# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - October 27, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 27, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5678 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5678?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-10-27 - **Last revised**: October 27, 2022 - **Length**: 33,921 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on October 27, 2022, at 1:30 PM at the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor, 101 East Vine Street, Lexington, Kentucky. The commission considered four agenda items, taking eight votes and hearing four public comments during the meeting. The agenda included three zoning map amendments and one zoning ordinance text amendment. Of the items considered, the commission denied one zoning map amendment from Winterwood Inc., while approving a zoning map amendment from Northyard, LLC, a second zoning map amendment from Winterwood Inc., and a zoning ordinance text amendment. ## Attendance **Present:** Ivy Barksdale, Judy Worth, Frank Penn, Headley Bell, Janice Meyer, Zach Davis, Larry Forrester, Robin Michler, and Graham Pohl **Absent:** Barksdale and Nicol **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **PLN-MAR-22-00016: Postponement of REALTY UNLIMITED BLUE GRASS, LLC zone map amendment** [timestamp: 0:02:21] Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Ms. Worth. The motion to postpone passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays. The item was postponed until November 17, 2022. **PLN-MAR-22-00012: Disapproval of WINTERWOOD INC. zone map amendment** [timestamp: 1:41:47] Motion by Ms. Worth, seconded by Mr. Penn. The motion failed on a roll call vote with 7 ayes and 2 nays. Those voting in favor were Bell, de Movellan, Meyer, Michler, Penn, Pohl, and Worth. Those voting against were Davis and Forester. **PLN-MJDP-22-00048: Indefinite postponement of SAMS & LARKIN PROPERTY development plan** [timestamp: 1:42:49] Motion by Mr. Penn, seconded by Ms. Worth. The motion passed with 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. The item was indefinitely postponed with reasons provided by staff. **PLN-MAR-22-00013: Approval of NORTHYARD, LLC zone map amendment** [timestamp: 2:04:00] Motion by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Pohl. The motion passed with 8 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. Approval was granted with the addition of zoning restrictions. **PLN-MJDP-22-00060: Approval of GREYLINE STATION & MARKET development plan** [timestamp: 2:05:03] Motion by Mr. Michler, seconded by Mr. Pohl. The motion passed unanimously with 8 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. **PLN-MAR-22-00014: Approval of WINTERWOOD INC. zone map amendment** [timestamp: 3:33:03] Motion by Mr. Pohl, seconded by Mr. Michler. The motion passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays. **PLN-MJDP-22-00056: Approval of WOODLAND CHRISTIAN CHURCH INC. development plan** [timestamp: 3:35:47] Motion by Mr. Pohl, seconded by Mr. Michler. The motion passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays. Approval was granted with revised conditions. **SODA 22-15: Approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment** [timestamp: 4:00:47] Motion by Mr. Bell, seconded by Mr. Michler. The motion passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the meeting with concerns and support regarding development projects. **Noise Pollution Concerns** Brennan Lippert raised concerns about noise pollution from industrial areas and railroads affecting new residential developments, citing potential health risks. [timestamp: 1:12:09] **Environmental and Safety Issues** Robert Lale expressed concerns about the impact of development on a spring and pond on his adjacent property, as well as safety issues for children. [timestamp: 1:14:50] **Parking and Business Impact** David Feinberg, a local business owner, expressed concerns about the reduction of parking spaces and the impact on local businesses, as well as safety issues related to crime. [timestamp: 2:50:39] **Support for Church Partnership** Christy Jo, senior pastor of Woodland Christian Church, expressed support for the partnership with Winterwood. She emphasized the project's potential to provide affordable housing and maintain the church's community role. [timestamp: 3:17:05] ## Contested Items **WINTERWOOD INC. Zoning Map Amendment** A proposal to rezone WINTERWOOD INC. property from Light Industrial to Commercial Center generated significant disagreement among decision-makers. The contentious nature of the proposal centered on whether the rezoning aligned with the comprehensive plan. The split vote reflected differing opinions on the merits of the amendment, indicating that board or council members were divided on whether to approve the change. **Parking Concerns for Woodland Christian Church Project** The Woodland Christian Church project faced community opposition focused on parking impacts. Community members raised concerns about a reduction in parking spaces associated with the project and expressed worry about how this reduction would affect both local businesses and residents in the area. This item represented direct community engagement with the development proposal, with residents voicing their concerns about the practical implications of the project's parking arrangements. ## WINTERWOOD INC. Zoning Map Amendment **Case Number:** PLN-MAR-22-00012 **Proposal:** A zoning map amendment for Winterwood Inc. to rezone a property from Light Industrial (I-1) to Commercial Center (B-6P) to accommodate a multi-family residential development. **Staff Recommendation:** Staff recommended disapproval of the amendment, citing non-compliance with the comprehensive plan. **Key Speakers:** Mr. Crum, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Woodall participated in the discussion of this item. **Outcome:** The zoning map amendment was denied. [timestamp: 1:41:47] ## NORTHYARD, LLC Zoning Map Amendment **Proposal Identifier:** PLN-MAR-22-00013 This agenda item addressed a zoning map amendment proposal by NORTHYARD, LLC to reclassify a property from Wholesale and Warehouse Business (B-4) to Light Industrial (I-1) zoning. The amendment is intended to permit production uses within the Greyline Station Adaptive Reuse Project. **Key Speakers** The discussion was led by Mr. Crum and Mr. Martin. **Outcome** The zoning map amendment was approved. [timestamp: 2:04:00] ## WINTERWOOD INC. Zoning Map Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MAR-22-00014 This agenda item addressed a proposal to amend the zoning map for a property from Two-Family Residential (R-2) to High Density Apartment (R-4) to accommodate a senior living housing project that would include affordable units. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Mr. Crum, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Woodall. **Outcome** The zoning map amendment was approved. **Meeting Location** Discussion of this item occurred approximately 3 hours and 33 minutes into the meeting [timestamp: 3:33:03]. ## Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment **Identifier:** SODA 22-15 The council considered an amendment to update the intent statements in the zoning ordinance to align with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. The amendment focused on modernizing language and providing greater transparency in the zoning ordinance. **Key Speakers:** - Mr. Crum - Mr. Martin **Outcome:** The zoning ordinance text amendment was approved. [timestamp: 4:00:47] --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MAR-22-00016** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of REALTY UNLIMITED BLUE GRASS, LLC zone map amendment - **PLN-MAR-22-00012** — failed (7-2): Disapproval of WINTERWOOD INC. zone map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-22-00048** — postponed (9-0): Indefinite postponement of SAMS & LARKIN PROPERTY development plan - **PLN-MAR-22-00013** — passed (8-0): Approval of NORTHYARD, LLC zone map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-22-00060** — passed (8-0): Approval of GREYLINE STATION & MARKET development plan - **PLN-MAR-22-00014** — passed (9-0): Approval of WINTERWOOD INC. zone map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-22-00056** — passed (9-0): Approval of WOODLAND CHRISTIAN CHURCH INC. development plan - **SODA 22-15** — passed (9-0): Approval of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment --- ## Full transcript Before you get started, we are going to start a recording. As you can see in front of you, unlike the council chambers, you do not need to hit a button to respond or be recorded. You're just constantly going to be on recorded. We do have recording studios here as well to help out with getting this onto our online system. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It's October 22, 2022. First on the agenda, actually agenda item number two for the commission. We have the approval of minutes. This is the September 22nd minutes. So the floor is open for a motion for the approval. September 22nd minutes. So moved. Okay. Got a motion by Mr. Poe, seconded by Ms. Meyer. All in favor, I think we need to raise our hands. Who's taking it? Okay, you got it? All right. Motion passes. Agenda item three, any postponements and withdrawals? Sir, I do not see the individual here today, but we have been working with the applicant for PLNNAR 22-00016. This is the property located at 940 Hickman-Mill Road. The applicant, the subdivision committee and the zoning committee both requested that the applicant work on several aspects of their development plan and zone change application. They have been recommended for postponement and the applicant is seeking to add more information to their application while also getting their development plan to meet the regulations of the zoning ordinance. So they request a year-month postponement. Okay. What page is this? That's the stage 7. Bottom of the page. Stage 7, 8, and summer 9. Okay, so floor is open for a one-month postponement. That is to the November, that's actually shorter. It is actually to the November 17th public hearing. Yep. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move to postponement of PLNMAR 22-16 to the November 17th meeting. I have a motion and seconded by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion to that motion? All in favor please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Any other postponements and withdrawals? Not seeing any. Okay. Move us down. Uh-oh. There's maybe a staff question on the zoning items. Five. My last name is spelled wrong, so we want to get that right. Yes, sir. Thank you. I've been saying that since I've been in kindergarten. But no, that's fine. So we'll move on to page two. Should be as number one, Winterwood. Mr. Chairman, before the staff begins, I would like to thank them for sending out staff reports last week and yesterday. Thank you so much. And so this will be tab number one inside your reminders. All right, so the first item on our agenda here will be PON-NAR-20212. This is a request by Wendell Woodland. Underdust to rezone 10.11 net acres of the property at 1510 Greendale Road, a portion of 2440 Innovator Drive from a light industrial I-1 zone to a V-6P commercial center zone. This is done by the applicant in order to rezone the property in order to construct a multi-day residential development. The applicant has identified a place type and development type for this request. They've identified it as a hands-on-side place type and a medium-density residential development type. However, staff is not in agreement with the applicant that both the place type and the development type is appropriate at this particular location, and so we will expand on that a little bit later in the presentation. But now, I'm going to take you to a map of the subject property. So, subject property is shown here in the center of the screen in white. It is located on two roads, both Spur Road, which connects to Georgetown Road here, as well as Greendale, which runs along the left side of the property here that goes down past the citation and heads south towards Loos Town Road. The subject property is also located within the Royal Springs Aquifer and is in close proximity to a couple different residential areas. We've got Purdy Ridge subdivision to the north as well as the the Garden Meadows and the Glintzic at Greendale to the south here. Should be noted that an active railroad line runs diagonally and serves as sort of the southern border of the property there and effectively divides it from mostly residential development west of the railroad. Here we have a little closer view of the subject property so you get an idea of the zoning. So currently both the subject property itself as well as the small sliver of the adjacent parcel but it's also being reserved for this request in order to meet the 10-acre minimum size requirement for the B6P zone are both currently zoned I-1 like industrial. Subject property is adjoined on both sides by existing industrial zoning. So basically for the north, east, and south is industrial zoning. Across the railroad, we do have some portions of residential R3 zoning as well as a remnant piece of agricultural rural zoning that is used for single-family residential use. Now the subject property itself historically was originally zoned AR, as was much of this general area. In the early 90s, there was a move sort of to the east where additional light industrial zoning started to take place. In the early 2000s, the subject property was rezoned from AR to I-1 in order to accommodate the construction of a broadcasting recording studio here, which is currently being operated by the University of Kentucky. At the time of the rezoning, there were several conditional zoning restrictions that were placed on the property, both because of its location within the Royal Springs Aquifer, as well as its kind of general proximity to some residential uses to the southwest, as well as some potentially anticipated residential uses to the north that never really materialized. The area around the subject property also followed suit with this light industrial rezoning. The property of the East was resumed in 2007, this property in 2016, and the Northern Parcel in 2020. So here we have an aerial view of the property as seen today. So we get a little better view of the average, the site is currently made out. It's currently undeveloped, generally flat. So here we have the Eagle Distributors, Light Industrial Use. Here we have the UK Radio Recording Center, as well as the existing residential uses here and here, and the railroad that kind of bisects and kind of delineates the residential areas to the west of the railroad, wide industrial uses and industrial uses there. The subject properties development plan, which Mr. Martin will get to a little bit later on the presentation, is a mix of three and four story multifamily residential units. It's going to be a total of 216 units with an access off of Greendale Road here. There will also be an emergency access to Spur Road. However, that will not be available to the general public and most of the traffic will function from Greendale Road here. So a mix of three and four-story residential units with the tallest and the largest building, a long four-story residential multifamily building located directly adjacent to Eagle distributors, truck loading docks, and vehicle use areas. The applicant is proposing, in addition to the on-site development of the apartment structures, They've got amenities in the form of a community building and some open space, as well as pedestrian facilities in the form of sidewalks that will wrap all the way around the subject property and around the corner here and take you basically to the edge of the subject property there. Here's some views of the property as it stands today. So this is taken from Google Street View. Greendale Road is a narrow two-lane collector road. It does not have a marked center line that runs this direction here. We have Eagle Distributor, and the rest of the property