Music D.C., San Antonio, and the Liberty Town, Boston and all Baton Rouge. Tulsa, Austin, Oklahoma City, Seattle, San Francisco, too. Everywhere there's music, real-life music, bands with a million styles. But it's still that same old rock and roll music that really really drives the miles. They say the harder rock and roll is to be. And from what I've seen, I believe them. Now the old one may be there than breathing. But the heart of rock and roll, the heart of rock and roll is competing. Yeah. In Cleveland. Detroit. Heart of rock and roll. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. Hey. I'll sleep all day, out all night I know where you're going I don't think that's acting right You don't think it's showing Now to make sure that we get more officers on the force and that would also give us the ability to hire more neighborhood resource officers. Can you speak a little bit about recruitment and how it's, you know, right now I think we're all acting as recruiters for a variety of jobs, but one of the most important are recruiting for our police department. Yeah, we're definitely down, and I know right now eight NROs is where we're at, and we're supposed to add five through the additional allotment, which would be great if we could get that additional five. But we all need to do our part with recruiting new officers to get them on the street so we can improve our neighborhood resource officers, you know, the number of officers we have. So it's, you know, the more we can have that are helping improve quality of life issues and helping build those relationships, I think the better off we'll be recruiting too because we need everybody to help recruit, not just us, but everybody to go to recruit new police officers to Lexington. It's definitely a good career, and I would ask everyone if they're needing a job and they meet the qualifications to definitely look at coming to us as a Lexington police officer. Okay, well, I appreciate that pitch. I know I've been giving it to groups I've been talking to, so we've just got to keep doing it. And, you know, one of the challenges with that, just kind of a little not off the subject, same subject, is even once we recruit and somebody decides to apply, there could potentially be, you know, I think 18 months, a year to 18 months before we actually get those officers suited and on the streets. You know, and somebody said something to me about it, why it takes so long, and I think it's because the training's so intense. So thank you, Sergeant, for joining me today and introducing yourself to the community, and we'll all jump in and help with the effort to recruit. Definitely. We appreciate all the help we can get, definitely. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Today I'm here with a man who needs no introduction, Devon Karama, with One Lexington in the mayor's office. Thanks for joining me today. Oh, no problem. Appreciate you. Can you tell us a little bit about what One Lexington is and how your first five months in the position has been? Sure. So One Lexington is a violence reduction program focused primarily on youth and young adults. And so our job is how do we leverage government relationships and resources back into the community to make neighborhoods safer? And so in my first five months, I'm learning how government works. But at the same time, I'm using a lot of the skills that I've developed over the years just through youth engagement, community activism. And so we've been doing a lot of partnerships, a lot of programming, a lot of community engagement. and we look forward to going into the new year, bringing some new things to the community. You talk about government. For one, government, I hate to say this, a lot of times it's slow. And in the work that you do, we need to be flexible and reactive and proactive a lot of times. We need to be able to move a little faster. Another thing that I think you said that's real important is that you have developed skills over the years with building relationships. I think relationships with elected officials and folks that have access to resources, but then also relationships with young people and community leaders and community people, I think is important in the work that you do. So I think those skills are going to help you be successful in your position and your efforts. What I've been hearing you say, and I think is a real important part of the message, is all the responsibility on violence reduction doesn't fall all on you in the mayor's office. And you've been bringing more people into that conversation, into that effort. Can you talk a little bit about that? Sure. I tell people all the time the literal definition of one Lexington is just that, all of us coming together as one. It's such a layered issue when you talk about keeping neighborhoods safe, reducing violence. And so it is impossible for one person or one agency to tackle this problem. So I've been trying to figure out creative ways to pull as many people into the fold as possible, not just other agencies and community partners, but even individuals who may feel they're disenfranchised from being part of the solution, whether that's those that are formerly incarcerated, those that don't work formally in violence reduction, but are just neighborhood folks that want to be a part of the solution, So how do we bring all of those people to the table? And that's been the biggest challenge. But it's also going to be the most important thing and component towards making neighborhoods safer. And so we've been focused on that. Yeah, I think that pretty much hits the nail on the head. I think it's a responsibility. The responsibility is on all of us. That's right. To make our neighborhoods safer and better and to make our community safer and better. So it's going to take all of us. And it sounds like the mayor's office is real focused on making sure that you have the resources to do that. I know that. We talk about these offices are one throughout city government. And a lot of times, responsibilities and the lack of resources kind of makes it more difficult for folks to do that job that they're in. Yeah. But I know there's a lot of support out in the community for you for your work and your efforts. Yeah. And I think there's also a lot of support in the business community to help with those efforts as well. Yeah, I think so. And I think leveraging that support and the supporting organizations on the ground who are doing the work. How do we build their capacity as our capacity to one Lexington is being built? We want to pass that on to our community partners so they can do what they're doing on a higher level. And that's kind of how I see, you know, what we're doing with the support that we're getting, whether it's from the government and the mayor's office or from the business community. No, that's great. We'll share some information on the screen about how folks can get in contact with you if they want to help with the effort and the initiative. So you know that you have my support and appreciate all you do and look forward to continue working with you as we try to reduce violence and crime in our community. Yeah, looking forward to it, man. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon everyone. Okay. Glad to see everyone here. It is now 1.31, and it's January 13, 2022. This is our first meeting of the year, so welcome, and we'd like to call this meeting to order. First up, for commission members, we have approval of minutes for the November 11, 2021, and December 9, 2021 minutes. The floor is open for a motion for approval. Move for approval of the November 11th and December 9th, 21 minutes. Thank you. We have a motion and a second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. Next up, we'll just skip on the agenda a little bit for the approval of the letter of credit and performance balance. That's on page 6, item C. I move for approval of the performance bonds and letters of credit. Thank you. And we have a second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. Motion passes. Any postponements and or withdrawals? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Greg Smorstad from Banks Engineering. I'd like to direct your attention to page 4, item C. PLN MJDP 21-67 Newtown Springs Unit 1 Lot 2 amended. We have made a lot of progress on this project this past month working with planning and traffic and the Board of Adjustment. But with that being said, we just need a little bit more time to do some coordination with the owner, so we're asking for a one-month postponement. Okay. And that's for staff. is the February 10th meeting, 2022. All right. So you've got a one-month postponement recommendation. Mr. Polk? I move to postpone the LNNJVP 2167 Newtown Springs up to February... February 10th. Sorry, February 10th. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. We have a second. I'm just worth any further discussion to that motion. Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. We'll see you on February 10th. Thank you all. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I'm Rory Kaley with EA Partners. I have two items to postpone. They are on page 3 under development plans. First one is item A. It's major development plan 21-39, the LFUCG Mill Creek subdivision in Jonestown. We're still trying to work through that list of conditions. Request a one-month postponement. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Cayley. The floor is open for a motion. I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 21-39. as requested by the applicant to February 10th meeting. Okay, thank you. I have a second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion for that motion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. And the next item on your agenda, item B, it's Major Development Plan 21-50, Ramsey-Sullivan property, lot 4. Again, there's a huge list of conditions we're trying to work through, We need a little more time. Request postponement to February 10th. Okay. Floor is open for a motion. Ms. Wirth. Mr. Chair, I vote for postponement of PLNMJDP 2100050, Ramsey Sullivan, property, lot number four, as requested by the applicant postponement until February 10th. Thank you. Seconded. Seconded by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none, we can't vote via grant case just yet. I'll just hold on. All right, now we can. Thank you. Okay, motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Okay, do we have any other postponements and or withdrawals? Staff, anything? We're ready. All right. So that should put us on page one. PLN FRP-21-39, steel property. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the first plan on your agenda is a final record plat. This is a record plat which is located in the AR, pardon me, agricultural rural area of our community, specifically out at 3844 Briar Hill Road. Now, this is a proposed agricultural subdivision to take a parent track and create the three tracks that you see before you. Briar Hill Road is in this location. This provides the frontage for these tracks. You can see the interesting and somewhat odd configuration of the lotting. That reflects staff's understanding of some physical improvements that exist on the property, and the property is being subdivided for family and purchase and distribution reasons. So you see, that's why you see that somewhat odd configuration. The lots meet the frontage requirements. They meet your acreage requirements. You can see that there are two non-buildable areas. These are ponds that exist on the property. The plan had been recommended for postponement because right here in that location, there's a cemetery. And staff is happy to report to you, and it's in your packet, that the cemetery study has been done. Our own resident archaeologist, that's Mr. Bailey, by the way, stated that he very much liked this study, thought it was very well done compared to some that he's seen in the past. And very comprehensive, well done study. What they have determined is that there are four identified family graves, possibility of another one, and they delineated the area. And with that, they do comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance because there was no quorum, as you may be aware of the subdivision committee, there was no quorum. So no actions were taken by the subdivision committee to change any recommendations. So at this time, staff is recommending approval of this final record plat to you. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for Tom? Not seeing any. Thank you. Applicant? Apparently, the applicant's representative is not here. That's Justin Drury, the surveyor, who did the work. We have spoke to him on numerous occasions, and we are in receipt of this report. I cannot speak to his absence. I was under the impression he would be here. Mr. Martin, did we receive an affidavit that he posted a sign? I'm not sure. For our discussions, there's no street being constructed. Okay. And, you know, that one is actually necessary. Okay. We were talking about the affidavit and the posting of the sign, I mean, we've had a discussion with legal that under our regs, when they're not building the street, that is not necessary to an agricultural subdivision. And that's very consistent with state law. Okay. And again, that's why I pointed out the frontage that exists to serve the property. But as a commission, per your conversation with the applicant, they were comfortable with what we're seeing here today. I believe that at the committee level, everyone was comfortable, as I recall, with the subdivision. The sole concern was they have to comply with the cemetery study. There were no other concerns identified by staff or committee. All right. Thank you. Okay. So we don't have an applicant here. It's commission members. The floor is open for further questions. or a... Well, I know it was listed. Okay. Whatever you think is better. I saw that got carried over. All right. So the floor is open. further questions or motion? I guess I would be remiss if we didn't ask the question. I see the note about requiring access, but I think when this first came before us, there was some question about the access. So the people who have the cemetery on their lot will grant access. They've agreed to do that, or they know that they have to do that? what they've done, there was an access easement that was going to serve this lot through this lot. They've removed that. And it wasn't necessary. They showed it originally. And so that's why the issue was raised. If you're going to show this access, well, it needs to be an easement. But it's no longer there. They weren't willing to cooperate on that easement, frankly. And so because they have adequate frontage, there's access along the frontage with Briar Hill for all the properties. Thank you. Since we don't have representation by the applicant, would it be appropriate to postpone this? It's really up to you. As you know, we prefer always that the applicants be present so they can address your concerns, questions. And had there been someone in the audience, obviously, that wanted to talk about it. It is beneficial, yes. So certainly, if it makes the Planning Commission more comfortable, we would agree that that would be an appropriate action. Okay. As a commission, the floor is open for that as well. Well, I move for postponement of PLN FRP 21-39, steel property, since the applicant is not present. And that would be a one-month postponement? I would postpone it for one month. February 10th. Yes. Okay. And we have a second by Ms. Wirth. So that's a one-month postponement for PLN FRP 21-39 to the February 10th meeting. Any further questions or discussions to that motion? I'm seeing none. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. These field guys sometimes forget about our schedule and forget. They're out there surveying and pounding the ground. So I understand. Wish they was here. So next up, page 2, PLN FRP-21-47. Yes, sir. This is Final Record Plan 21-47, Bell Dell Edition. and this is a subdivision of a property, a corner lot that exists. You can see it here and here, and frankly, I can't read the names. I believe it's Owsley Avenue. They're at the rear of Kenwick back near the railroad, and this is a parallel street that runs parallel to a railroad in this location. And this is a plan that, interesting enough, was submitted several years ago and approved and never got certified and recorded. So a new surveyor on behalf of the owner brought it back for your consideration today. Now, what is important about this as you look at your agenda, there are the standard sign-off conditions on a final record plat. There are several cleanup conditions. These are R2 duplex zone lots, and that's very common in the Kenwick area. You may or may not know, but there's a lot of R2 zoning in that area. However, it's still dominated by single-family homes. So one of the conditions you'll see on your agenda is that these are restricted to single-family homes, and that actually dovetails very closely with the reason they're here before you today, and that is they've been utilized this way historically. But they are non-conforming. So it is necessary that you make a finding that they do comply with Article 4-5A of the zoning ordinance. And that was done prior on the previous approval as well. And again, that requires them to document that they've been utilized as separate dwelling units. And they generally do that with utility bills, et cetera. Which, again, was done several years ago. that information has been submitted with this application as well. The one item from the previous plan that is on this plan was some concern about encroachment of an existing driveway into the right-of-way. Traffic engineering and the applicant have been working on that, and they're comfortable they can resolve that particular situation. So with that, your technical committee and staff are recommending approval of this plan to you, including that you make a finding that it complies with 4-5A of the zoning ordinance. