So hang on to your hats. Looking ahead next week, your next meeting will be the subdivision and the zoning committee meetings on Thursday, September 2nd, as we start the new month. Those meetings will be held in the Phoenix building. Prior to the pandemic, they were held in our conference room. However, we are looking to see if there's an alternative place for those to meet. We will make sure that information gets communicated to you all and posted on our website if it's someplace other than our conference room. But certainly anyone coming to the committee meetings, participating, can certainly start on the seventh floor next week. And if they are not there, we can quickly get you to your proper location. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Anybody else have anything before we adjourn this meeting? Yes, sir. I have a question, Mr. Penn. Mr. Duncan, thank you so much. It's good to see you. It's been about a month since we last discussed remote comment. Do you or a member of the staff have any update for the commission on progress that we've been able to make? We have continued to work on this, Mr. Davis. We've been working with the Department of Law. We've been working with government communication and certainly the administration. Your concerns have been conveyed. They have been our concerns, too. We've been hoping to expand public participation long before the pandemic through electronic means. And so to say that your voice has been heard, it has been. However, I do not have any progress to show on that other than to say the communication has been made. We've made some offers and some recommendations, but I believe there's still more work to be done in order to get us to have a meeting in this environment and to invite public participation through video teleconference. We'll keep working. We hope so, yes. Thank you. I very much appreciate your efforts. And I know everybody has the same intent, and it's just a matter of logistics and technology, and we're in an old building, and I understand. And as Tracy understands, a very quickly moving political and legal issue with the Commonwealth right now. So I very much appreciate it. That's right. And perhaps there will be some changes in the coming months that will help us with that. But technology will always be something that we have to overcome as well. Not to say that it's not possible, but we just have to address those concerns as well. Any other comments or discussion before we adjourn? No, Mr. Duncan, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll see you next Thursday. Meetings adjourned. Thank you.