is primarily flat, but kind of slips down towards the center here. We've got a couple more views. So the railroad, which is located at the southern portion of the site, this is what the access at Greendale looks like currently. So there's no real pedestrian facilities there, no real safe way to cross it currently, and then once it connects on the other side, no real comprehensive pedestrian network to carry them further. Here we have kind of the northern end of Greendale. This is where it intersects with Spur Road. And in the future, it is anticipated that Sullivan's Trace will be completed, running through the industrial development to the north to connect with the Kearney Ridge neighborhood. Here we have an image of Spur Road, so this is that northern boundary. Once again, another two-lane collector that does experience a high volume of industrial traffic due to the uses that are found a little bit further east. So the applicant within their letter of justification kind of cites this as an enhanced neighborhood. Their letter of justification kind of attempts to tie this development with Kearney Ridge neighborhood to the north. So this is the enhanced neighborhood criteria. It focuses on a couple different items. One is that it connects and in response to an existing residential area. The second is that it's a context sensitive development and three that it reinforces multi-modal transportation connectivity and creating a cohesive connected environment. In this instance and I'll take us back to the overview again to kind of illustrate kind of different the difficulty that this site has with meaningful connections just because of its geography. So the site itself is currently isolated from the residential uses in the vicinity by the railroad as well as the distance and the uncompleted road here that will cut through an industrial light industrial development so it is operating a sort of isolated it doesn't while they've improved everything on the site that they can the wider transportation system doesn't exist to really carry them and connect them with these adjacent other adjacent neighborhoods to really enhance them there really isn't any connection shown either to the employers, the line industrial employers in this section, it sort of operates essentially as a standalone isolated use. There's a significant distance from these amenities, so as a part of an enhanced neighborhood, you're looking at this out in any type of neighborhood facilities, any type of retail, any type of commercial, and while the B6P does allow for these types of uses, this is strictly residential at this point in time. So when we're looking at an enhanced neighborhood, it's really not meeting the requirements of having a neighborhood to enhance, having those connections, and having a context-sensitive kind of approach to that. In comparison, the industry of production center place type kind of focuses on more towards agglomerating these industrial uses together, separating them from residential, and making sure that they've got access to major corridors that are looking support industry and production type work. So in staff's findings, the enhanced neighborhood is not appropriate in this location. Industry and production center place type would be. In a similar vein, the applicant has identified this as a medium density residential development as far as a development type. That's primarily focused on multifamily units that complement and enhance existing development through quality design connections once again this is sort of a standalone use it really just by it based on its geography and its location along these two narrow roads that see a large portion of the dust road traffic that are barred off by the railroad really don't have a way to connect to these other existing developments and don't have a way to to kind of connect in a quality way. The applicant in their letter of justification kind of touch on the existing industrial development and argue that this medium density residential would be a step down in intensity before it hit the residential, before moving on to the single family residential uses kind of found in the greater area. However, staff funds, the applicant is, in this case, is just placing these residents closer to these more intense uses. And really the existing barriers kind of serve to delineate the industrial areas from the single-family residential zone. In comparison, the industrial place type kind of really reflects what this area east of that railroad has historically been. So this is industrial activity being grouped together with its quick access to both Citation as well as Georgetown that are providing access to freight corridors, access to these transportation networks for those reasons a industrial development type it would be more appropriate in this location as well so the applicant in their letter of justification touch on several goals and objectives that they feel are being met with this development are being met so it is essential part of our community to expand these housing options so both through density increased housing choice as well as affordability are all out all aspects that we feel are being met with this request. It is also meeting goals and objectives from the comprehensive plan that relate to preserving the urban and rural balance. So this is a vacant piece of land within the urban service boundary which staff is also in support of. But there are several goals and objectives that are not being met with this request and are really sort of in conflict with what the comprehensive plan says we should look at when we evaluated rezoning. So the comprehensive plan calls for a development that respects the context of the surrounding area. So the context of this particular parcel, the sliver of the parcel that is being rezoned with it, it is an industrial one. It is adjacent to industrial on three sides. It has historically been developed in the general area as industrial and is placed in residential in close proximity and in conflict with the existing context of the site. The second is that promote safe interaction between neighborhoods. In this instance, once again, due to the geography of where this site is located, any interaction between neighborhoods, either to the south or to the north, is going to involve crossing an active railroad, is going to involve crossing two roadways that are narrow, do not have adequate pedestrian connectivity, and sort of create conflict there. And then the third is that the The comprehensive plan calls for reducing the park and footprint by introducing multiple multimodal options that reduce the reliance on single occupancy vehicles. So the fact that this area is not currently saved by transit services, is so isolated from other neighborhood services, grocery stores. The closest grocery store at this time from the subject property is approximately one and a half miles away to the southeast. The next closest I believe is 1.8 miles out into the southwest. So essentially, without the lack of a really functioning, larger multimodal transportation in this area, the lack of transit services ensures that this development is going to be very, very single-occupancy car-centric, which is not called for within the comprehensive plan. So furthermore, the B6P zone is not a recommended zone within the comprehensive plan for the enhanced neighborhood place type of the applicant. It is indicated, however, in their letter of justification, they speak to the fact that both the B6P zone that they're requesting and the recommended zones allow for this type of multifamily residential development. However, within the intent of the B6P, which is shown up on screen now, it calls specifically, it allows for residential, but it asks that it does so in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that in the review of this, that while residential is permitted within that zone, that it is not appropriate this location because it is not meeting those comprehensive plan policies talking about connectivity, safety, and just the general pedestrian experience. Normally with rezonings you'll get a review and a discussion of the development criteria that are associated with each place type and development type. However, because the fact that staff and the applicant are in disagreement between whether the place type and development type can and is appropriate in this particular location, those are not examined under this request. As a result, they are in discussion of the development plan criteria. Discussion item number 11 is discussion of the appropriateness of the place type and development type. So that site has not been evaluated with regards to the enhanced neighborhood place type and development type because staff does not feel categorically that it is appropriate at this location. And so staff is recommending disapproval of this request for multiple reasons. The first being that it's not in agreement with the comprehensive plan because the development is not context sensitive as it's located in a primarily industrial area, adjoined active industrial uses and active rail line. The second is that it's not providing for safe interactions between neighborhoods. There's simply these physical and geographic barriers that kind of limit the ability of this particular parcel to meaningfully connect with the adjacent residential uses and to safely kind of facilitate the movement of pedestrians between them. And the third is that it doesn't meet the comprehensive plan goals of reducing emissions because with its location so far away from the poor, so far away from the services needed to sustain neighborhoods, especially a neighborhood that is being proposed as affordable housing or low or potentially low income housing, it doesn't provide a way to do that that does not involve single user automobiles. The second is that there's no major unanticipated changes in this area that have, since the adoption of the comprehensive plan, that would kind of create a reason for this. In fact, since the comprehensive plan has been adopted, this area has shifted further into industrial with the rezoning of the property to the north. The third is that the existing I-1 light industrial zone remains more appropriate for the following reasons. The first thing is location relative to major freight corridors as well as the interstate. The fact that it is a large undeveloped section of land that could be suitable for industrial development. And its adjacency to industrial zone property as well as an active railroads use. So with all of that, staff is recommending disapproval. I'd be happy to take any questions you have of staff. Mr. Martin will be on momentarily to describe the development plan in a little bit more detail. but I'd be happy to answer any zoning questions we've got. Sure. Mr. Migley. Is the, so the B6P has a title of commercial center? Yes. Is there any commercial in this? No, the initial iteration of the plan did include a three-story office building after having some conversations with the applicant. They amended that plan, so this is strictly residential. So 216 units and a mix of three and four-story buildings. So no commercial proposed, even though it would be permitted. And could you, you said it in the presentation, but enhanced neighborhood. includes mixed-use business and residential? Yes. And if we're talking about a large, or if we're talking about a rezoning, could be one or more of those? Yes, these are the recommended zones based on the comprehensive plan. So the applicant is free to choose a zone that is not recommended for that. They just have to justify it. So generally speaking, when we look at enhanced neighborhood, we're looking at commercial services that are serving the neighborhood. So that'd be one, we're looking for residential that is actually comprising the neighborhood. And it makes to use the sort of the connected issue to the two. So an enhanced neighborhood could be 100% residential. Yes. But it would be enhanced through building type or... And its connections to the surrounding area. So there is a comprehensive plan. We make a difference, a differentiation between enhanced neighborhoods, so it's looking at existing areas and kind of building off that, supporting off that versus creating an entirely new residential area with its own amenities, its own brand new development, that's sort of operating on its own, which is a separate place type. So this enhanced neighborhood is really about the connections and building and expanding on an existing development. Okay, thank you. Okay, I see any other questions. Thank you. this this chairman we have distributed to you I'm taking all of you. There we go. There we go. Pete, Daniel, did a good job actually explaining the plan to you. See, and here's the railroad. Very damn. It's Burr. The apartments are being proposed in this area. Access is proposed in fact off of Greendale. You can see it's sort of a full of large separated entrance. This is the entrance to Spur Road. This will, should this all be approved and go forward and come back to you, this will be a gated entrance for emergency vehicles only. That was done on another development in this area, just up across the railroad track for Mr. Anderson. He was granted emergency access to his development separate from the full street access. And again, that is because of the spacing requirements with access and because of the amount of traffic that exists. These are both collector highways. They're both still currently under state control. They are proposing, as Daniel mentioned, multi-story buildings. This is the largest and tallest in this location. and you can see the distribution buildings. They oriented these to the street. These are internal. They should come in. They have a circular system with their parking distributed around the buildings. One of the things that they added was this drive right here. Again, the fire department insisted that they needed good circulation around all these buildings. So they added that. It forced a slight shift in this direction towards the railroad. You can see detention here and here. There is a small stream in the area that runs in this direction. There's a spring that's been identified on this site. It's been known for quite some time. It's located in this area. They'll have to deal with it appropriately should the plan get approved and the property be developed. In fact, anybody that develops is going to have to deal with that spring. You see the clubhouse in the open area, the open space. It's interesting in the distribution they have a considerable amount of open space but you can see it's kind of distributed around the buildings in smaller areas although this centralized open space here at the clubhouse and amenities is there and of course there's plenty of open space along the railroad track and around the detention proposed detention areas dumpsters are in this location and the one commercial building that they did initially offer on the first plan which is kind of a small professional office building in this area. And frankly, staff had some good discussions with them, and it just, well, this is a dog leg, as you can see, and it's kind of off and isolated, and it just didn't seem to be serving any real function in any kind of support of actually trying to make it more of a mixed use. Since it is B6P, and it is residential, and it is allowable use, we viewed it in that context. and again there's 216 units with 216 parking spaces being proposed this is the UK it's a recording studio I don't know if their radio facilities are still out here or not but it is owned by the University of Kentucky they're going to have to screen this area in here to meet our team. There should be room. Those long discussions we had with them that get pinched right in here a little bit. But they'll need to screen those land uses shouldn't be approved. As Daniel mentioned, it is located in the Royal Springs Aquifer Recharge Area. That means should this go forward and there'll be a final development plan, they will be reviewed by that committee. And that committee makes recommendations. on the specific plans. There