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Tom? Not seeing any, Tom. Thank you. And the applicant is represented. Great. Applicant, step up. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Gary Rowland with CAM Surveying. I've reviewed the conditions that have been proposed by staff. We agree with those. I'd be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. We have any questions, Mr. Rowland? Not seeing any. Okay. Thank you. If there's anyone in the audience who would like to speak, either for or against this particular application at this time, please do so by stepping up to the podium. Not seeing any, so I bring it back to the commission for further questions, or if there aren't any questions, the floor is open for a motion. A few motions? Yes, with the findings. Thank you for that. Question, do we need to make the, which one do we need to make first? We need to do the findings. Second. Second. Okay. Mr. Cole had nominated himself to make a motion. Yes, Mr. Cole. Mr. Chair, I move to approve the ALN FRP 2147 Veldale edition, including the finding that the subdivision complies with Article 4.5A of the zoning ordinance. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion? I guess I should add that it's subject to the conditions indicated by staff. It's noted. Thank you. Not seeing any further discussions. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. All right. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Rowland, staff. Good afternoon. Oops, wrong way. Okay. On this plan we're moving to FRP 21-49 Masterson Station Center, Citation Village, Citation Flats. This property is located on Ferndale. This is Citation Boulevard. Out this way down here is Lee's Town. This is in the rear of the shopping center that we have up here in the front from Astersen Station Center. This property here has a final development plan on it to put in 48 townhomes. Currently, they're coming in today to put 23 townhomes, create 24 lots with 23 townhomes, showing an access easement in between the two townhomes and along the back portion of the townhomes themselves. With this, we have the first 10 are standard conditions. We had a couple cleanup notes, addition of the access easement maintenance note, since they're creating the access easement on this plan, denoting adjacent property information, document compliance with Article 4-5 of the land subregs, and then we also provided the Planning Commission makes a finding for the use of the access easement as a sole access to all lots. In your package, you should have a findings report for the access easement for the property, and we believe that it meets the requirements and we ask that they create the maintenance note to show who is going to maintain that property and that's one of the conditions was to have that on the plan. With that, I'll open it to you if you have any other comments or questions. Any comments, questions, concerns for staff? I see. Thank you. Applicant. In Rory Kaley with the partners. We are agreeable to the conditions listed by staff and request approval. Thank you Mr. Kaley. Not seeing any hands raising for any questions, so hold tight there. Do we have anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular agenda? Not seeing any, so we'll bring it back to the commission for any further questions or concerns. If there aren't any, the floor is open for a motion. And we need to include the finding for the use of the access easement as well. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN FRP 21-00049 Masterson Station Center with the 14 conditions attached including a finding for use of the easement access easements for access to the lots. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Weir, for the motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Meyer. Any further discussion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Ms. Cayley. Okay. So that brings us to page 5, PLNMJDP-21-69. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, PLN MJDP 21-6900069, Yellman Subdivision, Powerhouse Church of God, also known as Blackburn Development, is a plan that has been submitted for your review and consideration, located, as I'm sure you're aware, out along 4th and Blackburn in this location. We have here a previous approved development for an apartment building, and you can see the parking in this location. Here you have the access into the parking. And the plan that you see before you today includes, this is 345, 325. This property at this location is in essence being combined into one single development plan that is before you today. The area is zoned R5. And this property was just recently rezoned, and subsequently, a final development plan was filed and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant filed suit, and you have a copy of the judge's decision. And that plan that you approved, the final development plan, was reversed by the judge. And it was reversed specifically on the grounds of due process. And you may recall with Zoom meetings, sometimes there's difficulty and there can be technical difficulties. It was determined by the judge that the applicant's attorney was seen on camera and had FaceTime with the planning commission. The objector's attorney, although you could hear her, you could not see her on screen. and there were issues. And as you all know, with Zoom and what we've all been through, there can be some issues. So the judge agreed that that was a due process problem. And again, that was one reason for reversing it. And then there was a second one in that he found that the joint parking agreement between the parties was inadequate because it allowed one party to cancel it. So those were the two reasons that it was reversed. And so they filed a new plan because that reversal put an end to your previous approval on the previous development plan. Now, what's interesting about that is that what you have before you today is identical to that plan that was previously approved. There's been no changes to that plan. And so again, they brought it back to you today. Now, there had been some concerns about changes to the plan and issues in terms of whether or not it was an amended plan. And actually what is interesting, because again, originally among the concerns and objections that had been filed with your staff to review by the objector's attorney included the fact that they were on two separate lots. the fact that they did on this particular plan, they are proposing some changes to the original approval for 345. This plan was approved separately on its own final development plan, and this was built from that particular plan. So this new plan that you see before you does combine the properties, does combine the two plans, And yes, there are some slight changes in this area. They tie the parking together. There's a new island with a tree, and they've added a dumpster. And so it would be appropriate that they denote that as an amended aspect of 345 and an amended plan. And that's not unusual. That happens. It's not unusual to combine plans. It's not unusual for these changes. And by the way, these changes would have constituted a minor amendment in scope, which would have been staff approval at that level. However, nothing precludes an applicant and owner from submitting minor changes on a major development plan. And so that's what you have before you today. and you're being asked as you approve this entirety, yes, these small changes are an aspect of the plan. They'll need to denote those on the final development plan. Staff's perspective, that's a housekeeping issue. It does not go to the function of the plans or the property as a whole. Secondly, again, this is a perfectly appropriate time for you to approve these changes. I'll give you an example, a couple of examples. The Shell Station on Clay's Mill and the Stonewall Shopping Center, two combined plans. One of the changes was basically minor in scope. They combined the plans. They didn't go through a minor amendment. They brought it back to you as a major amendment. You may recall that discussion. It's not relevant. They've gone back to their separate entities to deal with those issues, and they're still trying to work through them. My point is, again, this has been done. It can be done. Another one that is relevant to this particular situation, just as an example, would be the Versailles Road, Red Mile Road, Speedway. One part of that property had a development plan. The other part did not. When they expanded the properties, that one that had a development plan, well, technically you did amend that existing development plan. You also expanded it to cover an additional lot. It actually would have been a minor amendment as well. They removed a building. that would have been a minor minute, just removing a building off a piece of property and replacing it with some additional parking, for instance. But again, just wanted to address that particular issue with you. You understand that this is not an unusual situation and it's not outside the normal process that you would follow or your staff would follow in reviewing these types of plans. Now, as I stated before, this plan is virtually unchanged from the plan that you did previously approve. You can see from the staff report, we have standard sign-offs, all just standard sign-offs off the development plan. And with the exception of number 13, which says provide building elevations, tree inventory map, geotechnical analysis, that's been done. Staff has that. We've actually looked at those. We have that. That's carryover. But they've actually complied with that one. Now, it's interesting because I want to address the handout that you have in your packet. This is a new list of concerns from the applicant's attorney that we got this morning. And, you know, we sometimes, you hear people criticize staff because we get our reports to them at the last minute and that sort of thing because people are busy. So we fully understand that. We met with the applicant and his attorney, staff did this week, to talk about their concerns in staff's evaluation of the plan and application of the ordinance. And we had a good meeting with them to discuss those things. Now, what's important is that the applicant has raised an issue with the parking agreement. And in fact, as I mentioned, the judge raised an issue with the parking agreement because it could be canceled. And they, you see before you, on the submitted information, they are continuing to raise an issue with the parking agreement, the joint parking agreement. A joint parking agreement is not required on this property. It's a misapplication of the ordinance. It's pulling something out of context in the ordinance. Joint parking agreements were developed to address different uses that are jointly sharing parking, designed to facilitate infill development, mixed-use development, where you have commercial parking and you have residential parking. and there's going to be some overlap. And that's addressed. And the objector's attorney points out about the one hour that they have to demonstrate the overlap and that sort of thing. Well, again, that's what it's for when you have conflicting or I should say separate uses. And that's actually in the paragraph, Article 16, there's a paragraph and that's what it talks about. And then it goes on after it talks about these separate uses under parking. It goes to joint parking. It follows. That was the intent. What is this is all residential. This is a residential use. From staff's perspective, all that is necessary because of this line right here is reciprocal parking and access note. It's all that's necessary. And frankly, that's all over town on all kinds of developments, particularly if it's a commercial development or it's a residential development where there's been some allotting. Reciprocal parking and access. That's all that's required. You don't need a joint parking agreement because you're not mixing commercial, residential, or institutional parking and there's going to be inherent conflicts due to hours of operation. Give you an example. Actually, I have several. And that is the spring site on Harrodsburg Road. It's commercial. All commercial development, various types. CVS, fast food, some professional office. There's one DP, one development plan. It was reviewed as one site. There's five lots. Now, when they record those lots, one of the things that staff says, put a note on here, you shall comply with the approved development plan. It shows all the parking, all the access. Furthermore, we always insist reciprocal parking and access on all these properties. We have that note put on there. Turflin Mall, right across the street. 1DP, 13 lots. Myers, 1DP on the center part. There's actually a few others as you go. But the Meyers, the grocery store, that eight lots. Fayette Mall, one DP on Fayette Mall. There's nine lots on that site. They have reciprocal parking and access requirement, and they're controlled by a development plan. Now, there may be private agreements, and frankly, most joint parking agreements and those types of things are all private. That comes down to the property management and lease negotiations and that sort of thing, that they have these private agreements. But the ordinance, in this instance, does not require it. So again, we don't believe that there's any merit to that particular concern or objection on behalf of the objector. Now, again, this is new and we've been reviewing it. I actually had viewed the previous objections and that we met with them and talked with them about. So their second objection is the on-street parking shall be eliminated from the development plan. And this is interesting in that there's some on-street parking in this area. And when this plan was originally approved, traffic impacts, parking impacts, landscaping, all those were evaluated. All those were fully vetted, presented to you. They were discussed. And what was done, because of neighbors' concern with traffic, is the applicant worked with traffic engineering. Traffic engineering recommended this offset and some parking. Now, the applicant is asking that it be removed. Well, you can remove that offset parking. You can. But they'll still be on-street parking. Okay? They'll still be on street parking in this location. That won't go away. That'll take council action, because that's public right away. Now, in support of this, the applicant has commented on the impact on the streetscape and the pedestrian experience. And certainly, again, that objection is understandable. You know, we talk a lot about pedestrian experience and that sort of thing, but I want to go back and remind you that these were issues fully vetted at both zone changes. Traffic impact, parking impacts, and because of those concerns, traffic calming. And this applicant has, in fact, agreed to provide money for traffic calming on Blackburn Avenue. Blackburn Avenue. Blackburn, thank you. Blackburn Avenue. They've agreed to do that, again, because of neighborhood concerns with traffic generated from the residential development, fully vetted with you. The additional concern that they have talked about is the transition of these changes mid-block. Well, that happens sometimes through development and that sort of thing. Most recently, you may recall a discussion out on Greendale Road and the development in that area and how because our standards have changed, they're going to have to transition the sidewalk quits. It happens. It's done. It's not unusual. It may not exactly be usual. But again, I think the important thing to know is this was vetted through your previous hearings and it's in response to traffic concerns that were expressed at those hearings. It's all part of an effort to try to assist in addressing the neighborhood's concern with the traffic impact. Now, in our discussion with the applicant and his attorney, traffic studies were discussed. Traffic impact studies were not required. They were not required but either one of these zone changes. And there's a statement in here that now, however, the two properties are being considered as a single site and it is undisputed that the traffic at peak hours will be well in excess of 100 trips. There's been no study done to determine that that is disputed, staff does not accept that assertion, traffic engineering does not accept that assertion. Because again, there would have to be a traffic study done to determine if indeed this would be the case, that 100 trips would be in fact generated by this. an additional concern that you're going to hear from the applicant is that no outdoor lighting be allowed along the entire property next to the subject property and that's through here and you may recall once again during the zone change when these issues were vetted this building changed its configuration there is landscaping and there's no lighting on the building because they tend to elevate that lighting But again, that's not an unreasonable request because it's dealing with an impact on the property. So staff doesn't see that as necessarily an unreasonable request when it comes to lighting. You know, you've heard we talk about lighting a lot and a lot more than we used to. Your staff does and shares concerns about the lighting impact. But again, this goes back to these issues have been fully vetted through two zone changes, through a final development plan on this particular property. So we're back before you again today with this plan. And you can see, again, subdivision committee didn't have a quorum. They didn't get to hear it. They didn't get to make a recommendation. But your technical committee and your staff is recommending approval of this plan. And I would add that we are recommending an additional condition that they denote that this is an amended plan and denote in the purpose of amendment the changes to 245. Again, housekeeping detail from our perspective, but we would recommend that that be done. With that, I'll be happy answering questions you may have for staff. Yeah, I have a couple questions. Myself and I think one