was a lot of discussion and have been over the years for improvements to the roads in this area. Again, as I mentioned, these are state highways. Our conversation with the state of Kentucky has evolved in a positive manner over the years. They just had a different philosophic perspective on these roads. They considered them rural. For many years now, because they're inside our urban service area, and there's been growth in that area, we consider them urban. So being able to get improvements done to an urban standard has been kind of a give and take between us and the state. And then you throw the property owner into the mix. There is right-of-way that's been dedicated along Greendale from previous proposals on this property. So the right-of-way exists for urban improvements along this section of Greendale. The applicant has also stated their intention to add pedestrian improvements along Spur. Now, across Spur, eventually we will be getting full improvements on that side associated with that industrial re-zoning that's been recent on that side of Spur Road. From the railroad track all the way down to Georgetown, there will be a reconstruction and improvements on the Spur Road. But again, the applicant has volunteered to do pedestrian assistance in this location. The sanitary sewer situation is one that will have to be resolved should this go forward. Again, it's serious in the fact that there's a trunk line across the spur. That's the main trunk line, and they have to get to it. Eagle has a pump station. it was not sized to accommodate this development so again should this go forward and be developed in this fashion they'll have to deal with the sanitary sewer situation to serve their problem at that time the UK property has to be hooked up to sanitary sewer that's because that's the old farmhouse been sitting out there for many many years it's on a septic tank and they will have to be brought on to a public system's anterior sewer system. And that's tied into the development of this site. Whether it's residential B6B or whether it's an industrial development in the future, that will be the responsibility of this property, actually, to provide them with a hookup. That's been something that's been, I won't say on the books, but on the plans for quite a few years now with this particular plan. The conditions that you see before you have a few cleanup conditions. You can see clarified total square footage. You've got to kind of dig through the stats a little bit to get to the square footage. On the plan, it's over 93,000 square feet in the buildings. They need to denote their proposed construction access. And again, any public improvements or any improvements to the street frontages, That would be determined at the time of an actual final development plan when they can pull permits. And again, they just have to denote their landscaping along this portion. And a couple more cleanup items. They have several notes that are not relevant to this property. It's a good old cut and paste situation. They just need to delete those notes from the plan. and with that I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for staff about the Delta plan. Yes, Mr. Ben. Tom, this is a little different in a lot of ways, but do they screen the industrial from the residential down on the bottom side where Eagle Brewery is? They haven't had to because this is industrial. But we change it to B6P if we change it to B6P. Well, it'll be inherent upon the B6P property to do the screening that's necessary. So being this is a preliminary plan, we have to view this as a placeholder? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. There'll have to be a fine. I understand that, but today we need to view that as a placeholder. Thank you. Looking at this parcel this way, it looks neat, tidy, and rectangular. The actual contours are karst topography, rolling hills with a stream and spring, mostly field but perhaps existing trees. Was there anything natural of note that staff discussed with them in their layout? Other than the spring, that was the only environmentally identified concern was the spring. And staff is comfortable with them essentially? Probably looks like flattening, bulldozing, burying? Our development in our community, we have a rolling topography and we do flatten and grade and work with that topography. We never go completely flat, you can't. Two flat's bad. You want to drain, you have to drain your sites and collect your stormwater. But all the properties out here, everything has all been modified in some form and created. They will have to do the same. Thank you. This is, I've not had much experience as a U.S. member of the commission with dealing the railroad tracks. And so Mr. Penn asked about screening. What did we do in terms of affording protection? I'm thinking about putting children on that property. What protections do we require when there's a railroad track on the boundary of the property? We don't have anything other than some landscaping, I believe, that's required. We don't require fencing, per se. That would be incumbent upon them for their own liability protections. You know, we have one further into town on the same railroad track that has multifamily, and that relationship was discussed. It was that ball arms development on the old golf course. And, again, their relationship with the railroad is one that they have to determine. We've dealt with noise. by the way, in the past. That's very difficult, virtually ineffective at this scale. Mr. McClendon, I'm just curious about the pump station that Eagle has. Might that be upgraded to accommodate everybody, or are they going to put another pump station? I believe they're going to have to put in their own. I mean, I'm sure Eagle could probably upgrade theirs if they wanted to, but that would involve, I'm sure, agreements and legal concerns and that sort of thing on how to share. Is there any advantage to that down the road or not? I don't think we would. I think we'd rather, this property should have developed, connect to the public sewer system without any pumping, if at all possible. Pump stations create problems. So you see this, them not having a pump station, but connecting to... that'll have to be determined at the final. It's possible, but I'd like to see what the engineers determine the best way to do it. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Mr. Woodoff. Happy. You want to leave that right there next time? Thank you. I have the privilege of representing the applicant today, along with my partner, Scott Schuette. He's at the top of the properties. I have several folks with me here today that I want you all to hear from, so I'm going to try to focus my comments here and hit the broad strokes and make sure we stay within our time. With me here today is Zach Worsham and Gabe Fritz with Scott Southall with Earth Cycle Design, part of our design team, and Jay Copley with Necto Architecture. Also, Tate Russell, a principal of TKM Properties, which owns both of these properties here. And Tate is also president of Kentucky Eagle Beard, has my dream job. I just always wanted to be great to be in her position where everywhere you go people are happy to see you most of the time. In any event thank you all today. This is a project that I know I designed to you and I'm a whole golf team in Winterwood. We've been working on it for a long time. We put a lot of thought into it. It's unique. It's fantastic news for this property. We think, I know how much work this commission, prior members of the commission did coming up with a place builder system. There may be people that disagree with me, but I believe it is actually a very good system that can get into projects. It helps focus things. But there are also a lot of subjective components to it. And so sometimes we don't disagree with staff, who we, in less respect, get along with greatly, on certain components, like whether something's contact sensitive or not. We just happen to have that slight disagreement here. But, Winterwood, Zach is going to tell you a little bit about their company culture, who they are and what they do. They're in this community now, and have been. They're not a company that we have to take promise from, even from out of town, what they might do, what they just haven't done a whole lot of research. What you've got to do is go down Newtown Pike and see one of your projects right now. But as noted in the staff's presentation, we are proposing to take this property from light industrial to the 6P. Scott and Jay will discuss the inner workings of the plan, and you're so better than I. But I want to let you know that, like I said, it's been going on for a long time. We've had a lot of engagement, not only with staff, but we've tried to with the neighborhood as well, just to find out what might be on this particular project. To that end, we held a Zoom call some time ago to take comments. As I said, we've had a lot of engagement with staff on how this, how this property should be presented, how it should be categorized within the place builder system. Of course, staff made us no promises and never does. But at the end of the day, we did try to do our best to come up with the right categorizations here. What it resulted in is what you see there, which is five three-story multi-family housing units. One of these is a four-story unit, and that was really to try to lighten the transition between Kentucky Eagle right here and our property and the residential over here. Oh, to Mr. Penn's point, he asked about this wall right here. Ms. Russell informs me that that is, in fact, a – how tall would you say that a retaining wall is? It's a retaining wall. It's a tall – a retaining wall you can't climb already. You can't climb it. And so then it would be further screened, the landscape. So there's a community facilities here in the middle, which are consistent of a community building, a playground, and an outdoor gazebo. It brings the whole thing to about 216 one, two, and three-bedroom units. And this is workforce housing. The idea of this development is to provide a place to live for those that are servicing the industrial areas, the work areas that are in close proximity to the property, and also those to come. If you look at your packet that was passed out there, we'll see some of the articles that have appeared lately about not only a school that's going to be built over here, good school but also a new retail center right around the corner on Citation Boulevard so this is a this is a an area that is that is changing that is growing and Zach elaborate on this but if we're successful today we're probably two years away from leasing so it's going to be a while a lot of these things will come online and there's a lot of improvements we're going to have to make We know that to make this happen, but those are all development plan issues. So at the end of the day, this is very much an infill project in every sense of those terms. It is an affordable housing project. Winterwood has the track record of making these things happen and doing them the right way. It's no different here with this particular project. So I think what I want to do now is just pass things off to Scott and to Jay and let them go over just the project dynamics so we can keep things moving along. Just to reiterate, my name is Scott Salval. I'm with Earth Cycle Design and Pointer. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, let's drop this for a moment. We'll pull all these up real quick here. So this is the site plan that you were just looking at. And to add on to a few of the comments that staff has made, as well as what Mr. Woodall has said about the project and the connectivity, and noting that in the next couple of years that it's going to take for this project to move forward in terms of further development from the document standpoint and further development from an implementation standpoint. A lot of these other improvements that are surrounding the project are also going to be coming online. For instance, the connection here to Sullivan's Trace, as that develops, That is also planned to have on its corner lot a bus station or a bus stop, in which case the transit issue then becomes rerouting the current transit route that comes along Innovation Drive down here to then come up through Sullivan's Trace. We have, as noted, proposed pedestrian improvements both along Greendale Avenue and as well as our Greendale Road and as well as Spur Road to make that connection to that intersection. So, we've made an effort to make those connections as a part of this development that then should be tying into other future developments as these take place and become developed as opposed to just having something on paper. We've also worked closely with staff in terms of the development itself, making sure that that's meeting the guidance as outlined in the multi-family housing standards to where we have a centralized corridor that is coming off of Greendale for rural pedestrians as well as vehicular circulation to where we have a focused area that is then based upon community with the community center, the playground, and the outdoor activity area associated is basically the center of this development. Mr. Koppel is going to get into more of the architectural detailing, but just to let you know that we, again, work back with the multifamily housing guidance as well as the other guidance from Place Builder to make this as inviting of an environment as possible, as well as having connectivity from both the pedestrian standpoint, not only internally, but also to the external elements to the greatest extent possible. We also have, based upon conversations with staff, tried to provide as much of a buffer along railroad tracks. You're seeing that's where we are proposing the water quality and water quantity elements of the project began pulling as much of the residential housing away from that area providing some separation right buffer associated with it and with that i think i'm going to just take uh have turned it over to mr croftley and let him talk to you about the architectural elements that have been proposed as a part of this development. Um, my name is Jay Copley, Necto Architectural. Um, to reiterate what you were saying about the bubble along here, one of the things we talked about with staff was we had an additional building. we actually took one of the buildings off the site and added a four store to this book here to create more height density on the site and to create allow more of a buffer away from the railroad tracks but we're also using this parking around the buildings to be able to create a buffer from the adjacent industrial. One of the things we were doing with the scale of the buildings, I'll show you. So this is a three-story building and one of the things we were doing is we were addressing the multi-family design standards, talking about differences in materials, there were some roof lines, trying to create for the pedestrian scale, and the great thing about the designs because the way it's laid out there's a central corridor in a central area for people to move through with the community building but our building mirrors both sides so it addresses both the exterior roads and parking lots as well as it addresses the central parts of the site and it mirrors itself and in the four-story building we put this up against the to go back the site plan. This addresses the scale and size of the industrial and along here you've got a parking lot that creates the buffer as long as this addresses the larger scale. The idea here is that from the one and two storey residentials across the railroad tracks, we're creating more of a transition to larger scale buildings by doing one storey community building and then three storeys around it with a four storey on the back to try to create create a transition in scale away from the smaller residential and taking advantage of more density for our zone that we're going after and then transitioning over to the larger scale buildings that are adjacent to ours. Thank you all for having us today. My name is Zach Borsham. I'm the Vice President at Winterwood Incorporated. Just to give you a brief history, Winterwood is a 40-year-old real estate company based here in Lexington, Kentucky. And for 40 years, we have almost exclusively focused on affordable workforce housing across the Commonwealth. We believe that this is a mission that's important. I think we can all agree that in this city there's a shortage of quality housing that our workers can afford to live in. So we strive constantly to continue to create those opportunities. And we believe that this project on Greendale Road will continue to do the same. There's two primary reasons I think that we feel this is an important project and one that we should be pursuing, both for us as a company and at large as a community. First, you know, there's been some discussion about the adjacency to industrial uses. From our standpoint, we're adjacent to jobs. And we have jobs in this area that people need to live closer to to be able to attain to attain and be successful. So we believe that we're going to be a benefit not only to the employers in the area, but also those employers are going to be a benefit to these residents. And second, there's been some talk about the changing demographics of the Citation Boulevard Corridor. Too often in this business we are playing catch up, trying to place affordable housing in places that have become unaffordable. We want to be ahead of the curve here at Greendale Road. We're going to be one of the first people to come in and build the housing we need prior to this area changing and becoming a run afford. So we appreciate your consideration. I'll be brief, but thank you for your time again, and we hope that you'll consider moving the run afford. Yes, sir. What is your price point for these other apartments, right? Yes, sir. For the rental? Between $700 and $1,100. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. This is not a question about the development plan, it's about the context. Yes. In terms of the retail operation plan, do we know that we're not creating a food desert out there? Will the people living in there, who often may not have their own cars, will have access to a grocery store? It was discussed as a grocery store about a mile and a half away. The retail development that is being proposed, as it's been proposed and written about in the news, is going to be anchored, as we understand, by the grocery store. And how far is that from the site? Less than a half a mile. The Bose retail center. How far is it from the site? It's on Citation. I'm not exactly sure. It's a mile. The current one is about half. It's a half a mile. Are there other developments that you have in the workforce housing? Are they in similar settings as this? Oftentimes, yes. We don't have a development in Fayette County in a similar setting. We operate multiple properties that are very similar to this, both in building type, rent limits, and its access to giant fish. We do believe it's an important thing. We do believe that we'll be housing a lot of folks who work on the citation and the mail in the corridor. Have you reached out to ECO to say, Yes, and they're here with us today. Yes, ma'am. They've been supportive. Very supportive. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, so at this point, I'm going to ask Tate Russell to come up. As I said, Tate is the principal of TKM, the owner of the subject property, and is the president. TKM also owns a Kentucky Eagle property, for that matter. But what I want Tate to be able to do for you is, if you look at page 3 of the staff report that's containing your packet, And you'll see the listing of the restrictions of burden this property currently. I think we'll tell you how long they've been trying to market it, but they've not been able to market it successfully. I think those conditions and restrictions are a large reason why. But without further ado, please go ahead. Thank you all. You all teed me up nicely. So I'm Taye Russell, president of Kentucky Eagle. and as John said, we are TKM properties on the pieces of land that we are talking about, the one that our existing business is on and the one that Winter Wood has wanted to do their project. We bought these properties in the back about 10 years ago when it was in for close. So ended up parceling off the recording studio, which is awesome, and donating that to the KMT program. and they are running their radio station out of their mouth and then keeping this, the rest of it that you all see up there where Winter was talking about doing their development, we wanted to do it and we were using it as investment property as I want. With it being, with there not being many I want opportunities available in Bay County, we thought it was a brilliant idea and we were going to be able to get something done quickly. Unfortunately, we did not. We've been through since 2006, seven and a half years. We were with a real estate agent and a different company. Had it listed for a build-a-suit that we were going to do in an I-1 area, zoned area. We started that company for two years, approximately. We couldn't get anywhere with them. we changed over to a different company and a different real estate agent who is in two different companies now. Since then, we've changed it from a lease or build-to-suit to a build-to-suit or lease-to-own to a for-sale or lease sort of thing. So once we put it on the market for lease or sale, we've discounted it twice since then from the asking price just to try to get some interest in the property. So we've made every attempt we can make to get it built out and developed as I want, as we possibly can. So Winterwood approached us about it. We've been working, as they said, very closely with the entire time. We're good with having them as neighbors. We're very excited to have them. I'd invite you all to come out and look at the area. The retaining wall that John talked about is like really tall, like 50 feet. It is, you cannot climb it, and so it kind of creates, it's along this back wall right there. It creates the screen, so to speak, that you all have been talking about. And this honestly doesn't depict the neighborhoods very well with what's back there. There's a ton of housing already. There's going to be more. There's developments going up all over the place. with retail, gas, grocery, you name it. There is also a bus that comes and parks right there every day and waits for customers. So there's already transportation out there. He doesn't have enough to even fill the bus. So this can help that become worse. Questions? so i might just ask um the issue has been that just there hasn't been the interest there's no it there's no real issues as far as zoning goes for industrial they just haven't been right that's what you write to it yeah and when i zoom out and look at all around i mean there's housing there's housing all around you're kind of into the simple it seems like industrial just south of you. There's just a little piece that's left here. But all around you is housing. All around us is housing. I said we're trying to harvest. So is, are you all participating in this project or is it a sale project? I've been the same. Any other questions? Thank you. A couple quick points for our closest. Scott, will you put that up real quick? Commissioner Bell, you hit it on the head. That's what I wanted to get Scott to put up here. And this is where we, I mentioned context-sensitive versus not so context-sensitive at the beginning of my presentation. That's kind of where we disagree. I think to your point you've got to get your drone up to about a thousand to five thousand feet look at this thing instead of being 50 feet because if you do that just like we've got a that slide number four in your packet you see the picture of what we've got going on out here in terms of the stony path a predominance of residential property in this area. I'm aware that the property across Spur Road, directly across from Kentucky, you know, this property, the UK property, was rezoned to I-1. Wasn't involved in that, couldn't tell you why he did it. I know that staff recommended against it at that time, anyway, for their report, but that was three years ago, nothing's happened yet, but I know of. So that's the only movement to I-1 as opposed to away from I-1 that I'm aware of. With that, if you have no more questions for me, we'll sit down. So John, just to, so then just to, because I'm looking at Google Maps. Yes, sir. And as you point out, just right on the other side of Spur is an abundance of land that is adjoining residential. Yes. But that is now I-1. Yes, it is. So that I1 there that was approved by this or previous commission butts up to the residential exactly. It's directly adjacent. That's owned by one of the bar. I think it's called it. Yeah. Thank you very much. Thank you. You got a question? it it seems to me that much of the staff's concerns about the project would be mitigated if not eliminated should there be multimodal connections to sullivan's trace and across the railroad track to the neighborhoods adjacent to and to Masterson Station, the Masterson Station neighborhood. So it sounds to me from what you're saying that those connections will ultimately happen? I mean, we are proposing to the extent possible on the property that we have that is the subject property as well as the within the confinements of the right-of-way that we can extend to to that intersection but yeah I see you know with the other proposed work that is being that is on the books right now that no more connections are going to be made from a multi-mobile Well, so the question I have is, what's the time frame? How long is it going to be before there's a connection to Sullivan's Trace? How long is it going to be before there's a safe passage across the tracks, say, for children that are visiting friends in an adjacent neighborhood? good well again time is a tricky issue we have an approved plan across spur for that land and there are improvements including a sidewalk trail system the railroad crossing is problematic for that system they always are and dealing with that right away and that safe crossing The cure for that is, I don't know if there is one. It's difficult to get people other than, you know, you cross where there's no trains, obviously. But those plans get approved and then they have X number of years to pull permits and build the plans. If they don't, they of course can seek reapproval and extensions because development does happen over time. So part of that's going to be demand and how that pushes the improvements. Now the timing along Spur Road of the improvements is tied to the initial development of that project across Spur Road, the Barlow Project. So those improvements are tied to the first phase of that project. I think from our perspective, Commissioner Fowle, if it's within our power and on our property, those connections will be made as soon as possible. But in candor with you, in terms of your question, we can't represent exactly where the other improvements will be made. I just think they will be made. But I can't represent to you a time where you can stand. So, John, if I may ask, just looking here at the map, do you know approximately how far it is from the UK radio station looking across the railroad if you go down Spur Road I mean how part of the intersection of the railroad because there is an intersection correct the intersection the railroad on Spur Road I mean it doesn't look like it's more than yesterday it's not long it's very short so yeah so if you might Graham you might want to pull it up just to see that I mean it's only a quarter mile it's not it's not a long stretch to where it goes across Burr Road. I don't know when, I couldn't tell you exactly when that train runs during the day. I know from a case I had years ago, it runs about 131.45 at night. But as far as how much that particular connection is used, I don't know. Whether or not or not, or who runs it now. A challenge for me is slightly is the fact that if it's already been zoned industrial and all that abundance of property across the road you can have kind of bastardized scenario if all of a sudden industrial is built there you've got this little pocket here on this other side of just residential like the question was is how is how do we how does that what are the requirements in terms of multimodal connections between the other side of the road and ours i think as part of their plan they have to build those connections as do we and we went to Tom's point it's a matter of what happens thank you just a question sort of regarding the sort of first decision we make on the zone choice and you all have come and made a case that enhanced neighborhoods, specifically residential, is an appropriate choice for this location, despite the industrial around it and the railroad. Your choice of zone is unusual in this area, especially when you're looking at that zoning map. Most residential developments are choosing R3 or R4. We have R3, R4, R5, medium and high density residential. There's no commercial on your plan. What are the limitations of an R4 or an R5 that you all felt? It's the sizing of the property issue. That's what it is. We're about 10 acres. We can do residential B6P. This is when we had conversations with staff about this, about what would fit. And Commissioner John Miller, I understand your point, but that's kind of where I go back to, yes, there is an industrial across the retaining wall, so to speak, but there's also residential property all around us, all around us. And we wouldn't be the only residential property situated against an industrial property if this was approved. There was just one approved across the road in 2021. I'm not sure I understood so what is the end this is probably just your you all went through this with this specific property but why was this property too large for an well it's it's it's 11 acres 11 acres 11 acres grows 10 net so we couldn't we couldn't do it on three or not definitely yeah okay well there was a really well we had conversations with staff and we were debating between our four and b6p termed the b6p had the most in common in terms of a transitional zone between the R zones and the industrial zones and provided for greater flexibility in the future in case, again, changes were made in terms of possible additional retail or commercial space was sought after. What are the buffering differences between the B6P and the R4, for example? Are you asking then? I mean, either one. If I could, I'm not an expert in zoning matters. I'm an apartment manager. But what you're seeing on this screen, what you're seeing on our planet, is the intents of the project we have always intended to do. We are multifamily housers. That's what we do. And so that is, from the beginning of this process, that has been our intent. As I understand, we chose B6P at the urging staff. We would have zoned anything that would allow the density that we needed Staff is not recommending B6P. So staff just stood in and gave a presentation that they don't recommend it. So you're saying they urged you to apply for something they don't recommend? As part of the place builder process, we have conversations with staff, as everybody does. And when we come up with what we think might be the best formulation, which is done here, that doesn't mean at the end of the day they're going to support the plan. It's just those are the meetings we have. Those are the meetings we have here. That's why I said they don't make any promises and we don't expect it. But here, that was decided by us that this was the best designation in terms of a step down between the residential across the road and the industrial, which is the other TMK property. So it made sense. Mr. Penn. John, my concern is that the development plan we saw was going to develop the plan. So whatever zone that you apply for that we approve, we'll change the building plan. The B-6P would allow you all to do things that you couldn't do at the college degree. Well, this is the plan we're going to do. This density, unless the density was decreased. This is the density. This is the plan. This is what Zach just said. This is what we had from day one. Well, then I have the same question that Robin has. I don't really if the staff didn't recommend B6P then that has to be your all's choice which gives you more flexibility than it would if it was an R3. Well that R3 or R4 wasn't recommended either. So what was recommended? B6P. In terms of how it would fit within place builder and so forth and how we would step down between the residential across the railroad and the industrial property that was deemed to be the most advantageous and it also allowed us to do the residential John came I so well one table event substantively there's no difference in terms of the planets on it that we're going to build versus anything else B6B versus R3, R4, whatever. That's the plan. That part hasn't changed. The only change on the plan was the professional office property coming on. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any more questions for the applicant? I'm not seeing any, Mr. Wardell. Thank you. Before we bring it back to commission, is there any citizens out there that would like to speak on behalf of this particular agenda item, either for or against, you can do so by stepping up to the podium, giving us your name. Good afternoon to everyone present. My name is Brennan Lippert. I'm here with actually a medical concern based on what I heard. For reference on my background, I am an emergency medical technician. I work full-time on behalf of Austin Pharma AG, a global blood proteins manufacturing collection company. I have formal training with the company as an official physician substitute working closely with Dr. Carol Miller to recognize medical problems and applicant donors. What I am very concerned about with what I heard today with the proposal has to do with noise pollution. I heard nothing in the course of the provision to deal with the noise pollution and its potential health effects on new residents, the proposed residential area. As we saw with the proposal, they plan to build this residential area next to a large industrial area, next to a large state highway, and next to a railroad that as the developers spoke, as the developers spoke, runs about 1.30 a.m. every night. Noise pollution is medically known, not just to me, but as well as to Dr. Ramon Faruqi, who wrote in the book, excuse me one moment, vehicular noise pollution, its environmental implications and strategic control, published in the book Autonomous Vehicle and Smart Traffic, that noise pollution has been recognized as one of the major hazards that impacts quality of life all around the world. Noise pollution has many sources, of which traffic noise is a major source. Other types include railroad noise, industrial noise, aircraft and ship or harbor noise. He goes on to say that traffic noise, as depicted by its name, is the noise originated from vehicle traffic. goes on to say that the long-term impact of, excuse me, the environmental risk factors in highly mechanized areas include high blood pressure and the long-term impact that may lead to hospitalization and rare chances of death. In a cross-sectional study among London, United Kingdom, 8.6 million residents, traffic noise was associated with cardiovascular effects in all adults greater than 25 years old and especially in the elderly greater than 75 years old. It showed that long-term exposure to road traffic noise increases the risk to death and the risk of cardiovascular disease in the general population. Noise pollution is also associated with, has been studied to be controlled to avoid different health effects like high blood pressure, sleeplessness, nausea, heart attack, depression, dizziness, headache, and induced hearing loss. My only real concern is not with the placement of these residential units, but with the fact that developers have not accounted for noise pollution and have not offered any suggestion for either reforestation or noise barriers to control this noise pollution. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any money? Yes, sir. My name is Robert Lale. I'm on the property of Jason. My name is Robert Lale. I'm the property adjacent to this property right up next to the railroad in Spur Road. Four acres. That property is 489 feet from the corner where you head down to the railroad property. I came here concerned about the spring. The spring feeds a rather a rather large pond. I grew up in here. I'm concerned about what's going to happen to the runoff in the spring once the, I guess it's bulldozed. The spring is absolutely in the center of their property. I have for years on that property over there for about five years and mulled quite frequently. I'm not the super city but I've got stuck down there. Water runs through there almost all the time. I went and checked earlier today and it's not I'm going to get water eventually someday from this property and from the property on the other side of the street that just changed to Iowa. There was a couple other things that came up. It is a pretty dangerous place for kids, I think. In the center is that piece of property. All around the purple part is zone dial one. And this little green part down here is the railroad running right beside their place. their place. They've got an inn right around the corner, 500 feet down the road. The railroad crosses the road again. Not a very safe place, I would think, for kids to live. They didn't know anything about the noise, but I'll tell you if you're mowing the grass there and one of those trains come by, you'll forget who you are. It just scares you to death. So do you have intentions or are you going to sell your property, development property, or are you thinking industrial or what do you think? I bought it to speculate. My grandson wants to put in my storage thing but it seems like there's one of those on every corner. I think I'll wait a while. Is there anyone else in the audience? Okay. We'll bring it back somewhere to the commission. I know there was a rebuttal stage. There was a question. African, I'm not sure if you want to say anything else, John. Okay. Thank you. Staff? Staff? They bring the prosecution. One small critical thing, in the staff report that was included in your packets there is a small typo at the very end with relation to the zone. However, it's correct in your agenda, it's correct on the sheet you've got in front of you, but the actual fiscal copy of the staff report does have one small here, but your agenda sheets are correct. So staff wanted to address kind of just a couple things, touching on kind of a wide variety of topics. First, there was some mention about the conditional zoning that is present on the property currently that the applicant has opined is sort of limiting the ability to redevelop the property, limiting the ability to have it sold or developed. The adjacent parcel legal distributing, when it was rezoned, has basically identical conditional zoning restrictions. So it doesn't necessarily preclude or prohibit a vast number of industrial uses that the adjacent property next door was able to successfully be developed in an industrial manner. Several comments were made regarding the noise. Once again, we've got the existing railroad, and you've got two major collector roadways. One thing that wasn't mentioned is this particular portion of the property that directly adjoins the largest and tallest building is where the Eagle Distribution has their loading bays. So by the count that I was able to do off of the aerial imagery, it looked like they had 18 truck loading bays that would be directly adjacent to this building here. With the difference in elevation and this building being four stories or approximately 48 or 50 feet, whatever screening is put adjacent to this property line, even the existing industrial kind of size fence there, it's not going to do anything to buffer either the light from these vehicles maneuvering within this parking lot, nor the noise from different vehicles that are large-scale backing up. We've all heard that wonderful vehicle of large industrial trucks. With this being the main function of the site, I would have to imagine that that occurs very often in addition to the existing noise from the railway there. There was some discussion on what type of boundary is typically required, and so the ordinance would require a 15-foot boundary with one tree per 40 linear feet plus a double hedge or a 6-foot tall fence, but that could be reduced down to as low as 5 feet in width. So really we're looking at a very small-scale buffering required by ordinance in this particular scenario, one that's not going to protect against the light, not going to protect effectively against the noise. There was some speculation on, or mention of what is happening in the greater vicinity. Once again, these are, there is an existing development plan for, here we go. Yeah, so the, it's planned for this road to come in and connect at this intersection. However, as Mr. Martin stated, this is at the developer's, if the developer decides to never touch this property again, that connection is not going to be made. Those improvements along Spur Road are not going to be made if the developer opts not to do that current configuration. There is currently a plan under that development plan, if it does come to fruition. There was a mention by the applicant made to the multimodal trail that will be running on the north side of Spur Road as well as a bus stop potentially on that side of the road as well. But it doesn't address how the pedestrians are safely going to navigate to roadways that are functionally unsafe for pedestrians to cross to meaningful views and that the property, the trail that is being developed or proposed to be developed under that development plan doesn't fully reach the major roadways or the connection to any of the kind of workforce housing or workforce job creators that the applicant kind of cited there. As well as kind of the discussion on this wouldn't be a food desert if this other property develops. We do, I believe, have a development plan in for public space. I believe that other developments referenced within the applicant's materials we haven't received official filings for yet, even within a for a preliminary development plan or any type of review by our office. So some of it is speculated. We have to identify the site not from 10,000 feet, but how are these residents going to be affected on a day-to-day basis. The reality is that they are joined by industrial zoning, joined by industrial uses, joined by these high traffic count roadways, narrow roadways with an active railroad. So that's sort of what staff was looking at when we made our recommendation for why residential is not appropriate at this particular location. I believe that that's about all of the comments that staff rebuttal that we had, but if there's any kind of further questions. I have a question. On the high one, it's just across the fur road. Is the restriction becoming different on this parcel? On, so, across the fur road, so it would be. Yeah, the far low property. that we can go on that. Sir, those are much similar to the restrictions that have been applied throughout this area. Many of the restrictions that staff has recommended and that this Planning Commission has recommended for industrial rezonings, including the rezoning on Georgetown Road, were focused on the protection of the Royal Springs Aquifer area. So many of the restrictions are focused on prohibiting any underground storage of fuels or liquids, liquids, gases, as well as the protection from some of the other more noxious type uses. These are also conditional zoning restrictions that have been recommended by the Royal Springs Ocuper Committee and have been accepted by them in the past. Another aspect that has limited some of the other sites that does not limit this site has been the prohibition of self-storage warehousing and the fact that applicants have been coming through asking for higher intensity for jobs producing. So those are the restrictions that have been applied over the past 10 years or so. This has occurred before then, so it has slightly different regulations. Al, while you're up, would you mind just pointing out the different zoning uses such that just in that area, it just feels like there's a whole collection of things, but you might just point it out, what we have. Yeah, so are you wanting to see the immediate area or kind of, you know, so. Just right, right, yeah. So this purple color, once again, is that light industrial zoning. So subject property in white, light industrial to the basically west until you hit the railroad, north across Spur Road, Eagles, development is right here. R3, which is residential and currently is single-family neighborhoods, is across the train tracks, the train track is running here. R3 is this brown color. touching on the east or west side of the lavender portion. What do we have there? So this is all industrial development to the east. This is a long innovation drive of a wide variety of industrial uses. Here we have, if you go past this industrial section up here outside of the location area, you've got residential again with that neighborhood. The railroad really is sort of a divider here so everything kind of west of that is a lot of residential, a lot of agriculture as you're going out of town, railroad divider, primarily industrial and then industrial directly across the road. Daniel? Yes? Just a question. Could you zoom out and maybe show us where the land is that Fayette County Public Schools has purchased in relation to this site? I don't believe we purchased it yet. We haven't received a public facilities review either. I think that's a preliminary settlement. It's under consideration. It's under consideration currently. There's already a school board in there too. Okay so what am I reading that says Bayek County Public School Board on Monday voted to buy land. I guess I know it has to be approved by the state. So the, okay, rephrase my question. Where is this landing question that Bayek county is. I believe it's this parcel here. So it's right across the street. And then Sandersville Elementary is close by too, right? Yeah. Yeah, it's further... All of those blue properties are paid kind of for one school. Right. No, it's the other one. They are. And Sandersville is there too. Okay. Mr. Penn had a question. Daniel. Yes, sir. You all recommend stay at I-1. How much discussion did you all have? Did you think about changing that to help this development? Or were you fixed on your I-2? I'm not exactly sure I understand the question there. So staff recommendation, our only recommendation has been for this to remain industrial. And we are not supportive of the presidential at this location for the kind of the reasons detailed there. Thank you. So I hate to ask such a simple question, but I'm going to do it anyway. So I'm perplexed that Mr. Martin, you know, suggests approval here and disapproval, you know, with yourselves. Mr. Martin? Yeah, that'd be great. Would you do this? Oh, I'm approved. Me too. And then tie it together about the educational piece. If this is approved, it's bad to see the fact. Okay. I generally address this, but after a while with the experience commission, you all have heard it before. I assume you've heard it. I always need your line. Don't ever assume anything with me. Right. I'd like to address the public quite a bit. Our task in reviewing the development plan is to assume the zoning is in place, and then we see if it meets the requirements of that zoning. And so that's why you see a difference with a recommendation on the plan, because when we review it in our section for development, we assume it's already be situated. Bottom line, good plan, wrong location is basically what you're saying. With changes. Right, right. with like what he don't have I wanna it was said that in staff conversations there was a discussion between our for in B6P. What are the different implications that because this is a preliminary development plan and we would be voting first on changing the zone for the parcel, what would the different implications be for a B6P in terms of buffering and setback than an R4? Are there any differences? Yeah, there's really no functional difference in the setbacks there. Really, the difference in the B6B is just going to be the permitted uses. Are bigger, or more expansive. Yeah, the setbacks are different, the coverage is different. B6B, the residential and B6B is intended to encourage B6B development and redevelopment. So it's a little more generous. He's good now, we heard him. So the B6P would allow more units and smaller setbacks? Yes, yes, it is. Again, design will encourage that. The only example we have is out on Maple Leaf where the theaters were. That's entirely separated from the rest of the shopping center. It's all residential. but it's allowed quite a high density residential in that location on that person to be simply okay okay alright thank you I don't see any questions we'll bring it back to the commission lose this part out oh I thought you didn't want to talk go ahead I can do it right here. No, you go ahead. Just to the point about the noise and loading, Ms. Russell, her company, her family's company, they don't load outside the building. This is environmentally controlled inside. Here, they load inside. You can see a right table. Yeah. So it's not the traditional backing up and staying out here to be loaded and all the noise that goes with it. I noticed that yesterday when I drove up with it. It's been a while since I've been in business. All the trucks inside there. So, trucks get loaded inside, not outside. That's the only point I want to do. All right, thank you. It's a lot of fun. Yes, sir. Can I show you all the pond? It's not a little thing. What are you going to do with your property? C16. Are you looking today? He whispered that. We're not making any sales up here, man. Thank you sir. Sir, if you could please send that to the staff. It was a Google Earth picture of the pond. I mean you can find it, it's pretty. May have some fish in there, I'm not sure. But give you a week, you'll know. Yeah, give me two days, I'll find out. We'll bring it back to the commission, though, and close this part out. More questions. I think the air from the zoning set committee on what their discussions were, that they didn't make a recommendation. It's similar, but you want to take it? That was a very interesting meeting, and at the end of it, it was Larry. Yeah, no, it was Larry, Robin, Graham, and myself. And we heard a lot of what we thought was reasonable, workable ideas. And we asked the applicant, are you willing to keep working? They said, of course. And I asked the staff, I said, are you all willing to keep working? And they said no. And the committee just, we didn't feel like we could make a motion for approval or disapproval. We just had to send it on because we felt there was a roadblock. We was hoping it would work down. I mean, you got affordable housing, right? So you're looking at that aspect, but then you also got to respect staff's opinion, too. But the vote was unanimous. Yeah, it was unanimous for referral. I don't think Grant was it. It was a unanimous vote for referral, not for approval. So we referred it to the big committee to have more brains involved. But it doesn't seem like we... The final argument for me is the now out property across the road. For me, if that's going to be industrial, then you've just got this little pocket of residential. but listening to their conversation they had this land for sale for over i've got that one here and that's so many years i can't say the other piece is going to be sold or not but you got to take that into consideration too the markets drive what's supposed to be there or what should be there and if the market's not i mean i have was it always i meant my mistake was always industrial that property or it wasn't always industrial it's across the road across the was residential. If you'd like to know the real history of that time, and I have that perspective, all that out there one time on a comp plan was going to be industrial because of the railroad and the system, and then it got rezoned a lot of residential out there, because that's what was driving the market, was our growth in residential properties. So it was residential, and then it got rezoned to Iowa. But historically, if you go back enough plans, you'll see There was a, we see it now a lot of I1 out there. But do you have an opinion as to why industrial hasn't been continuing to be built out there? They can't get anything done. Are you allowed to do that? Just be an opinion, but I mean, you know. Tracy's out of the way. Okay, thank you. So residential is built at a faster pace. than any of our other zones or uses, commercial, office, industrial. So no matter what, the residential growth will happen more quickly. So if we rely on market demand, there's going to always be pressure for residential land. And there'll be less pressure for industrial ED, or that's a waiting game for a lot of those owners. and we have a lot of patient capital in Fayette County so our industrial land is always slower to develop. Thank you. There's also a lot of industrial land, the Coast Bronx, that has been developed recently. And then with the comprehensive plan we hear every time from, you know, Commerce Lexington that we need. We're run out of industrial land. different lot sizes and different locations to allow for the market to work for that use as well. Let's stay home. Yeah, that's what I mean. Exactly. Well, I have a... I was torn also at that meeting first when we first looked at it because on the same reason we need industrial land but also just we need affordable housing but is the way that we should do it along a railroad track surrounded by industrial That's a classic way affordable housing has been provided in cities. But I'm not sure if it's... If we're looking at it from our comprehensive plan, I'm not sure that that's what it's telling us to do. I'm going to say that in less nice words, and I'm not talking about Fayette County generally. but we have a tendency to put affordable housing in places that people with more money would not choose to live. I think that's a problem. I appreciate what Winterwood is drawing, you know, their workforce, but I'm just wondering if this is the next part. I think it's a great development plan. I'm very concerned about the location. Well, I mean, there's nothing I can add to that other than one thing, and that's the fact that affordable housing, the reason affordable housing works is because the land cost is affordable. And I don't know this for a fact, but I have a strong feeling that that's still the case here, and yet I'm concerned about the people who are going to live in there. you know, affordable housing that's unsafe or a food desert or whatever, makes everybody feel good because they built affordable housing, but I don't know what the people living there are going to feel like. But there again, if this were to be competitive, you know, this project across the road, it might put some pressure on that to change back. It could become affordable housing as compared to industrial. And then we'd be fulfilling... The reason this came here is because the committee wanted us to make a decision. It's a tough decision. And we're at the point right now where the applicant wants to vote today. And we're obligated to give the applicant the vote today. and I'm a proponent of affordable housing, but I'm concerned about the people we live in. So that's where I am. I don't think we're here to try to convince each other in a different way. It's just kind of where we are in Mexico. It's landlocked. It's got the railroad. For me, that's the difference. It's landlocked, and that's kind of what we discussed too. Frank, can I make a note? What if it wasn't industrial across the road? I know it is, but what if it was? Well, it is. Okay, okay. I got the deals. I mean, the hypothetical doesn't work here. It's still not the railroad track. It's more about the railroad track because you- For me it is. I understand. So, dealing with that, it's still the floor is open. I mean, we got, we know what the staff has recommended and then the floor is open for a motion of some sort. But if you're going to go with staff's recommendation, turn down that recommendation. We don't have to get reasons if we close the term. We will have to get reasons. Yes, that's correct. So we're not willing to go with staff recommendations. We would need reasons for that. I'm going to make a motion to just support the staff for disapproval, and we'll see what we say about that. Is that okay? Yeah. Mr. Chair, I move to follow the staff recommendation for disapproval PON MAR 2212 Winterwood Inc. Okay, so we got a motion for disapproval as presented by staff. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, Mr. Penn, any further discussion to that motion? Okay, all in favor, please raise your right hand. Okay. All right, well. I guess we need the free. We'll be right. That was a surprise. We could have gotten there faster. That's hard. Any opposed? Give Barlow to come back. You can tell the Barlow later. Not right now. But we still need to vote to an extent. This will go down as one. Sir, is it safe to have a business? Can I have a bill? If you're budget 700 or something? Yeah, okay. Yeah, I'll do that. Okay, Mr. Penn. Mr. Penn. I vote for postponement of PLN, MJDP 2248, with the conditions provided by the Senate. Second. second all in favor please vote the right hand it doesn't matter it doesn't matter now yeah okay that's just to keep it thank you okay that was hard yeah thank you so uh next up page three uh pln mar 22-13 north yard llc oh darn i was trying ladies and gentlemen uh we believe that this application to be heard in an abbreviated fashion it was recommended by the zoning committee for approval uh with conditions added you have received that staff report unless there is someone from the audience with who would like to hear this told and heard in its entirety so if there is anyone that is here to listen to this application in opposition uh please raise your hand now Sir, we see no hands raised, so it can be heard in abbreviation. Yeah. Mr. Chair, we did receive one letter of support for this application. application from the Neighborhood Association. So the next item on our agenda is CPON NAR 2213. This is a request by North Yard LOC to rezone 4.939 net acres of the property at 101 and 109 West Loudon from a wholesale and warehouse business P4 zone to a light industrial I-1 zone. The applicant is seeking this green zoning in order to establish a kombucha brewery at the existing gray line station adaptive produced development. The applicant within their letter of justification has identified both a place type and a development type for this development. They identified it as a industry and production center and an industrial production development type. Staff agrees that both the place type and development type can be appropriate at this location. So here we kind of have an overview. The subject properties are two parcels located at the intersection of Loudoun and Limestone. They are located just a little bit east of North Broadway between that and Passport Park. Zooming in a little bit closer we get kind of a better idea of what this this area looks like. So subject properties once again showing in white currently zone before. they're adjacent to kind of a wide variety of different zoning so this gold color that you're seeing here this yellow is single-family residential R1C zoning it is worth noting however that where they adjoin the subject properties here is actually not a residential use but rather an existing church filling out the leg uses in the general area is B1 zoning consisting of some various businesses here and here and then some older established industrial zoning in the form of I1 zoning that is on kind of the south side of Loudoun here. One thing to note is that this property here while it does have B4 zoning it is in fact a mobile home park so these are residential uses and a large number of residential uses are immediately joining this northern portion here. So looking at an aerial you can see the existing site as it kind of relates to This is the historic Grayline Station building here and there are several outbuildings located here as well. This is currently being used as the Carol leaders, one of their offices. The mass of the development takes place here and the proposed location for the applicants, Kombucha Brewery, is in the actual, a small detached building on that kind of northern side there. This is all existing development. The applicant with this request is not proposing any expansion of existing facilities. They're going to use the parking lot, they're going to use the buildings, they're going to use the existing historic structure as is. There's no changes to the layout of the site. This is to simply kind of modify the uses. So here is a view from Loudoun. So this is the Grayline Station building that historically was used as a Greyhound bus station until it was obtained by the local government in the 70s. It was used as a service center for their transit buses. Up until the 2000s when this building was placed on the National Historic Register and the subject property went through a development plan in order to establish an adaptive reuse project at this site. Now, the adaptive reuse project gave the subject property a large number of expanded uses. B4 really isn't oriented towards the local neighborhood scale, commercial food service kind of local uses. The adaptive reuse project gave them that opportunity. So today is a mix of retail, restaurant, kind of a wide array of uses. When that was done, the site was improvements were made to the parking area. The structure was reconfigured and an innovative stormwater tension system was involved on site. So the applicant is coming before you today because one of the aspects that isn't covered under the existing adaptive reuse is production type uses. So for instance, in this building currently, you can sell, say, salsa, but you couldn't can it or package it or bottle it for it to be sold off site. That kind of production capability, even small scale as proposed by the applicant, is kind of the reason for this request. So the applicant has an existing kombucha client at a, I believe, directly across the street. He wants to move it into this development. But in order for this business owner to sell their wares and package their wares off-site, requires it to actually have that light industrial zone. And so that's sort of the impetus for what the applicant is seeking here. Here are some views kind of from further up limestone. So the structure is here again, one of the parking areas. And this is the view from further west along Loudon of the parking lot of an existing outbuilding. So it's this structure right here, I believe that is proposed to house the new kombucha use. So that's kind of the site as it is oriented currently. There is a couple of... Actually, I have to put it back to this. When this site was redeveloped, it went through the development plan process and a lot of thought and design work went into making this building kind of a multimodal experience. This has connections to multimodal paths. It pertains the existing building. It meets a lot of the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan that call for this quality and field development, reutilizing these historic structures when we can and making them from both a transportation perspective, integrated with the community, but also limiting the environmental impact of the site. So there's been a large number of the goals and objectives that we've looked at were being met with this request. When staff looked at the criteria for the site design, transportation, and environmental impact, we felt that it met all three counts for reusing the existing building. Really, this is a request in order to expand number of uses in a limited fashion just to allow the existing tenants and future tenants to have more flexibility in their operations to help this thrive and help it to be kind of a more holistic development. Now when we spoke and presented this before the zoning committee some concerns were raised namely the fact that this was adjacent to this existing rural home park which while being a non-conforming use they still had residents living there. These are in fact adjacent to a large number of residents. So at the direction of the zoning committee, we examined some of the conditional zoning restrictions that we placed on similar adaptive reuse developments. Specifically, staff looked at the Walton redevelopment as kind of a baseline to look at some of these uses that when located in such close proximity to residential may not be as appropriate. Now, it's worth noting that currently the property derives a great deal of benefit from its adaptive reuse. And so when staff was evaluating the potential uses of the site, we evaluated within the context of this is an existing development with a large amount of money and effort and coordination put into creating this kind of locally oriented business. But these conditions speak to if this property was completely demolished and a new use established What would be most important to limit on the site to protect the adjacent property owners as well as the residents themselves? So a list of uses was derived It's a mix of kind of some of the more noxious uses uses that may have a negative impact not only on the adjacent properties But also the Royal Springs aquifer So these are looking at making sure that we're limiting the noise factor. There's not electric boundaries. Processing of certain materials. Repair of automobiles. Some of these noisier, more noxious uses staff reviewed and found to be not appropriate in this location and included it within the list of related uses. I'm going to go through this entire list. It's provided within the staff report as well as the findings. but this is what staff felt was appropriate in order to ensure that the redevelopment or the addition of the seven-day site did not have any adverse impacts on this area. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this request for multiple reasons. The first that is in line with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, which calls for context-sensitive redevelopment, creation of the variety of jobs, and attracting culturally diverse professionals with the expanding list of uses. We find that the industrial zone is in agreement with the policies as the site will not physically change in this request, remains context sensitive and allows these existing businesses to have additional production capabilities that match the character of the neighborhood here. Once again, it provides an opportunity to accommodate additional entertainment uses such as breweries, such as this kombucha production use that would be attractive to young professionals. Third is that the development plan is in agreement with the development criteria. It meets the site building design and form criteria, meets transportation and production connectivity due to its existing connections that were done at the time of the initial development plan, and meeting the requirements for green space and environmental health due to the work that was already put into the site, as well as the maintenance of the existing environmentally sensitive areas this is the same list of conditional zoning restrictions that we find that these are appropriate due to the adjacent residential uses as well as the royal springs aquifer and recommend approval subject of the approval of the corresponding development plan which mr barton will present momentarily but with that staff is once again recommending approval in this instance and we'd be happy to take any questions you have of staff Thank you. Mark. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, this is one of those development plans. Again, no changes, but we didn't get to have any fun with it. with it. It is, as you can see, existing buildings on the site, loud limestone frontage. You see the parking areas, linescaping, they're all placed on the site. If you look at your agenda, you see a few conditions on the plan. We recommended some cleanup conditions because the plan that you can't see those details on this rendering, but on the plan that was submitted. There's a lot of extra information that relates to a water quality grant that they receive. They have done a very interesting amount of work to protect the environment they recycled. For instance, a lot of their surface water, water, drink water, into a tank and they reuse their runoff as and that sort of thing. So again, they received a water grant for that when they first redeveloped but no physical changes so of course thank you mr. Martin mr. Needham thank you staff you know this just all started from a well first of all the whole neighborhood the brief history oh sorry The brief history, I'm Chad Needham, owner and developer. Started back when Lexitrain owned this for 30, 40 years and really let it fall in disrepair. It sat there on that corner in an area that was an eyesore in. I had started working about 12, 13 years ago. I have known a small building across the street. Long story short, Langstrand was going to tear down this building and really build what they built down at the old Sylvanian plant out loud in Russell Cave here. And that didn't, you know, I think the neighborhood at that time, I went to those meetings, I was involved with just a small property owner. You know, I think we pushed back a little bit on Langstrand at that time, thinking why couldn't you save the old historic building? and I think Rocky Book at the time was just like absolutely not. It's got to come down. Our buses are bigger. We understood that, but at that time there was also, I think, a real place in the community for that building, and that is not really what the neighborhood wanted. So, you know, we were able to get it on the historic register, and then at that point the neighborhood felt pretty good about doing something in this building other than having Lex Tran just tear it down. So it really worked well. Lex Tran was able to go down the street, still stay in the neighborhood built their new bus repair garage and facility and then we were able to you know at that point the building had to have something done with it um i just happened to be the either the lucky or unlucky one to step up and make that happen and but it was all really based on this neighborhood um you know we sat there and said okay if we're going to save this building and like strain is not going to do anything with it you know it just can't continue to sit and disrepair so so we thought about what the best thing to do was for the neighborhood and the whole goal i mean you've been any of the public markets across the u.s i mean pikes market where they throw the fishes you know it's fantastic in in seattle they do have a fusion sound we have loud it's a little bit but you know could we do something like that i mean i mean uh you know You know, Ponce City has a huge market down in Atlanta, and then you have Cincinnati has a great one, and then Columbus has one. These are great hubs and great, really, destinations for feeling out of neighborhood and getting local interest into retail and experience. And it's really experiential retail, and we all thought in that meeting that that was what this needed to be. Now, from that meeting to a couple of years later being able to finally get it, it went through public auction. I was able to get that with this plan in place and really haven't deviated from that for the last, you know, on this project for five years now. And, you know, now we opened. I mean, it took me a good year and a half, almost two years to redo the site. We were able to get a stormwater grant that, you know, we were created with the roof. We collect all of the water off of this roof and store it in two large underground tanks and one big surface tank and reuse all of that water for all the bathrooms inside and for the irrigation for all the trees. And we planted, I think we were required to plant maybe 80 trees, and we pretty much almost doubled that in the areas. So, you know, the whole intent, and still to this day the intent of this request is to make this a building that has been there for 100 years, keep it there for another 100 years, but really make it now engaged with the local neighborhood. And it really is. We were able to get a local nonprofit to pull in essentially the Juliet market, which provides really small micro-retail opportunities for anyone that wants to start a business in the neighborhood. Obviously, we had to figure out how to monetize it with some more all-local, but still more probably successful in larger local businesses, North Farm Coffee Donuts, for example. But we also had the ability to have office. And it's a really engaging, we throw a monthly block party, which was really a minimum down to the night markets. That was a popular thing that started. Our goal was to kind of bring that inside and centrally focus that so it could be really there all year round. We've got commentary that a lot of the neighborhood uses whenever they want to have neighborhood meetings. So it's a real kind of development just to engage the neighborhood. How we got here is that Thrive Kombucha started with me in a small retail front a little bit before the pandemic. The pandemic really has hit retail quite hard. Some of the retailers have pivoted to try to make it. During the pandemic, they started saying, okay, retail's not going to work for me, but how can I still sell my product? And that really got some creative entrepreneurs thinking, like, okay, if I could bottle or can or jar, which you're doing in such light capacity, it doesn't seem like we would even go through a zone. You go through a zone change? Okay, long story short. You got it. Okay, we got it. Anyway, our goal is to save that guy, keep him in the neighborhood, and allow for that bottling use here at Grim. Mr. Ben? Are you going to store any of the ingredients on site to produce this? So he, you know, if you look at kombucha, it's pretty much like cold-pressed ginger and whatever else he puts in there. I think he locally sources that from farmers and comes in and produces that, you know, right there on site. Okay. Yes. It's the canning process. If you put it in a can and he takes it across town, sells it at Good Food Co-op, which has become a big customer of his, that's the issue that we fail to expect. Maybe you just answered this and I didn't pick up on it. Is there a byproduct as a result and plan for disposal of that byproduct? Not that I know. He currently uses the space. I actually looked above that space. There's no noise and there's an apartment above the building that's in right now. I've never had any issues with noise or smell. I personally am actually living in the smoke. Actually, I'm thinking of physical. Is there anything? Do they strain what comes out and do something with that? I don't know anything about how come. He probably composted, but I don't know where he does that. Not at the site. She's asking if it's at the site. If it's on site? Yes. Currently, no. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Okay. We're going to bring this back to the commission. It's been the longest abbreviated hearing. Sorry, sorry. It's not your fault, Chad. It's not your fault. Floor is open for a motion. Nah, we already did the public comment. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMAR 2213 North Yard LLC for reasons outlined by staff with the addition of the additional conditions. We have a motion. We have a second. Second. Second. Can we clarify what the list? The number. 22 PLN MAR 22-13. It's on change. It's confusing because on the next page it's got dash 60 over here. That's the development plan. We haven't gotten to that one yet. Yeah. oh gotcha yeah that's next yes we have a second by mr poe any further discussion all in favor please raise your hand motion passes yes uh we got one abstain mr bill moving his car Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLN MJDP 2260. Okay, we have a motion for approval of the preliminary development plan. Second. Second by Mr. Poles. All in favor, please raise your hand. And one abstention from Mr. Bill. All righty. Before we go, can we take like a 10-minute break? Five. I got five. You're going to be back to the bathroom in five minutes? Yeah. Okay. Start right there. There's only two. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are now shifting to our next zone change application. This is PLN MAR22-0004, Winterwood Incorporated. We do have some letters of opposition and one inquiry. I'll start with the inquiry. Attached with that is the staff response to the individual. And then the letters of opposition are focused in on the variance request associated with this zone change application. The applicant is seeking a zone change for the property located at 530 East High Street. We are incorporating the address of 205 Kentucky Avenue, which is associated with the conditional use application on this site. With that in mind, we do have one application for a variance for the parking in this area and an application for a conditional use for a place of religious assembly associated with this application. After Mr. Martin does his presentation on the development plan, I will come back up and staff will present those two applications. In this case, the applicant is seeking that rezoning from the R2 to the R4 zone, or the high-density apartment zone, for 1.089 net, 1.346 gross acres. The applicant has indicated that they are located within the enhanced neighborhood place type, and they are seeking to develop a medium-density residential development type. The applicant is seeking to build an addition onto the existing Woodland Christian Church so that they can have a three-story multifamily development that would have 38 one-bedroom dwelling units at a residential density of 35 dwelling units per net acre. This application is seeking to apply for a senior living housing association or a group that would also be affordable. Just getting into the location of the property, we are located out East High Street, right at the corner with Kentucky Avenue. This is right to the east or the southeast of the intersection of East Maxwell and East High Street as well as Kentucky Avenue just as it transitions into East High Street. Jumping into the subject property and a little bit closer review of the zoning, we are looking at a host of different zoning. Just to the north of the property, we're looking at the Woodland Triangle business area. So it is primarily comprised of neighborhood business, B1 zoning, with a smaller portion of professional office. North or northeast of High Street, we are looking at residential zoning, a planned neighborhood residential, R3. And then High Street being the divider, we are shifting to a two-family residential, or R2 zone, and an R1E zone. As you can see there is also hatching, it's a little difficult from where you're sitting, there is hatching across the zoning on here that indicates an H1 or a historic district overlay zone. This is located within the Aylesford historic district. This is our largest historic district in our community. That was established in 1998. Jumping to the aerial photography we get an idea of the land use that has developed over time. This area as it is in a historic district is a bit different because it was largely constructed prior to the establishment of zoning in our community. So you see variations in the lot size that don't often conform to the actual zoning, as well as multifamily residential in our two-zoned property. So there is a host of multifamily around the subject property. We also see that the establishment of our larger park in a downtown location, the Woodland Park, This is directly across High Street from the subject property. We can see also the development of some of the parking associated with the church. The church was originally established in 1908, long before zoning regulations and also before the prominence of the motor vehicle. The parking that has been established on site has been really a change that has been focused on providing an amenity to the parishioners