other member were not on the planning commission when this was heard the first time. Is this a completely new hearing then for this? Yes, it is. Because, again, the court... So while I can't speak to what the previous Planning Commissioner in my sort of place saw or voted, typically with a development plan, you have some photos of the site and some information, or is that not part of the staff presentation in this case? we did not I apologize for that if you're asking for an arrow photo I don't know if the applicant has one in his presentation or the objector this is built this is there I understand that and this is vacant and cannot be built on until the final is approved and then you have on down Blackburn some residential homes For my benefit, could you just, I think a lot of the presentation assumed a lot of prior knowledge about this case. Could you just do like a quick walkthrough of the new buildings, the dimensions, and the increase in parking, and the increase in units that they're asking for? And those are in the statistics. I didn't, I've got it back on my chair. an awful lot of paper stacked up back there. Before you get into that, could I, do you mind if I make a comment as well? Oh, not at all. I was opposed to this the first time around. I'm opposed to it again. And the reason I'm opposed to it is because I don't think it complies with aspects of the ordinance that require sensitivity to existing context. And I think that I'm disturbed that there's no discussion of that today. I think that was a very important part of the argument that was being made the first time we heard this. and I think it's really, really important that that issue be carefully addressed and considered. And I think that the commission's ability to address those concerns were, in fact, damaged by the way that the Zoom process occurred and that the judge's finding is correct on this. So I just wanted to bring that up so that you can also speak to those issues. Well, thank you. Yes, and staff is aware of your concerns. And again, with the final development plan, you do have an opportunity to speak to certain impacts on the neighbor, screening, lighting, and those items, and certainly. Ooh, that's nice. Yes. So here we have 4th, and here we have Blackburn. This is the existing, I believe, five-story building, 108 units. Here is where the proposal will be with the 34. are 108 units and then 36 one bedroom units will be combined into this. There are 133 parking spaces. There were variances granted with the zone change and with the original plan for the front yard, for the parking because it is shared. That's where the argument over the shared-use parking comes because there is shared parking, that is, but it's not joint shared-use parking. It's just shared parking for the residential use that this property needed. They have 11 spaces available to them on this site, and this site was able to take advantage of the deductions in parking to get to their total. And so that's how that worked. Now, this was an industrial site at one time. If you go back far enough, you'll find that there was a feed mill located here. Across the street, there was a coal yard. So the industrial uses remained. They changed. And for a long time in this particular area, there was an industrial use. This was vacant. And then you have the few remaining single-family homes in this area on that side of the street on Blackburn. And, again, there is, again, to address those impacts that Mr. Pohl has been concerned about, There's been landscaping and lighting, reconfiguration because of the mass and sizing. I believe Graham had concerns about that size. The new building is 36 feet in height. It's shorter. It's a step down from the five-story here on the corner. So it's a step down in that regard in an effort to, again, mitigate that impact as it moves towards the single-family homes. The traffic, again, no traffic study was done. Do developments generate traffic? Yes, there'll be some traffic. Traffic engineering very much heard the neighborhood's concerns. So, again, there's money been added to their pool of money to address traffic calming. And why that's a good thing is that that allows traffic engineering to make the determination what will work best and what designs, whether it's a speed table versus a speed bump, whether you constrict the street with a build-out and that sort of thing. So again, that was designed to address the traffic concerns. Again, on this new plan that you see before you, there's landscaping adjacent to the single-family property. there has been the lighting has been addressed again if this if the planning commission wants to address it further you certainly have that ability today with a development plan note to to restrict the lighting certainly that is that is your prerogative so and i don't know if i've done enough or too much to kind of address your concerns and understanding, again, the area. But this is an infill project. The zone change was found to be compliant with your comprehensive plan, increased density within the urban service boundary, revitalization, reuse of existing properties such as this to provide residential units. and again with a look at trying to mitigate that particular impact with again if i understand and recall graham's concerns it's the massing of the building and and that scale and we we hear that discussion frequently in these circumstances. Landscaping is always required. We can always enhance it. And again, lighting can always be further restricted than it already has been through the conditional zoning, if you all believe that's a legitimate concern. Does that help to give you some background or enough? Only one small question. You mentioned there were some restrictions on lighting now. Yes. What are those restrictions on lighting now? The conditional zoning, there shall be no exterior light along the southwest portion of the structure, which is adjacent to the property at 321 Blackburn. There shall be a 18-foot landscape buffer yard adjacent to the property. So the landscaping has already been enhanced. The lighting has been restricted. They're asking for additional restrictions on the lighting. Yes, Mr. Nichols. Yes, I just have to kind of take a step back, and this may have been what kind of elicited the initial questions and responses, that we did approve the zone change, and that's been approved and not disputed. What we're looking at now is the development plan that was disputed as a due process concern. What we're looking at different than this, we can vote up, down, any way we would like to vote on this, because it's a totally new hearing on this specific development plan itself. But the zone, the usage has all been approved, and that's not something we are readdressing now. But we are readdressing the technical and other specifications of this development plan. That's just my comment, because we did spend quite a bit of time getting to a zone change approval that brought the entire property to an R5. Just wanted to make the statement that we're looking at now. we can't really affect the size and massing of the buildings at this moment unless we wanted to completely back up and do that again. Is that correct? This is a legal use under the zone. It meets requirements of the zone staff. It meets the ordinance. So all of that would have been addressed during the zone change itself? It was vetted, yes. So that was, okay, that's what we agreed on during the zone change. It was, we did address those concerns regarding massing. Right. And Graham is perfectly correct. He did not agree with that. Absolutely. But what we cannot agree with right now is only the development plan in front of us now. Yes, sir. You are being asked to review this development plan. Thank you. Any further questions? Thank you. Just so, again, this may help, and I appreciate it. Here are the elevations that they submitted to show how the building is going to be built. And is it going to respond? Maybe. Maybe that's it. Oh, I got you. Somebody else has got control now. but again and to take you back and because Robin again because you're new in the original zone change there was a lot of discussion about appearance, about articulation, about elevations about the 4th Street study and that was done that had recommendations on how redevelopment should occur and how it should look in the area and you weren't there and I understand that and we have some new people But again, that was the point in my presentation is that that was fully vetted at that time and discussed. And certain actions were taken to address the neighborhood concerns. And yes, as Mr. Nichols stated, the zone change was approved. This is an R5 piece of property. Okay, Tom, I think we're okay for right now. I think we're okay for right now. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Applicant. There you go. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing Blackburn Development. I apologize, I'm not wearing a jacket. This is the first time in my life I've been in front of the Planning Commission without wearing a formal jacket. That's because I didn't know I was going to be before you today. Due to some medical reasons, my partner Chris Clendenin could not be here. But I am familiar with the project. And I want to first, and I think this is very important to address what you've been talking about a little bit for the last few minutes here. And that is what is before you today to vote on and what has already been voted upon and finalized. I want to emphasize that the zone change to R5 is final. It was not appealed. The zone change was the place where the decision is made on compliance with Place Builder. I think in the comprehensive plan, I think you all decided that we did comply with that, as did the city council, which voted to approve our zone change after a three or four hour hearing before the city council. They voted to approve the zone change as well. They had their own new hearing. The zone change was not appealed. The zone change is final. This property is zoned R5 under the ordinance. No doubt about it. No appeal was ever filed on that. Another thing that was not appealed, and that is the granting of the variance on the number of parking spaces. We got a credit for, I think, 10% due to bicycle parking, 5% due to transit stop. It might be the reverse, but it's 5% or 10%. and we asked for another reduction of five spaces. We still have more than enough spaces here. We have, I can quote you a number here if I get my paper together. We have, here it is, just a second. we have total of 138 spaces after the variance was granted we have 108 dwelling units in this development one-bedroom dwelling units all of them one-bedroom dwelling units 100 at 108 units 138 parking spaces and the number of parking spaces is final as well because you all granted of variance as part of the zone change consideration. That variance was not appealed. That is final as well. Another issue that is final is whether we had to do a traffic study or not. It was determined early on on this because there are 72 units existing on the site. That's the building on the northern side of the property toward Fourth Street. This new building, which is being added to the development, has 36 units. It was determined probably at the initial pre-application conference two years ago that no traffic study was needed. That issue was not raised as an objection at the zone change. That was not appealed either. So a traffic study was not required on this. the massing and i understand people's issues about the massing there were a lot of exhibits showing that the three-story building with a flat roof was not that much different from a two-story building with a large angled roof we can disagree with that that about that but and going through place builder criteria but that again was something that is part of the zone change presentation. That's not under appeal. What was appealed was the approval of the development plan. And as you all know, zone changes are discretionary, where you all and the council can exercise your discretion on deciding whether something ought to be R5 or not. This planning commission decided to recommend approval of the zone change. The city council approved the zone change but that's a discretionary decision which has been made the development plan is what they call a ministerial action which means that if we meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance the body that reviews it is required to approve it it's like getting a building permit if you go to the building inspection division and ask for a permit to put an addition on your house or build a swimming pool, there's all sorts of checklists and codes they have to go through to see if you meet it. Is it too close? Does it meet the setbacks? If you're a swimming pool, do you have the fence around it? Is it build up to code and that sort of thing? And if you meet all those requirements, the building inspection division has to give you a permit. That's the same way a development plan is. So we're here today with this development plan to make sure we meet all the requirements of the zoning, of the numerical and setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. I think it's important to remember, too, that the development plan was appealed. It went to Fayette Circuit Court. and many of the issues you're going to hear today about parking and whether this is an amended plan or whether it's not an amended plan, whether we can use the parking credits for transit spaces, which the ordinances allow and all that sort of thing. All those issues were raised on appeal of the development plan. You're essentially seeing a development plan, which is very similar to the one you'd approved before. Why is that? The reason is that all these issues were argued in front of Fayette Circuit Court. Fayette Circuit Court then overturned your action in approving the development plan on two grounds. Two grounds out of the eight or ten or whatever were raised. And those only two grounds were number one. It was a Zoom meeting, and the objectors weren't allowed to have their pictures on the screen. The staff and the proponents were allowed to have their pictures on the screen as they were talking. The objectors were only allowed to be there in audio format. The judge felt that was a denial of due process to have a hearing in which the applicant has their face on the screen, but the objectors are not allowed to have their face on the screen. So the judge said, denial due process. The other reason was about the parking agreement. And that's because the judge found that the parking agreement, agreement which had been entered into, had not been finalized at the time of appeal. And also, there was a provision in there about one party could revoke it. The one party could revoke the parking agreement. So it was sent back to you for those two reasons and only reasons. Even though a lot of these other issues had been raised, it was not overturned because of those issues. It was only overturned because of those two issues that are before you. Now, obviously, today, we're all here in person. Whether that's a good idea or not, I don't know. But we're all here in person, so everybody can be seen, takes care of the one of them. And the other one is the parking agreement. And we have entered into a new parking agreement. If you could go to our slides, that is our slide. If I go, I get to advance it to the next one. Sorry about that. I'm the one who has the power to do that. So I'm going to go hopefully push this one, push that one. There we go. That's our plan. We've colored up. And the, as I said, 4th Street is up here. This is Blackburn Avenue. this is the existing building that's there right now has been built for i don't know eight to ten years has 72 one-bedroom apartments in it this is the building which was subject to the zone change has 36 one-bedroom apartments in it it's actually three separate lots which is part of the issue behind the parking agreement. And all of them have, all the companies have some of the same owners, but not some of the same owners on it, which is the reason it's three separate lots. But it's developed as one unified development on one development plan, and we meet all the parking requirements on that plan. Now, the issue is that we want to make sure that one owner can't come back later on and say, oh, well, you can't, if this owner here says, well, you guys over here, you can't park in our parking spaces anymore. You can only park in those parking spaces anymore. We don't want that. This is one development. You can park anywhere you are. So we had submitted a new parking agreement to the city, to the planning division, which was reviewed by the planning division and law department. It has been approved. and so we have that new parking agreement. Now, going on to the next way, we understand the objections. Now, I do have to point out that there's been new objections filed apparently this morning. They weren't given to us. Normally, if you're in court, like one attorney sends objections to the other so that you can see them in advance, three days in advance actually on motions. We never got those. I was told walking into this at 1.30 that there were some more objections, but this is what we understand the objections are. Number one, that the final development plan doesn't satisfy parking requirements of the ordinance. It does. Number two, the parking agreement hasn't been submitted to planning and approved by the law department. It has. Number three, development plan violates the subdivision regulations. It does not. Number four, final development plan requires amendments to 345 Blackburn Avenue. I think the staff is, we don't think amendments are required. This is a new plan, but the staff has noted that it should be noted in your action that it amends 345. We don't have any problem with that. It doesn't make any difference one way or the other. The parking requirements, as I said, we have 36 residential units here on this building. We're required a total for this development of 138 after we talked about the 10% credit for transit stop, 5% for bike racks, and the variance. So that's the 138 spaces which was decided by you all, not appealed. That's final. That's the number of spaces we need, 138. We are showing 138 spaces. We note that the variance was granted. And we have, I'm sorry, 133 is the number, 138 minus 5 of the variance. We have 133 on this plan. Now, in the parking agreement, we've always felt, and I think Mr. Martin voiced this to you, that a reciprocal parking agreement is not needed. All we need is a note on this plan saying, if you live in this building or if you live in this building, you can park anywhere you want to. We essentially have that agreement. But we have taken that agreement to the staff and the law department who have said it meets the requirements. We've submitted it. There's no overlap in use. We feel an agreement is not needed because there's a note on the development plan that says we have to have reciprocal parking. The owner of the property cannot revoke that note. The only person who could ever revoke that note is you all. So it's irrevocable. One party can't revoke that. We don't think a separate agreement is needed because we're not doing reciprocal parking. Reciprocal parking, as was mentioned by Mr. Martin, is when a parking, the classic is a church and a store. My church does this with retail next to it. Retail doesn't meet its required parking under the ordinance. It says we need more required parking. Church rents out whatever number of spaces to the store, and they do a reciprocal agreement. That's because the retail is not meeting its required parking. You're allowed to meet your required parking in a reciprocal parking agreement. So in the church store example, my church, we rent out 10 or 15 spaces to a shopping center next door. We meet Sunday mornings, and the shopping center isn't open Sunday mornings, So they can count our spaces as they're required. It's our spaces too. The same space may be used for the church and for the shopping center. In our case, we meet our required parking. We're not taking a space and using it Sunday morning for one use and Sunday afternoon for another use. That one space, you can park your car 24-7 in there. We meet all our required parking. it's just that we're making it clear that you can park anywhere in that parking space that you want to. We meet that. If we have a clause in here that implies that one owner can revoke that parking agreement, we'd certainly agree to a note on your approval that we amend that to provide that one owner cannot amend our parking agreement. We don't want an owner to amend that parking agreement. It's joint parking. The subdivision regulations, we don't think this is a subdivision. I'm not going to belabor this point because if you put that note on saying it amends that other one, we're okay with that because it doesn't change how the subdivision regulations apply to us. the amendments to the development plan we don't think we're amending a previously approved development plan but we're doing a new one but again i'm not going to belabor that point but in summary we have the number of parking spaces we're required to have where we don't think we're required to have a parking agreement under article 16 7 because it's not reciprocal parking, but we do have one. Plus, there's a note on the plan saying that that whole area will be open to access to all. We don't think the subdivision regulations will apply, but as you know, we don't have a problem with the discussions about putting that note on there saying that it amends that development plan for 345 because it doesn't have a major impact on us. I just want to talk about a couple issues. I may have to use some of my rebuttal if there's more coming up. But the issue about the parking, I think the staff had that first image, that first rendering you had that shows the offset parking on Blackburn Avenue. It showed it on the first rendering you had. we want to discuss that a little bit there we go apparently there's a request that we not have this on street parking here, what I think Mr. Martin called it offset parking, I call it protected parking because you've seen these where the curb goes out and there's an indentation to give space for cars to park. That was put in as part of the original development. I think it may be the suggestion of the staff to supply better situated parking on street for Blackburn Avenue. And as I was talking to Joe Brumley here, my client from Blackburn Development, that was a request of neighbors early on, I think when they did the first part of this. We feel strongly that this adds to the safety of Blackburn Avenue because it gives us wider, it allows more of the pavement to be used for through traffic. Blackburn Avenue is not a very wide road. It's a safer parking situation. Now, you might say, well, if we do that and allow a safer through movement, won't that increase the speed of the traffic on Blackburn Avenue? And we discussed that through the zone change process, and we reached an agreement with the Division of Traffic Engineering and Planning that we would pay for the cost of traffic tables or speed tables to be installed on Blackburn Avenue to reduce the parking. There's a lot of discussion about that at the City Council meeting, too, about the need for those speed tables on there. And my client agreed to pay for those in there. So that's going to be perhaps one discussion point that we'll have. And as I said, the traffic study issue is the time to decide whether a traffic study is needed is when the zone change is initiated. And it was not deemed to be required at that point. and that is a final decision. And there'd be discussion of lighting on this end near Mr. Klar's house there. We agreed to conditional zoning restrictions, limiting the lighting on that, that we would have no wall-mounted lighting on here. We think it's important, though, that we have the ability to have some lighting. We don't want a safety concern raised there. We don't want to have a dark space where people can lurk or hang out in there. We think it's important to be able to have some, like, ground-level lighting going back to the building like that to be supplied there. We think that's an important point of the development. So that's where we're at. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them. but I want to emphasize this has been a, I think a two or three year process we've been through because as you know, the sit after you all approved the zone change, things shut down due to COVID and the city council shut down a whole lot longer than you all did. So the, the zone change was heard. Oh, sometime last year. and we've been working on this for two or three years now and I understand that appeals delay things and sometimes when things get delayed people think that developers will get tired and just go away that's not the case here that Blackburn development is is ready and willing to go through with this but at At the same time, we don't think anything is going to be solved by further dragging this out. Construction costs only keep going higher. And as costs go higher, rents have to go higher. The sooner we can get this built, the sooner we can get this online and not have to raise rents more because construction costs keep going up. But that's another issue. We don't have any control whether people appeal this or not. but we're very certain that we have dealt with the issues relating to do we comply with the zoning ordinance requirements for this property. The staff has reviewed this, and as you can see, they have a number of conditions, all of which we're agreeable to, to make sure that we comply with all the staff conditions. But what I don't want to do, even though some of us may want to, is get back into the discussion of should this be there in the first place, because that has been decided. our parking's been decided a lot of these things have already been decided so if you're seeing this new or if you're seeing this again we have to recognize that this is not a total review of the project this is only a review to see if we are complying with those particular requirements of the zoning ordinance and we do and the staff has found that we do and we we also are agreeable with all the conditions that the staff has set forth. So I'll sit down and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have about this. And obviously I may have to make some rebuttal comments after the objectors make their case to you. Thank you very much. Okay. Commission members, do we have any questions? Yes, Mr. Nickel. All right, I do have a question about, this is a, I guess from your perspective, as the attorney for the applicant, and as we're looking at this complaint, the complaint we're looking at has to do with a parking agreement that fails to comply that can be corrected, which to me looks like it's a concern for the overall parking needed for the project. but then we're looking at the request to remove 17 on-street parking spaces. How does that, how do those two things work together in your mind? Well, we meet our requirement on-site. If you want to take away the on-street parking, you can do that. We don't think that's a wise course of action. We don't have to have that parking as part of our development. We did it because we thought at the suggestion of the staff that it was a better way to deal with the on-street parking on Blackburn Avenue. Thank you for clarifying that. And I agree. And it's also an added expense to the developer themselves. So if it's removed, it's just. Yeah, it costs more for us to build this and plus the cost of those traffic tables as well. Thank you. Yes, Robin. the offset parking in front of the existing building when I'm looking at street view already looks like it's present is that correct? Mr. Brumley, my client is nodding his head yes so the the new off-street parking, so the new on-street parking sort of offset or protected parking is, I mean, I can't imagine that that's 17 spaces. Do you all have an idea how many spaces that we're talking about here? I see number four being held up or three in the background there. Three or four, okay. I see four. Three to four, somewhere in that range. Ms. Wade is saying four along this stretch here for this new building. So is it your understanding, Mr. Murphy, and we'll hear from, I guess, Ms. Winters here in a minute, but that it is those four spaces that would be basically, instead of the protected, they would revert to normal on-street parking, which exists there now in front of the house? Yes, I think that's the issue, these four that have not been built yet. Yes. Okay, thanks. there would not be a cutout for the parking there would just be a straight curb and if the sidewalk was able to if the curb remained straight and the sidewalk remained straight that would increase the planting area in front of the building is that correct? Yes. Now, as you can see from this rendering, we do have a planting area between the sidewalk and the building, but this would widen the planting area between the sidewalk and the curb if you took that away. Thank you. Okay. Are you okay, Rob? Graham? i i would point out that it could widen the planting area between the building and the sidewalk if the sidewalk were to continue in the same in the same position as it as it exists in front of the existing homes to the south of the proposal in other words it wouldn't the sidewalk wouldn't have to step in until it gets to a point where it's meeting the driveway well i'm not fully aware of where the how far the sidewalk is away if there is a curb as blackburn avenue goes farther south on that i i think that if the sidewalk is is closer to the street than we have it, I guess that might be the case. Graham, are you okay? All right, thank you. Not seeing any other questions, Mr. Murphy, we'll get back with you. Is there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? I think Ms. Winters is here. Mr. Clare, if you could step up. Good afternoon. I'm Jessica Winters. I represent Mark Klar, who's the neighboring property owner on Blackburn. And in the zone change process, I also represented a bunch of other neighbors that were objecting to the zone change. I'm not here today to rehash any of the old territory. The zone change was approved over the objection of more than 100 neighbors, and it wasn't appealed because the neighbors were out of money and the ability to continue to fight a fight that was very uphill at that point. And so we did appeal, however, the approval of the development plan. And the Fayette Circuit Court found that the objectors were not afforded due process and were also found that a parking agreement was necessary and that the parking agreement submitted with the development plan did not comply with the zoning ordinance because it allowed one party to terminate at its own discretion. And so the continued argument that a parking agreement is not required here has already been addressed by the court, which found the parking agreement submitted with the original development plan to be lacking. And so what's happened is, is nothing about the original development plan really has been changed, except that they've submitted a new reciprocal parking agreement. And we're here today to argue on two issues. We're not going to waste your time. Our two issues are we would like to have a parking agreement that complies with the zoning ordinance and states that it cannot be revoked at the sole discretion of the other owner so that we can make sure that these parking spaces that are being borrowed between the properties will always be able to be borrowed between the properties to satisfy the parking requirement. And number two, we're requesting that the four street spots that are created, well actually they're not really created because they're there anyway, so let's start there. There's currently on street parking on Blackburn Avenue. So this cut out here that infringes on the public right away doesn't create any additional spots. It basically creates a protected parking which we have been told that even traffic engineering agrees, increases the speed of traffic on the street, and that's a concern for the residents. So we're asking that that be removed. So I will start with the parking agreement. And I detailed this in my letter to you, which the objections that we submitted today are just a pared down version of what we've been arguing all along. When we had the hearing on the development plan a year ago, when we were on Zoom, We made these same arguments, but we have since pared that down based on the appeal and the Fayette Circuit Court ruling and our meeting with planning staff where they were generous with their time. They met with us, they sat down. We still disagree on a couple of issues. So we've gone through this process, we've spent a lot of time and money considering these issues. And now we're here today with a two issue objection. So the original development plan had an easement attached to it. And I've excerpted the language from the agreement and then attached also the easement to my position statement, which is highlighted with regard to the relevant provisions. And basically it says that, it's somewhat conflicting, but it says no vehicle shall be stored, abandoned, or otherwise allowed to remain within the boundaries of the easement. Notwithstanding, vehicles may be allowed to temporarily park within the designated stripe spaces of the easement property upon the express written permission of the grantor. Such permission may be revoked by the grantor, its successors or assigns, and its sole discretion. So that was our original easement agreement that the Fayette Circuit Court said was not enough because it could be revoked at will of the grantor. And so then now there is a reciprocal parking agreement that says, we want these two lots to be shared between all these properties. Everyone's allowed to use the lot, that's great. But unfortunately, that agreement then incorporates all the terms and conditions of the easement. And the easement says that the parking privileges can be revoked at will of the grantor. So essentially, the legal documents that have been submitted in connection with this development plan do not resolve the issue. that the Fayette Circuit Court based its decision to reverse your prior approval of the development plan on. We're looking for a legal document that resolves the issue identified by the Fayette Circuit Court. It's our position that what's been submitted doesn't do that, and that the zoning ordinance requires one that does. And then our second argument is that the final development plan, and this again is something we've been arguing. We argued to you guys last year in connection with the approval of the original development plan, which is basically that Blackburn Avenue is a small street. It has a continuous sidewalk that connects some commercial and high-density residential uses with a 100% single-family residential neighborhood. And so it's a nice streetscape currently with a single sidewalk alignment that encourages pedestrian activity. And this plan entails modifying the public right away. So if you approve this plan with this cutout, you're basically saying it's okay for the developer to modify the public right away, to move the sidewalk over several feet and thereby reducing the front yard of the property between the sidewalk and the building. That's what you're saying is okay if you approve this. And so the front yard of the property without this cutout would be four feet wider. And as Mr. Mickler brought up earlier, that would allow for additional plantings. It would allow for an additional sort of step back situation for a pedestrian walking down the street to not have the building right up on the sidewalk. And so we're requesting that the cutout be eliminated. We are very excited that the developer is going to employ some additional traffic calming devices, the traffic tables, the speed bumps, whatever is eventually decided upon. The neighbors are 100% supportive of that. We feel that elimination of this protected parking is another traffic calming measure because it actually forces people, without it, it forces people to slow down more when they're doing their parallel parking along the street. And so we point out the traffic study issue in our objection here, only to call your attention to the fact that the traffic impacts of this development as a whole have not been closely considered as they would be in connection with a traffic impact study. That's our only point there. There was no traffic impact study, but there is a concern, and there was concern even from traffic engineering when the development plan was being discussed with the applicant about speed and the ways that traffic can be addressed on this street. And so that's why we're requesting that this protected parking cutout area be eliminated. I have a little bit more detail on these various objections in my letter that you guys have with all the attachments for your reference. I think that my client would also, would you like to say a few words? Mr. Clark might also like to give his perspective on a couple of the issues before you today as part of my time. I'm not using the full 30 minutes. I think I got an email that that was going to be allowed. That's fine if you don't want to take your full 30 minutes. I don't need my full 30 minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Klar. My name is Mark Klar. I live at 321 Blackburn Avenue in the adjacent property. I was wondering if you could take this image down. Is that this image? doesn't really represent the reality of what the street looks like. And if you could find something that does represent it a little bit clearer, I would appreciate it. So, I will try to be very brief. There seems to be a problem, and this is clearly not my area of, the legality is not in my area of expertise, clearly. I'm a carpenter. But this issue of one development, two sites has confused the issue to a great degree in terms of both parking and in terms of, in particular, the traffic survey. We were told because there were two different sites, neither one of them needed to have a traffic survey because each of them on their own were too small. But in fact, it's one development with one driveway coming in and out with one parking lot shared by both of them. So I do think that a traffic survey was called for. It may not be required, but it would have been a good thing to do. There's also, in terms of parking, there's a third entity involved in this that has not been addressed, and that is the church across the street, the Powerhouse Church of God, which now has two congregations, a Saturday congregation and a Sunday congregation. and their parking tends to take up the whole street that is now encroaching on the area that was established after the first building was established for residential permit parking. The reason this is an issue is because when I approached the church in regard to the first development, 345, I was told that the church has an agreement with the developer to have parking available to them on Sundays. And now we have another congregation on Saturdays. And given the issue of mixed use, which has come up, that because it's a church, it's not considered mixed use, Mr. Murphy suggested that there might be some connection in terms of mixed use. And perhaps a shared traffic would be required regarding that as well. Again, I don't know the legality of that. I won't get into the larger issues that have presented themselves. The issues of appropriateness. The issues of the size of this property. I would like to remind the panel, the commission, that we have never been against the development of this property. We have never been against a multifamily use of this property. We have offered many suggestions. The developer knew right from the very beginning that there was opposition to this, and there was very little really done to change or address our concerns regarding this. In regard to the offset, the protected parking, there is sort of an odd paradox. On the one hand, the developer is asking for protected parking, mostly for the residents of that development. The fact is, and there's, I think, a well-acknowledged, several studies that have acknowledged that narrow streets, narrow pass-throughs are in fact safer pass-throughs. They slow traffic. So what is being proposed is to widen the road and then to redress the situation of a widened road by putting in speed bumps, which have certain issues as well in terms of additional noise because both the commercial trucks go through there and every time they go over the truck, you'll hear a rattle. twice. As it is, we deal with the trains that come through along Newtown Pike and where there are, I think, within three blocks, three different railroad crossings and therefore whistling three different times. And then another question is, if the Mr. Murphy raises is the idea of increased construction costs, perhaps causing a rise in rent. I have a question regarding that. If the rents go up, is it still affordable housing? There's so many other things I would like to say, but I will bite my tongue and leave my friend and neighbor, Faith Harders, to add her concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to speak? Yes. I've concluded with my comments, although I'm here to answer any questions you might have about my letter or anything else, and then I'll, you know, to other objectors. Okay. Thank you, Jessica. I'll do. As a planning commission, do we want to ask the questions to Jessica right now? I just have. Go ahead, Robin. I just have one question. I think the positions on the street parking were pretty clear to me, but the applicant mentioned in your notes there was discussion of lighting. Oh, yes. Okay. I did leave that out. I'm sorry. I think that is part of what we were reviewing, and I just would like some clarification because I think the applicant mentioned concern of security and making sure that there was some light for security. And I presume that your concerns relate to the sort of light pollution or things of that nature. Yeah, and maybe if you could pull up the development plan that shows, do you mind, so I can just demonstrate. So that is another issue. So throughout the process, basically, we've gotten to the point where there's not going to be lighting because this property directly abuts Mr. Klar's residence, which is, let's see here. I don't know how to use this. Oh, there we go. Okay. All right. So this whole line here is directly adjacent to Mr. Klar's home and his backyard. and so like the building itself would be mostly like along the side of his front yard and then his house and then this section here is along the side of his backyard and so like we're worried about lights on the property line here that would be lighting the parking lot that would also provide a lot of light pollution into his backyard and so we were we have been requesting this all along that the lighting along that entire side of the property be bumped and no lighting on the property line there. So no lighting at all including pedestrian scale lighting or I don't know how or how in terms of like measurement are you asking for a certain setback on the lighting right so i think you know if you put a like light poles in this area you know i'm not a designer but i think that you could sufficiently light the parking spaces to alleviate security risks without also lighting mr clarr's backyard in other cases i've seen where they require like the down box on the lights that really consolidates the light to a particular area Maybe something like that is appropriate here. Or moving of the light poles. I don't know if the light poles themselves are specifically delineated on the plan. I can't see it from here. Okay, okay, okay. Yeah, so. Hold on one second, sir. Hold on one second. I want to make sure. Robin, are you okay with your answer? Okay, that's fair enough. All right, any other questions for Ms. Winters before we? That is it, okay, thank you. We did have one more citizen comment and I would like to get her out of respect. Yes, ma'am. My name is Faith Harders. I live at 539 West 3rd Street, which puts me on the corner of Blackburn and 3rd. My driveway comes off to Blackburn. I want to put a context for my remarks. My understanding is the judge has thrown out the previous hearing. Why he threw it out? It's not like I agree with 90% of it, but I'm throwing it out for these are the only two things you need to consider. thrown out the entire previous hearing, and this is brand new, like the other hearing never happened. So therefore I feel that all objections to this project are valid, that they all have a right to be heard, and they all have a right for you to consider them. I disagree that if you have a zoning change and you check all the boxes, great. you have to give it to them. All throughout everything in the city about development and infill housing is compatibility with the neighborhood. And that is not a check the box, that's a judgment call. What is compatible? See better over here. This is the existing building on the corner of 4th and Blackburn. you look across to Transy's soccer field. Someone made the remark the last time, you approved this, why not approve the second part? What's the difference? Well, here's the difference. That part of the project is across from an industrial site. It's an active industrial site. It belongs to Dixon Electric. I think he uses it mainly for storage. I don't see a lot of activity there. But it's across from that. And then you see coming here some green space and then on the other side there's green space coming in from the project. This is where they are building. That is Mark Klar's house. So they've got this vacant land. But look what's across the street from it. Next picture. It's this. The cars kind of block it. But it's all these little one and a half story houses. They're all owner-occupied. Of course the church is a church. And there's several more going down off to your right. I didn't get them all in. So I agree with the gentleman who said, it's just inappropriate for the neighborhood. Nobody's objecting to development. I would love to see a fourplex like they have in Ashland Park, a couple of those. You could do individual bungalows like the city did on Georgetown. You could do, I'm not real big on townhouses, but yeah, that would work too. It's just that this development is wrong for this neighborhood. And the city requires infill and redevelopment to be compatible. And my point is that this is not compatible. And again, as I said, this is a brand new hearing. Everything is on the table. And I think I have a valid point. Thank you. Thank you. So we're going to move to the rebuttal stage, unless there's any other citizens that would like to speak. Okay, not seeing any. Mr. Murphy? Excuse me. Thank you very much. We've been, I've been conferring with my client during some of the discussion that was made. And I apologize, I did not handle the original zoning. But I think the lighting issue has been handled. and if we can go back to the slide of our development plan the colored rendering of the development plan I'll read the condition the condition about lighting as I recall was modified by the city council when the zone change got up there and this is condition number one which is right there you can't possibly read that But I'm going to, my version is almost as small, but I'm going to read it to you. Conditional zoning requirements. Number one, there shall be no exterior light along the southwest portion of the structure. Right. Along the southwest portion of the structure, which is adjacent to the property at 321 Blackburn Avenue, which is, I think, Mr. Klar's property right next door. So they put a restriction on there that we cannot have lighting there. So that sort of settles it. We wanted to have some security lighting there, but they said no. So that settles that. We recognize, Ms. Winters has pointed out the clause in the earlier parking agreement that was referenced in the new one. And the reason the old one was referenced because it had a lot of detailed requirements about you couldn't put an inoperative automobile on the parking lot. You couldn't store a car there. The parking lot has to be maintained by the owners and all that sort of thing. And there was a statement in there that permission may be revoked by the grantor. That was the flats at 345, the owner of this property. Said permission may be revoked by the grantor or its successors or assigns in its sole discretion. And in doing the current parking restriction, that restriction did say that it at some point did state that it was subject to the provisions of the earlier provision. And so we'd be agreeable. And I think this is sort of a moot matter because the other notes on this development plan require that the parking be open and available for all. So no party could revoke the joint parking or the parking for all without coming to you anyway. But to the extent that it's an issue, we would agree to an additional condition that we would modify the parking agreement to take out the provision that the grantor, which is this party, can revoke it at any time in their sole discretion. We don't want that in there either. We don't want one party being able to revoke it. And we're sorry. I mean, as I said, we incorporated these in because they have a lot of rules about who maintains what, and you can't put abandoned cars. And that was in there, and we don't intend that to be in there. So we would agree to a condition that we modify the parking agreement to take out the power of the grantor to revoke in their sole discretion. and we will do that to the satisfaction of the planning staff and the law department in there. The last item was the offset or protected parking. And I just want to mention that we did that because five or six years ago when the zone change was granted for the one up at 4th and Blackburn, the neighbors suggested that and the staff thought that was a good idea and we said yeah that's a good idea we'll do that and so the when we brought this plan in it was said let's carry this good idea down We still think it's a good idea to have that offset parking, and we think that by adding the traffic tables, we remove the speed as an issue. We'll do what you want, though. If you want those four spaces removed, we'll take those off the development plan. I think your traffic engineering division is here. You might see what their suggestion to you is on that, whether they stay or go on that. We'll do what you want on that. But I wanted to explain to you, we did that at additional expense because it was deemed to be a very good idea when we did it up here. But if that's a problem, we'll do something about the stretch on this lot to the south there on that. So that's all I wanted to say. I think in rebuttal on that, I think lighting is settled. We want to assure you that we'll take out any provision that the parking agreement can be revoked by one party. And, I mean, we still feel the offset or protected parking is a good idea, but we'll do what you want us to do on that for those four spaces. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I want to say something. I was in this thing, the bottle stays on. You want to wait till it? Yeah. Discussion? Okay. All right. All right. I'll have a question for Mr. Murphy. You should have everything. I know they asked if he had an idea of the lighting in the parking lot. Dr. Wilson, just to clarify. Go ahead. Go ahead. Mr. Murphy, you just had one question. Sorry about that. Mr. Murphy, from what I read from the condition that clarified the lighting, or from what you read for the condition that clarified the lighting along the side of the building, and then from what Ms. Winter said, I think there was a small area that was still a concern in the back parking area. there for lighting since that the lighting specified along the side of the building do you have a suggestion for how that because I don't think that that would be an objection necessarily just for how that could be worded or clarified restriction. I think we need it there I think as long as we have it shining toward the parking lot rather than away. The purpose is to get the light on the parking because with parking there, there's a lot of spaces between cars where people can be and all that sort of thing. We need some parking there, but we can make it shine. So like a height and a directional specification on the development plan? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you, Mr. Murphy. Citizen? I think I've permitted a couple minutes to address rebuttal. Yes, you are. So I was actually just going to raise the very point that Mr. Mickler just raised, which is the development plan does say no lighting on the outside of the building. And we were concerned with the back part of the parking lot. And I think Mr. Clark wanted to address why that was. if there were any questions about why we're making that objection, he has some input on what the lighting situation is now and why it's a concern. I just also, with the parking agreement, so the easement that was attached to the original development plan was actually a recorded easement. And so to whatever extent there is a change in that, there will need to be, it would be our position, we would request that there be a requirement. that both the parking agreement and the modified easement both be duly recorded with the clerk's office so that they're of record. And there's no question about there being one easement of record and then a private side agreement that affects that easement that's not of record. So that would be our request. Mr. Kolar. I'll be brief. The issue with lighting is that the present parking lot has very high lights and it casts a glow down the whole street. It overwhelms the street and therefore that was our concern regarding this new development. The second issue is the offset. The reason it was granted at the end of the street was because of turning radius. There are commercial trucks that come through And that would be an issue, and therefore, it seemed advisable at that point in that location to widen the street. So the two are not really comparable. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else? I don't see Ms. Faith, okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak from the citizen standpoint? Faith? You okay? Okay. Staff? Go ahead, Tracy. Yes, we're in rebuttal. Tom, thank you. Just briefly, really kind of points of clarification. as to the lighting on the development plan and additional restriction. We have frequently recommended specific heights, and of course the ordinance already says no spillover. So we can, if you desire, specify the height of any poles they put in that area where there's concern, along with even the box fixtures, and then they would comply with the ordinance as well. And that would be a DP note, because as you're aware, you can't amend the conditional zoning. but you can add this additional lighting. But there is certainly we've done this, and that can be done with the community. What would be some best practices that staff has used or some measurement guidances? Yes, sir. You know what we've been doing, and you may have noticed this, we have been making specific recommendations on height specifically. And I don't mind sharing with you, your staff kind of likes pedestrian-level lighting. We really do. We're not big on the big, tall, tall lighting. So that is certainly something that can be added on the development plan is to note restricting any lighting that they install in the parking lot to a height. And again, the ordinance already requires no spillover. For residential properties, we've recommended 12 feet in height. Would language stating like light be directional to parking and sidewalk areas and no higher than 12 feet be something that would be appropriate? I think that would work. Yes, sir. Another item, just again for clarification. there's been a lot of discussion about a parking agreement and I just want to reiterate no parking agreement is required on this property this discussion these issues you heard are very much of their own making the ordinance doesn't require it as I explained before the joint use parking agreement is not applicable here and for this use I just want to reemphasize that again. And another, just to reemphasize these issues when they were vetted and looked at and the traffic calming again, including the parking, the offset, protected, was vetted and reviewed. And traffic engineering was one of their recommendations. They supported this. And they see this as something to go hand in hand with additional traffic calming that they will have installed in the neighborhood. Just again, clarification about where we've been and where we are today. So that's all I had to say. Thank you. If you guys agree, do you want to get traffic up to make a comment, or are you comfortable with what's been said? I'd like to... We're in discussion now with the commission. I agree with Ms. Harder's comment that all issues should be on the table because the previous hearing was made irrelevant by the court's ruling. I would just like to point out one thing that is perhaps was implied in the discussion of the four quote-unquote protected parking spaces, but not explicitly stated. And I think it's the most important aspect of that issue. And that is that if you're walking on the sidewalk or driving down that street, as you look from the south toward the north, the green space in front of the individual residences is very important to the feel of the street. And the result of putting those, widening the street there to get those four protected spaces is that you completely change the look of that green space. And I'll bring up an example of a location that we made a decision on that's not unrelated, and that is the parking lot that Kroger built that fronts onto Ashland Avenue. If you're familiar with Kroger on Euclid Avenue, they added the parking lot that fronts onto Ashland, and when they proposed that parking lot, they did a similar kind of thing, except that it was the parking lot that came up to the sidewalk and essentially eliminated most of the green space that was between the parking lot and the street. And we determined that they needed to push that back so that the depth of that green space was the same as the depth of the green space in front of the adjacent properties. And I'm over there all the time, and I can tell you that made an enormous difference to the feeling of that street. I think it's extremely important. So I just wanted to bring that up because it really hasn't been clearly stated, and I think it's reason enough to listen to the objectors' comments about eliminating those four parking spaces. I also think that we all know when you're driving down a street that's a little bit narrower, you slow down. And I think that's really important on a residential street that has children and a lot of pedestrian activity. So I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you, Mr. Polk. Mr. Nickel? This may be kind of out of turn, but after hearing that comment, I would like to hear from traffic, get something on the record so that I can make a decision based upon traffic. That was my ask before. Yeah, I didn't know we were going there again. Sorry. I didn't. I would like to hear that. Okay. I'm going to put an ask here, too. I think it's always risky when those of us who are not part of a particular profession make some assumptions about how things work. So from a planning's attorney, I think it would be helpful to have clarification of when a judge makes a ruling, and the judge put some particular points in that ruling. When people want to come back and address that, is everything on the table or only those particular points that were the reason for the ruling? Can somebody who has legal expertise address that for us? Sure. So the Planning Commission's attorney is Tracy Jones. She's coming from the back of the room here, and she'll be able to answer those questions. And, of course, she was at the hearing when the judge heard the arguments. There's a couple of things going on here. First, you know, what happened was the development, the zone change was not appealed. So when this judge heard this case on appeal and made his ruling, he was not considering anything that was discussed as part of the zone change. He was only hearing things that were discussed in relation to the development plan. So what he said was, the judge can find any reasons that he wants that are given to him based on the record. And in these appeal cases, we file the entire record from the Planning Commission with the court. We also, all the parties also do briefs, and we also had arguments. So the judge has all that to his benefit, and he asked some questions, a number of questions at the hearing, just so you kind of know what the lay of the land is there. But once they hear all that, they can make their ruling based on whatever they want to make it on and whatever they find to be the legal, valid arguments that they think they've found one way or another on. And specifically, and you all have this order in your packet, but specifically this judge did find that he had a problem with the Zoom process, which obviously is not relevant today since we're all here, whether we should be or not, but we are. And at that time, we were not. No hearings were taking place in person. So he did not like the process by which we determined to hold our Zoom hearings when the whole COVID pandemic ensued. So that was one reason. The second reason was not that he didn't find that a parking agreement was required. What he found was that in order for the final development plan to be approved, that the parking requirements in the zoning ordinance had to be met. And so he didn't believe that the parking agreement, which was actually the ingress access egress easement, also in your packet, was adequate to be used to meet the parking requirements. And his reasoning was, and it says very specifically in here, that it was because it could be revoked by one of the parties. So he reversed the approval of the development plan. So what happened subsequent to that was we were quite, and I'm giving you probably more than you want to know, but I just want to make sure because I've heard some different confusion here today and I want to make sure we're all clear. But we had a discussion with the applicant who came back and said, okay, I have an approved zone change. I realized that the hearing, the judge said that wasn't valid. And if a judge finds there's a due process violation in a hearing, that can be reason enough for him to reverse the whole ruling. which so obviously at this point coming back and trying to figure out what do I do now on this piece of property for development plan. That issue is taken off the table because we're going to have an in-person hearing. But the next issue was, do we amend a development plan or do we file a new development plan? And what we said was, we don't think you can amend the development plan. We think you've got to file a new development plan because the court reversed that plan. So that plan, not the zone change, but the development plan, it's no longer in place. So you need to file a new one. So they filed a new application with a new development plan. The twist on that is that because part of the ruling was based just on the hearing process, which had nothing to do with what was on the development plan, that pretty much the same development plan was filed, but it was filed as a new application. And it did address the parking more specifically and address with a new parking agreement. So while you can still talk about other things related to the filing of this new development plan, they still have to be development plan related. And so if you're talking about lighting or you're talking about how something is laid out or you're talking about access, which none of those things except lighting are really coming into play here in the street parking, you can talk about those. But if you're talking about things that relate to the zone change, like is this appropriate in this location? That really, regardless of this appeal and this judge's ruling, has nothing to do with this hearing today. So in regard, like, for example, to Mr. Mickler's point about can we add a condition on the lighting? Yes, you can, because that's a development plan issue. You can't change anything, which your proposal didn't propose. about what the planning commission, I mean, the council put in place in conditional zoning restrictions, but you could do that. You can change that on-street parking cutout if you choose to do that after you hear from, I think, if you want to hear from traffic. But those things are development plan issues, and those you can consider. But really talking about the zone change, that's done. That's been ruled on by both you all. by the urban county council and and so it's it's final because it wasn't appealed so hopefully that answers your questions thank you tracy traffic i'm steven barker with traffic engineering um i wanted to cover a few things that happened and occurred when this zone change everything originated. There was a common theme with the residents that we talked to who said this road cannot handle this development. We have parking on both sides and it's so narrow that we can't get down through there. So we went out and measured it and it looks approximately about 14, 15 feet. That's almost the minimum that a fire truck needs to get down through there. So in working with the residents, we came up with this offset parking to satisfy the accessibility and the safety concerns. We were told that there was three to four handicap residents and there are designated handicap on street parking stalls on this corridor. And so we felt that the balance, I mean, there's always a water bed effect. You fix one thing and you got another problem that pops up. You fix that problem and another problem pops up. So in widening the road, we talked with a developer and that's how we came up with traffic calming. We were fixing the problem of meeting a car head on and not having anywhere to go, but trying to back into an open spot when the car is coming. And so this particular portion, I can't require the whole road to be, but as the development process occurs, that's what we were asking for. If you eliminate these four parking spots, Not only are you going to narrow the road back to where the safety concerns that were brought to us initially by the residents is going to be re-instaurated, you are also creating an unsafe exit point from the current development because you are going to reduce your sight distance. When you come out of there and you look at their plan, they've got a triangle drawn and it shows a sight triangle. And that was something that we worked. They had, I think, six parking spaces there initially. Because of the site distance requirements, we narrowed it down to four. So that's to get your minimum site distance when you come out of the existing development and look to the right to make a left turn out of the site. If you move those cars back to the existing curb line, you're blocking that site distance. It's going to further push down the road, that site distance. So, again, you fix one problem with the sidewalk lining up and creating more green space, but you create another problem with eliminating sight distance. The church is one of the big on-street parking users. That was expressed by the residents there. There's not really anything that we could do about that. you may be able to permit parking but i'm not real sure where the church attendees are going to park it's it's not an ideal location for for a church as far as lighting that's been brought up i think that we the 12 feet is is what has been done with several developments and it seems to be successful. I live in a new neighborhood, a newer portion of the neighborhood, and we have three story apartments. I didn't put that in, and we've got lighting that's about 30 feet up in the air. You can see it from about five blocks away. So I think the 12 to 15 foot range has been successful in the developments we've seen in recent times. I think that's it. If you all have Any other questions for me? I've got one question here. This is just sort of about a jurisdiction question. So if we do ask that the developer continue the sidewalk and sort of the front yard green space and eliminate these offset parking, and you feel that that creates site issues or other concerns, That is, on-street parking in a public right-of-way, is that then regulated by your traffic engineering? And so then traffic engineering would look at the situation and decide where allowable parking was and how many cars could continue to park on street there and things like that. Yes. So we could basically eliminate this and then it goes back to you all after this is implemented to decide how that on-street parking would look? Yes. And experience tells me that we will have to eliminate some on-street parking because of it. Okay. So it, and a lot of, what you have to keep in mind is a lot of the residents there don't have driveways. They are forced to use this on-street parking. Or they have single lane driveways that allow for maybe one car. And then the handicap, they of course have to park on the street in their designated spots. Thank you. Pardon me. In your opinion, I certainly understand and agree with Commissioner Pol's sentiment. and on Ashland Avenue, that made a tremendous difference and it made a lot of sense. My fear here is the safety aspect. And if the Lexington Fire Department received an alarm for a building this size, they're going to send the big trucks. And what scares me is Blackburn Avenue is a narrow street. if we do have cars on both sides, are we potentially delaying response time because of trucks not being able to access the way that they need to? Or I guess the question is, if we eliminate the four spots here, which 20 minutes ago I was fine with, and it reverts to on-street parking, or it goes back to you to make a decision about that future, are we potentially creating a public safety, a public health danger by eliminating these four? Based on the descriptions from the residents who contacted our office, I would have to say yes. I think the trucks could get there. Perhaps Captain Lingle could elaborate, but I would think the more room you have to work, the better. if 14 feet is your minimum and you're trying to work within those confines, I would rather have another five to seven feet of area around my truck to work. My concern is not only this apartment complex, but having two services on the opposite side of the road with a church that, quite frankly, I was surprised at the number of cars. I didn't think that many people would fit in that building at that church. Get fire up here. Hi, Greg Ling with the Division of Fire. So the fire code is 20 foot unobstructed width. Years ago, we had the land subdivision regulations changed, and there's a compromise. So you need a street that's 30 foot wide to have parking on both sides. and if it's 27 foot or less it does need to be restricted so essentially if you go below that 27 foot drive aisle it should be restricted now we do get those complaints and they're complaint driven they're citizens that call and complain and worry about emergency vehicles coming down there and then we have to act and we work with traffic engineering and we'll request restricted parking on one side. So you'll end up losing street parking. And it is a public safety issue. If we get those, like you said, it's going to be a parade, even if one of those little houses catch on fire. They send multiple units. So as far as setting up the aerial ladders, you need 16-foot wide of clearance. And then you still need to be able to work around it. So it could be very tight and compromising, if that answers your question. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. I'd like to point out that we're talking about, in that case, we're talking about new subdivisions. We're not talking about an existing condition. Right here, we're talking about an existing condition. And I don't see that just because there's an opportunity to widen the street, it doesn't mean that you have to take that opportunity. And this is a battle that's been going on across the country, a battle between those who want livable communities and pedestrian-friendly communities and other forces that push toward wider streets and faster traffic. And so pick your battle. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Captain, I saw you walking up. Do you want to? Yeah, and I understand that viewpoint, but we look at it as public safety. If there's an issue and it needs to be addressed, we're going to address it and go from there. So we follow this fire code. City's adopted it. Thank you. As a commission, we've had a long conversation about this application, so we'll close this portion out and open the floor up for us. For the commission members, any other questions you may have? concerns. The floor is open. Robin, you're smiling. You want to say something? Well, I think touching just a bit on so I wasn't here during the first presentation, so this is the first time that as part of the Planning Commission I'm reviewing this plan. Touching a bit on what Mr. Pol had to say What I'm seeing here is where a multi-story, multi-unit, 108 units, I believe, sort of meets the single-family residential zone. It seems like, and it meets it on a narrow existing historic street. And it seems like the concerns that the direct neighbor directly adjacent to the building has brought are manageable and easy to accommodate. And the developer is even willing to accommodate them. while the developer's preference is to offset the four parking spaces, the existing width of the street is already there, and the existing dimensions of the sidewalk are already there, and maintaining that would transition the single-family residents into this multifamily while maintaining the uniformity and consistent green space that exists on the street. and if we lose a space because of sight lines then so be it if a fire truck can't get down there well it still can't get down the rest of the street because we're talking about only four spaces on an entire length of a street so it's not going to determine whether a fire truck can get down the street or not um i think it sounded like everybody sort of including the staff um is on board with this development and even moving forward sort of specifying some light conditions so that we don't end up with some of the more egregious parking lot lighting that we've seen so those are my comments so i i would be in in support of the modifications that are were requested limiting the height to 12 feet in the direction directionality to the parking and pedestrian areas and continuing the current green space and sidewalk configuration, which eliminates the offset parking, leaving it up to the city to determine what the actual on-street parking allowances are. I agree. and looking at the development plan, it appears to me that there would be a single on-street parking space that would be eliminated by removing those four spaces. You can envision a no-parking sign that would have to be placed about 16 to 18 feet further down the street to keep that sight line open that they've got drawn on their plan. I agree with Robin. I'm ready to make a proposal if there's no other comment. Okay. Ms. Wirth, do you want to make a comment? Yeah. I find myself in a position of, normally I'm a green space all the way. This one, having lived in a neighborhood where we had a neighbor who fell off a roof, trying to repair the roof, and we had, this is not an old neighborhood, this is a 35-year-old area. On site, I mean street parking on both sides, they could not get an emergency vehicle down to get to him. and the other part of this for me is having been around folks who rely on on-street parking and i'm not talking about the four spots now i'm talking about if we move the problem down the street to address the issue of parking people who have one lane driveway who are reliant not the church the people who live on the street who are relying on on-street parking if we start shifting that parking problem down the street, I think some of you are going to be in a position of be careful what you wish for because I think you may end up with a different set of problems that are going to make a lot more people distressed. So I'm ambivalent right now. I'm not convinced that the position we're in right now is the best solution for everybody even though I am an advocate for green space. And I guess I have one other question. Looking at those street trees. The illustration shows nice big tall trees. I'm curious about what the distance of the sidewalk out to the street is without the parking spaces and what the distance would be otherwise because unless that's a really big fat easement you're not going to have those big tall trees out there anyway. You got to have a pretty good size easement to have a tall street tree. So visually I don't know if the message we're getting is accurately reflects what's there. Does that confuse things? Well, this is just a note, but you can look at the street view because it's basically the dimensions that the existing building have. And you can see that it's a pretty narrow area and that the trees and plantings are small. What's the area about even before you cut the street down? Don't tell me the big foot. If it's appropriate, you can walk over and look. I pulled the picture up here if you want to see what the... This is Google Street View showing the existing building with the offset parking and the planting area. They might be able to pull that up there where Ms. Wade is. Google Earth pulled up earlier. Google Maps has the building already built. I think Google Earth had it not built. It was built. Yes, Mr. Nichols, go ahead. Oh, there we go. Yeah, that's it. That's exactly what Robin was looking at. So if I'm looking at that correctly toward the front of the screen, the easement between the existing sidewalk and the street is already very small, right? We're not going to be planting urban forests there. Miss Worth, if I may. Mm-hmm. On the cross section, it's two and a half feet across the street, so it's probably two and a half feet on this side as well, which is a small utility strip and doesn't meet current standards. All right, I'm seeing that. I'm going to go ahead and the recommendation to approve PLNMJDP 21-00069, Yellman Subdivision, Powerhouse Church of God. With the 13 conditions from the technical committee and the staff's recommendations, I would like to add the 14th condition, which would limit the parking lot height of the lights to 12 feet per commissioner. I think that's the language that I'm getting a nod. So I would, that is my motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll second that. Okay, all right, so we have a motion and a second. And with that motion, we've got a 14th condition. And any further discussion to that motion? I'd be a lot more comfortable with that motion if it included eliminating those four setback parking spaces and also if it included a statement providing that the parking agreement eliminates the power of any party to revoke the provisions of the agreement and that that agreement be recorded appropriately. Okay, I hear what you're saying. I would like to leave the motion as is and then if it's not approved, we'll then address the four parking spaces. And the reason I'm not going to address the parking document that was referenced here is because per staff that's not needed. It's already shown on the development plan and I'm frankly not so good at giving an additional recommendation. So I'd like to leave it as is, vote on it. And then if we would like to address it with the four parking spaces removed, that would be great. I would point out that the objectors are concerned about the parking agreement and that the applicant has agreed that they would make the changes that the objectors are calling for. So it's really not a big stretch. But let's just see what happens. Sounds good. Thank you. So I guess just to clarify, a no vote currently is basically a no vote without the request for the clarification of the parking agreement, which both sides agree to, and without the change to the parking, which both sides would agree to. That was not part of the motion, so you're correct. And that's right, Bruce. And also, Zach? Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Okay. And part of planning, part of what our job is to do is regardless of if applicants and objectors agree to something, that doesn't negate our responsibility to consider public safety. That's my, because like I said, 20 minutes ago, I was fine with throwing those four spots out the window. And then when we heard from traffic and we heard from the fire department, that scared me. And so that's why I changed my mind. And I think Commissioner Wirth's points, I agree entirely with her as well. Thank you. But before we go on it, Tracy, do you want to say something? Yeah, I'm just a little bit concerned about what you might be getting ready to do. I'm not sure. But, you know, it's our position that a parking agreement is not required. It's been provided by the applicant because they want it. They've agreed that they'll correct whatever agreements they have to reflect that. But you might be a little bit outside your purview in the zoning ordinance if you require that or require some action about the agreement that it be recorded or that it be, you know, it is referenced on the current development plan. So I'm just concerned about any type of action that would require them to record a document or enter into a document that the zoning ordinance doesn't require in this instance. Okay, and I think, Mr. Nichol, your motion did not require, but you're speaking more toward Mr. Poles. Right, I just wasn't concerned where you were going. Okay, all right. Excuse me, Ms. Jones. So it's your opinion, it's the staff and your opinion that this has been, the judge throughout the last case, because of the option of revoking the parking agreement, is my understanding. And you're saying that with this new development plan, the judge's decision has been, you've satisfied that decision. You've satisfied what the judge wanted you to do, wanted us to do. I believe so because they filed the new parking agreement. They've stated on the record, they'll clarify between the two, and that note is already on the new development plan. But for you all to add another condition that says you'll record this type of document or whatever, I think that might get you a little bit outside of the zoning ordinance. Okay. Thank you. So getting back to the motion, we have a motion by Mr. Nickel, seconded by Mr. Davis, as presented by Mr. Nickel. So I would like to get a vote on it. Can I make one more comment? Yes, sir. At the risk of beating a dead horse, but with the chance that there may be some people on the fence here, I want to say that from the very beginning of this, consideration of this, there have been numerous voices very concerned about changes that were destructive of the character of the existing community, and not enough has been done to listen to those voices and to hear them and to act on them and this this fear about leaving the road the way it is is another example of not listening and not acting on the desires of the neighbors and the need to knit together an existing situation with a new situation. We should be doing everything we can to knit together the old condition with the new in an elegant way. And that's all. Thank you, Mr. Poe. That's noted. So we can vote via Granicus. Once it comes up. Okay. Okay, so the ayes have it four to three. Yep. Motion passes. Ayes have it four to three. Thank you. Ms. Wade, do you want to say something? I just wondered if anyone needed a break. I mean, I was going to tell them we can keep going. They can take a bathroom break as they need. Unless I can get outvoted, too. You don't want to keep going? I mean, I want to be respectful of staff. And if you all need, if, you know, we can get up and come back in a matter of a five-minute period. But if staff needs to stop for ten minutes. All right, so let's take a five-minute break, please. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo ¶¶ guitar solo Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Thank you. ORCHESTRA PLAYS ORCHESTRA PLAYS ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala. Thank you. Shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala, shalalala. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, are we good, Tracy? Yes, Chairman Forrester, I just wanted to let the Planning Commission know that Justin Drury is present now, and he is here on behalf of the Steel property, which was the first case that Mr. Martin presented this afternoon. And when we came time to accept a motion, he wasn't present, but they had an in-office emergency. And so we would ask today if the Planning Commission would reconsider the motion, and then if Mr. Drury could address you and any questions you might have. Okay. All right. I will make the motion to reconsider PLN FRP 21-00039 steel property. Second. Okay. We got a motion and a second. Please vote via Granicus. Oh, do we need a vote? I guess we don't. We bring it back up. Okay. Okay. Applicant. Afternoon, Justin Drury with AIM3D Surveying. First and foremost, I appreciate you reconsidering me. I know time is valuable, and I do appreciate your flexibility for being able to let me still present this plan. So I'm here for any questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions? And to Rory for letting me cut in line in front of you. Thank you, Roy. I'm not seeing any questions. The floor is open for a motion. Excuse me. Is the applicant agreeable to the conditions, the 12 conditions that are in the staff report? Yes, ma'am. The applicant is agreeable to all conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Appreciate it. So I'll move to approve PLN FRP 21-39 steel property as recommended by staff and subject to the 12 conditions. Thank you and we have a second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, next up should be page 5, PLNMJDP-21-70, and we have revised staff recommendations. Should be on your pink sheet for the commission. Tom? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Yes, indeed. What you have before you is Major Development Plan 21-70, Newtown Springs Lot 3. We have distributed you, hopefully, a nice pretty pink sheet. You notice how they color code these handouts. This is a final development plan for a fast food restaurant. You can see it. There we go. Again, this is its location on the overall preliminary development plan. And here we have Newtown and we have the Citation in this location, Newtown Springs Street off in this way and in the rear street again that frames this block and frames this development. This is, as you can see, right here is the Shell station that is developed off of Citation in Newtown. had a previous plan for or you had a plan that's currently postponed on this agenda for this section as well where you may recall. So this is for this section here as depicted on the overall plan for the property. Again, you can look at it. You can see it's about a 2,400, a little over 2,400 square foot fast food restaurant patio area. Here's the access easement. That's what that is in the rear is a access, I'm sorry, it's through here, access easement that serves the property, as well as across the front, you can see there's access and easement across the front. Tie the developments together, allow cross movement of traffic and pedestrians as well. They have, you can see the drive-thrus, and it comes around, and here's your pickup point. There's an order point in this location. This is a revised plan. There were initially some concerns. You can see that this revision has addressed the staff and the technical committee's concerns. They have the standard sign-offs for a final development plan. They need to complete and correct their tree preservation plan information. They added a plan, but they left some zeros in there, and there actually needs to be some numbers in that plan. And of course, they will correct that, and it'll be reviewed by your urban forester as well as your planning staff. They did add the use that it's a restaurant up in here. We need that added to the site statistics. That's one of the things, again, Article 21, we'd like to know what the use is of the building. They need to dimension the patio. They've dimensioned everything else, but that patio does need to be dimensioned. their staff has condition 17, which is to denote on the plan a cross-section and or detail, demonstrate ability to comply with the Newtown Pike Ordinance 85-2008. It's an interesting situation. Of course, again, here's Newtown Pike. And there's a, or I'm sorry, I got myself turned around. Here's the legacy trail. It's a 40-foot easement. Out here we have like a 30-foot UE with a gas line and a water line. And there's just a lot of activity going on out there. In conjunction with that, there was conditional zoning that they have to meet. That conditional zoning does grant them, it makes requirements, but it grants them a little bit of relief from the Newtown Pike Ordinance, which the Newtown Pike Ordinance actually specifies that the fence that it requires, the trees it requires, and it also requires ornamental shrubs and that sort of thing in the ordinance actually requires it to go in 20 feet off of the right-of-way. So staff is concerned about potential conflicts with all those uses and all those requirements in that area. We're just looking for a detail to demonstrate their ability to meet that. In essence, in other words, where are you going to put it relative to where you know these lines are in the ground? And you know that there's a nice, beautiful trail that's paved right there. It's just a matter of that area up there, and it's quite a big setback. The total setback off Newtown is quite large. That's what that's about, just a concern with meeting that ordinance as applicable in this location. They need to denote their final record plan information and existing easements. They have a lot of that information on there. A new plat was just recently recorded. They'll just need to carry that information forward onto this development plan. It was literally just recently, within a week or so, recorded. And then they need to denote the amendment to the preliminary development plan. When they modified this lot with a final development plan, they impacted this lot, which is a preliminary. And we just like that clearly denoted that they are impacting and amending the preliminary development plan. There was an access point that went away. And there was a write-in, write-out that they showed on this plan that actually wasn't approved. It was deferred to the final, and they've removed that. So, again, they just need to denote that on the plan. And with that, I'll answer any questions you may have for staff. And we don't know what kind of fast food restaurant it is. Okay. It looks familiar. I'm going to be Mr. Penn here. As I recall, for those of you who weren't at the subdivision committee, he asked a question to confirm that the Royal Springs Aquifer Group had already looked at this. It has not yet made it in front of them, and it can't be certified until it is. I'm on that committee, by the way, and we meet as needed. So when we get a plan or two in front of us, we'll get together and review them. Yeah. Okay, so that will be done. Yes, and they've got the note on there. They just don't have the date. of the actual meeting, but that'll happen very soon. All right. Robin? This property, I guess, basically has an entrance onto the legacy trail. They are showing a walkway. They are indeed. And was there any discussion at subdivision or with staff about bicycle parking, considering the proximity to the Legacy Trail? Parking for the trail? Parking for bicycles, in addition to the walkway. No, not, no. Our concern initially was just that, because we weren't absolutely sure of the use, we suspected that they were over-parking the site. They have reduced, this amended plan has actually reduced that by two spaces. Wow. Yeah, well, yes, exactly. Right. Overparking is sometimes an issue that's in the eyes of the beholder. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank you, Tom. Advocate? Good afternoon. Rory Kaley with EA Partners. We are in agreement with staff's revised 19 conditions. One thing I need to point out is the 19 where it talks about that we're amending the preliminary development plan for lot 4. the owner pointed out to me that as we dropped in our new development we did remove an access point for lot 4 so I have to add that back in but it's still going to be on the preliminary development plan I just need to make sure everyone knew that that lot was proposed to have an access off of the shared access easement not Newtown Pike but that's something I'll work out with them with staff as I get this certified. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Any questions for commission members, for the applicant? Ms. Meyer? To Mr. Mickler's question, since there is proximity to the Legacy Trail, did you think about putting a spot for bicycle parking? The proposed user probably has. I have not. The only time I really show you guys bicycle parking is when I need that reduction. It's one of those site amenities that the clients can add or not add to their preference. Well, and this is for the preliminary, is that correct? Or this is the final? This lot, the one colored up there, is the final development plan. The inset on the side is the whole commercial site that I have to show that it's affecting it. I see. Okay. I would just put on the record, since this is a sort of a leisure corridor with the Legacy Trail, that that real estate and that green space along the legacy trail in this final development plan appears to sort of simply meet the setback requirements. And I just want on the record that I think it's important that the applicant and the landscape architects for it, which is you all, think sort of creatively and use the space to the best visual appearance for Lexington and the corridor. Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. I don't see any further questions for the applicant. I don't see anyone that wants to speak. I'll just clarify that the reason it is that green is it's split zoned. they kept an agricultural zone along Newtown Pike. So that's why that one is so much bolder than the rest of the site is jumping off. I think it's got something to do with the whole setback through there, make sure none of the development got too close to Newtown. Thank you, Mr. Kaley. Not seeing any other questions. Bring this back to the commission for any other questions, concerns, or motion. I move to approve PLNMJDP 2170 Newtown Springs lot 3 with the 19 conditions indicated by staff and including a 20th condition that the applicant include bicycle parking if they are going to make a connection to the legacy trail as shown in the plan. And we have a motion with the additional condition of 20 to include bicycle parking. You want to say that again, Mr. Polk? Just, I think your mask was muffled on your 20th condition. The 20th condition would be that the applicant denote a location for bicycle parking if they are going to make a connection to the legacy trail. Okay, thank you. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Meyer. Any further discussion to that motion? Not seeing any, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. Thank you. Okay. That should put us page 6, PLN, MJDP 21-72. And we have revised staff recommendations for this one as well. Blue sheet. The blue sheet. Is this? Okay. This is MJDP 21-72, Sharkey Property Unit 1, Lot 16, amended. it. This is Townley Center coming off of Lee's Town Road, which is out this way. This is Sharky Way. When you come in to Townley, we have a Starbucks sitting right here. If you go down Sharky Way a little bit, there was a building proposed at this area to be retail. They're coming now in to do a restaurant with the patio, revising the parking layout, and showing that they have additional parking to the rear here to meet the minimum parking requirements. With this plan, they've come in and revised it. They took it from 30 conditions down to nine for just sign-offs. So they cleaned up everything. So like I said, they also have an agreement that they submitted to us, a written agreement showing that they have these parking spaces allotted to them for the parking requirement since it's off-site. With that, I'll open it to you all to see if you all have any other comments or questions. Any comments? Questions? Thank you. Thank you. Advocate? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, I'm Tiffany Lehman with Nykirk Engineering. We agree with the remaining conditions and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. I'm so glad you sat here for three hours and ten minutes to say that. Thank you for being here. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Okay. I know. I know. So are there any questions for the applicant with their nine conditions? We should have took this one first. If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Poe. In honor of the patience displayed by the applicant's representative, I move to approve PLNM JDP 2172, Sharkey Property, Unit 1, Lot 16. I'll second, Mr. Chair. Two to nine conditions. Thank you. And we have a second by Mr. Davis. Please vote via Granicus. Are we missing one? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, this is our last element of the day that we need to go through, and I will try to be quick. This is a ZODA to modify the zoning ordinance, specifically Article 1-11, to allow barbershops and beauty parlors as home-based businesses in residential zones. Now, there are some caveats to that, and there's a little bit of information that I can add to that here. This is a zoning ordinance text amendment that was initiated by the Urban County Council on November 18, 2021. That's why I'm here talking to you today. You have 60 days to review any initiated zoning text amendment that is sent to you by the council. We had to squeak it in there just by the last day or so. Specifically, what we are talking about doing is removing the restriction. The term home-based businesses shall not include barbershops and beauty parlors. We're taking that out as recommended or requested by the Urban County Council. We looked at this for the historical value of why this was established. It's actually quite interesting in the fact that it was established in the 1950s. It was a well-argued condition that was prohibited in residential zones throughout the United States, some places included it. We were one of those places that said no to these types of uses in residential land uses, specifically with this home-based business portion of our zoning ordinance, which is a conditional use. So the staff went through the historical aspects of this, looked at some of the health, safety, and welfare concerns that were the major underlying factor for the establishment of this restriction and found that it was largely due to the lack of government oversight for some of these uses, specifically cleanliness, some issues with who or who is not licensed within the barbershop or beauty salon type community, so cosmetology as well as just overall hair salon. But as we have progressed, the state has regulated these types of establishments fairly extensively, and they have training programs, they have specific requirements, and specifically focused on the health and safety of the user. So we are recommending the removal of those. I did want to bring this up just because there are certain things that limit the ability for an individual to run what we would think of as a beauty salon or a barbershop out of their home. These in red here are those specific requirements that would restrict kind of the establishment of what you might think of with a barbershop or a beauty salon in a commercial zone. Specifically, that it is restricted to 300 square feet. The use must be operated by individuals that live at that residence. This is a big one in the fact that you will not be having someone come from somewhere else to work at a different chair or something like that with a barbershop or some sort of haircutting establishment. And then it gets into the sale of commodities, that they must retain that residential character, and they cannot remodel or alter this from that residential appearance. There cannot be any outside signage associated with this or permitted on the premises. And then it should be located within the dwelling unit and not an accessory building. Now, I bring that up in the fact that you cannot have that in your garage. You can't have it in a shed. You can't just plop down something and then go ahead and start a business within that. It does require it to be in the primary house. This is an interesting aspect of this in the fact that they also need a separate entrance. This is a requirement of the state. So if anyone was to establish a barbershop or a hair salon or beauty parlor, they would have to go ahead and have a secondary entrance into the space that they were utilizing of no larger than 300 square feet that would allow them to establish this use. There are no additional paving aspects. So this gets into initial concern with a lot of this was that there would be constant traffic coming through. This is really going to be focused on the ability to park them either in front of your house or in your driveway. And you're not going to be having the type of flow that you might see with a barbershop or hair salon or cosmetology place that you would see elsewhere. And then finally, that it does not adversely affect the surrounding community. This goes back to the fact that this is a conditional use and would require the Board of Adjustment to make an approval recommendation or approval determination for the establishment of this in that area. This staff does recommend approval of this text change in that it does actually fit with theme C policy six, which gets into allowing for greater flexibility in the types of conditional uses or home based businesses, home occupations that are allowed within the residential zones. and then that the proposed zone changes can stimulate startup businesses, allowing for economic growth and upward mobility of Fayette County residents. There are a heck of a lot more things in the staff report that get into that, but for brevity, that's really just summing it up right there. So if you have any questions on this zoning ordinance text amendment, I'd be happy to answer them now. why are why is it restricted to main the main residence and not allowed in accessory structures and this was in large part due to the fact that uh there was a concern that people would start to essentially establish businesses with another structure on the property it was meant to be a uh accessory use to the principal use that residential use that main structure is the principal use on the site. If you had this accessory use not associated with that principal use, it becomes its own use on the property. So that was the greatest concern with the establishment of the home-based business and the establishment of making sure that it was in the principal primary residence of the structure. So you're limiting to one chair, essentially. Is that, you know, to keep it small? Yes. Residents of the house, and that gives a little bit of flexibility. Let's say I were to move back with my parents. My father was a barber. I was a barber. We could both cut hair there because we are residents at that place. The main focus on that really is that no one is traveling to that place to work, which increases traffic as well as maybe needs greater parking, things like that. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Not seeing any. Sorry. Yes, sir. The council initiated this. Was this at a business's request? So we believe that a member of the community has reached out to one of our council members to initiate this. The members picked it up, and per the kind of typical flow of everything. It seems like if we were deleting lines from this ordinance, we could delete a lot more than four words, but... And there is the opportunity at some point in time. This was actually fairly directed for a text amendment, and we have modified our home occupations a little bit. Relatively recently, Ms. Goddard-Weiss did a great presentation on some of the other aspects of our zoning ordinance that we needed to clean up. We will be coming back to you with another aspect of our zoning ordinance that is along the same realm of this in the next coming weeks, just because there have been some changes with state law. But as we go along, if you find as planning commission that there is something that you would like to review or like to modify, I would really request that you just give us the heads up during a work session and we can get on some of those changes. So some of the individuals that reached out to the council specifically associated with this was that there was a shift away from bricks and mortar just because of the lack of incoming revenue and individuals going back to the home place, not only for child care, but also because rent became an issue for some people in either getting chairs or renting their own establishments. So this will allow a fair amount of flexibility not only for the watching over children while you're in this home-based business but also to allow for individuals to get back into that system of working and then eventually hopefully transition back into a brick-and-mortar location. That's good. Mr. Chairman I'll give you a motion if you'd like it. I would thank you. I move for approval of Zota 21-6 amendment to article 1 barbershops and beauty salons. Okay, we have a motion. Second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, not seeing any. Please vote via Granicus. All right, thank you. Motion passes unanimously. To the four plan committee, appeals committee. Flood plan, sorry, I say four plan, I'm thinking about banking. Long day, long day. Excuse me. We need to appoint a member to the floodplain appeals committee. I have not, the person I had chosen, she's not here, so I think I'm going to vote for her anyway. That's what happens when you don't show up. I was going to propose Ms. Boxdale, unless someone else would like to graciously accept the honor. I don't think there is, so that will be my proposal to ask Ms. Barksdale to reside on the committee. If that's okay. Do we need to vote on that? Okay. So I can't make the motion, though. Mr. Chairman, I move that Commissioner Barksdale be appointed to the floodplain appeals committee. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded by Mr. Pohl. All in favor, please vote via Grannicus. That was fine. I'll tell you, she's fine. It's unanimous. Thank you. Mr. Chair, did you all notice that Mr. Bailey gave that entire staff report in one breath? Thank you all for a long day and for your continued service to us. Just a couple of reminders. The government is closed on Monday for the Martin Luther King holiday, and we will see you all again next Thursday, the 20th, in the Phoenix building on the third floor for our planning commission work session. We're going to start to talk to you a little bit about the comprehensive plan, the 2023 plan update, as well as give you a report on zone changes and the status of those through the 2018 comprehensive plan and place builder, as well as some other updates. So we hope to see you all in person next Thursday at 1.30 in the Phoenix Building, third floor. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. With that being said, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.