of the church. We do have several other, we have a school right in this location. If we go down to Euclid, there are a host of businesses that line that area. But the area south of High Street is largely residential in nature. Here we go. Jumping into the site itself, we get a view of the church and the surrounding area. So just on the top two photos, this is the front of the Woodland Christian Church looking into the property. Off to essentially the east or the southeast of the property, we are looking at the open space in which the applicant, Winterwood, is seeking to develop their multifamily residential. looking into the side of the property from the parking lot across Kentucky Avenue looking into the parking lot at the rear of the property across the street from Kentucky Avenue and then down Kentucky Avenue located right here large photos so it takes time to change there we go and then looking down the frontage of the property we are looking down East Maxwell towards the woodland towards the business area as well as going downtown. The parking lot itself going towards the Woodland Park as we transition into East High Street, continuing down East High Street with the park, and then the park across the way, and then back towards that intersection of East High and Maxwell. With all zone changes, we are looking at this within the guise of the comprehensive plan and the place builder review. The applicant is seeking to develop this as an enhanced neighborhood place type. This is an area in which we are including new residential development or amenities into an established neighborhood, really focused in on infill and redevelopment. The applicant is seeking to develop a medium density residential development type. This is primarily comprised of attached single-family or multi-family residential options. And the applicant is seeking to apply a recommended zone in this area which is the R4, a high-density apartment zone. Just to take a quick review of the development plan, Mr. Martin will go through this in a greater fashion, but it is important to look at in association with the zone change and specifically in association with the historic overlay. With the property they are seeking to keep the historic structure, adding the new addition to the side of the property, stepping it back so that it is not the primary visual component of the site, and then providing the housing in the rear. It is important to note that the applicant is also providing housing in in the original church structure so it will be a multi-use mixed-use type of development that is focused on providing affordable housing while also keeping the historic structure and continuing the services associated with the woodland christian church the applicant is also seeking to realign the parking we will talk about the parking with the variants however with what they are showing here they are actually increasing the parking by two parking spaces while also decreasing the amount of impervious surface at this location by including a fair amount of permeable pavers and making sure that they are able to keep the significant trees or the trees on this site. With any multi-family development, the applicant is looking at the multi-family designs criteria associated with the development criteria for medium density development. They have provided some renderings of the site itself with information as to how they are meeting those multifamily design criteria. The applicant has provided a fair amount of information about how it would not only tie into the building, but tie into the historic structure itself by continuing some of the features across the site and keeping that visual component stable across the area. However, with all new construction in historic areas, the applicant is held to a different standard of not making it match exactly. So providing some differentiation between a historic structure and the new additions. This is something that is advised by the National Park Service, as well as the historic guidelines that guide the Board of Architectural Review in their analysis of any change in a historic district. This applicant will need to go and get a Board of Architectural Review approval of a Certification or certificate of approval for their site. Just another look at the property itself. During the staff's review of this zone change application, staff found that there was significant agreement with the comprehensive plan. The applicant is seeking to provide a new infill and redevelopment project that is providing a higher density of housing and at an affordable level. The applicant is also seeking to agree with the context of this area. The applicant is providing a fair amount of density but stepping that density back, keeping that historic property as the primary visual component of this area and providing an amenity through continuation of the church services. In addition, the applicant is providing a fair amount of green infrastructure on site so that they can deal with some of the impervious surface that is being developed. The stormwater manuals indicate that any stormwater that is produced by increased impervious surfaces must be developed or must be dealt with with this development. They are not able to increase the runoff off of their site. This was a concern that was voiced by a neighbor with the letter that has been provided to you today. So staff is recommending approval of this application in the fact that they are providing a infill project that utilizes some underutilized land at a higher density residential. It expands the housing options in this area specifically targeting affordable housing and seniors. And then it is also providing that mix of uses. The services associated with a church as well as that residential component, reusing the existing building, and then providing that safe affordable housing. This development is in agreement with the development criteria for the enhanced neighborhood place type and the medium density non-res... medium density residential development type. They are meeting the site design building form and location standards and also the multifamily design standards associated with this place type of development type. They are providing safe facilities for the potential users making sure that they can be integrated into the already established facilities but also providing some internalized facilities specifically with their open space. The applicant is also seeking to increase some of the canopy coverage associated with this development and reduce the impact of the built environment on the overall area by providing clean infrastructure at this site. With all zone change this is held to the approval of the development plan MJDP 22-56 Woodland Christian Church Incorporated which Mr. Martin will come and talk about here in just a moment. If you have any questions on the development or the zone change I'd be happy to answer those. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mark. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Under your head, let me say your hand. Page seven is the major. Mr. Chairman, there was some things. Under your head, page 7 is the major preliminary development plan of the 266 School of Christian Church, and we have distributed to you this lovely old paper revised conditions for the murder. Since we do have a revised preliminary development plan before you today, as Hal described it, here, Maxwell, High Street, Older Place, Kentucky Avenue, here we have the existing church, parking which is across the street, the rear parking lot in this location, and of course the addition that they are proposing where they will have a total of 38 units with 61 parking spaces as Al mentioned. They're going to redevelop the parking and utilizing some green infrastructure to help with the impervious area on the sites, on the two sites, both in the parking. This is 35 feet height, this particular building's location, and it is attached to the church. You can see there's open space here, here in the front yard. An interesting note on this is because of the zoning that exists here and here, this setback is more restrictive than it would normally be under the requested zoning. It's only a five-foot setback of the equestrian zone. But here they have to meet the more restrictive setback from the more restrictive zone. And they've had to average that. You can see the odd geometry. It's not nice, pretty little rectangles. It's slightly skewed a little bit. So that's one of the items that they've had to address on this preliminary development plan. And again, I want to stress that it's a preliminary development plan. there will be a final development plan should this be approved and move forward. You will see that final development plan. And at that time, with its approval is when they can pull apartments. That's when they'll be dealing with construction issues. That's when they will design the stormwater controls that they're going to be required to have to address the stormwater issues. And again, this is an old, old part of town. they didn't develop a stormwater system in this part of town. You had to get down around Euclid to find in-ground stormwater facilities in the area. But again, we still do it today, and they did it back then. And you've heard me talk about this before. Our streets, curb and gutter, one of the reasons it's called gutter, is because that's where the stormwater flows and then it goes into the system. wherever that system might be or how it's been designed. But again, you're going to see a final development plan on this particular property. As Hal mentioned, there's variance associated with the parking. The constricted sites, so they're requesting a variance for reduction in the parking, although numerically there's a slight increase of two spaces. The conditional use, of course, is for the church. they're requesting a zone change it's a condition you send that in that zone change now is going to elaborate with you on that a couple other little cleanup conditions again as with some other plans there's a couple of notes that don't really apply to this site they need to be removed from this plan they refer to other developments at other sites So with that, your staff is recommending approval of this revised plan. I'll be happy to answer your question. You may have about the development plan. Questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Thank you. Anna. Thank you very much, sir. So we are moving on to the two other requests, the first being the variance request. to reduce the required parking from 102 spaces to 61 spaces. This is a 41% reduction for the site. These are the two areas that are currently being utilized for parking. The applicant is proposing to reallocate or readjust those to get a little bit more parking on the site while also clarifying and making it a bit easier to get through some of this parking. The applicant is currently a non-conforming use. It is a conforming use, it is a non-agreed upon use in a way. And the fact that they have been operating the Adley Church since 1980 and 1908, this structure specifically was in operation since 1925. There were no parking requirements at that time. The applicant has added parking. The required church parking for this site would be 76 parking spaces. They are currently providing 59. With a zone change application, we need to look at, and a new application for conditional use, we need to look at the parking under the current regulations. I do want to address the current regulations. I know that this body is aware of some changes that may or may not occur, occur, possibly later on tonight. But we are held to the current regulations as are established when this applicant applied for this. They are located within the infill and redevelopment area, therefore they are able to seek a request to reduce the parking by up to 50%. With any type of rezoning, or with any type of rezoning you have the ability to look at this, and And with any type of variance request to parking, staff is really focused in on what is in that area. This applicant is located at an area that is historically connected. There are many different properties, commercial properties, residential properties that do not currently conform to these zoning restrictions. Many of the businesses located in the Woodland Triangle area have no parking, whereas if they to come in to rezone their property, do something else, they would be required to under the current regulations. When reviewing a request for a parking reduction, staff looks at the context of the area. Currently this area is considered very walkable, it has a score of 94, it's considered very bikeable, it has a score of 97. So this is out of a 100 point scale, it's very important to look at those and how these amenities would work into this. Walkable amenities within this area, there is the Woodland Park just across High Street. There are restaurants and retail less than a hundred yards of Long Woodland Triangle and then there is the Euclid Kroger less than a half mile away from this subject property. The distance to transit, there are three transit routes less than a quarter of a mile of the property and the transit center specifically is located less than a mile from this subject property. So when staff reviews the context of the site, this is a high multimodal area that produces an opportunity to be incredibly walkable. We also look at the type of development that is being proposed and has occurred over time. The church use was established prior to the creation of zoning and parking really in any significant way. So this property has developed to promote walkability. It was meant to be a neighborhood serving amenity to those that lived in this area. The addition of parking was established to provide a resource to the church users even though they didn't need to provide that. The available on-street park, there is available on- street parking along East High Street, along Kentucky, there's metered parking along East High Street as well along the Woodland Triangle business area. And then jumping into the fact that the applicant is adding parking with this proposed development. Staff is also considering this development as needing lesser amounts of parking because of the type of residential that is being proposed. Senior housing, in fact, has a lower requirement of 0.75 per dwelling unit, whereas the current regulations are at a 1.5 per dwelling unit. So staff perceives this as being an approvable variance. The variance should not adversely impact the overall area in the fact that this is an amenity that was meant for the church itself. There is on-street parking, and there is metered parking, as well as parking at the Woodland Park. The walk score is very high as well as the bike score for this development. There is other parking available. And then it is in very close proximity to other amenities, specifically getting into the Woodland Triangle businesses, Euclid, Kroger, as well as the transit opportunities that can take you to a broader area. This recommendation of approval is subject to the approval of the R4 zoning for this property. The development has to be constructed in accordance with the final development plan that is adopted by this planning commission. And then they have to get all of their permits and it must be noted on that development plan. If you have any questions on the variance, I'd be happy to answer them now. Any questions for the staff? A couple of letters. So I think that's an applicant question when they come up, largely because we were not provided any leases. We don't know of any requirements that the applicant is held to with other individuals associated with the woman's commission. Can the public ask a question? Not yet. Not yet. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to jump to the last one, the conditional use for the place of religious assembly. This church has been in use since 1908. First photo that you have is the original wooden structure. Then we have the 1925 construction. This is their proposed amenity or increase of use on the site. Staff sees that this should be recommended for approval. as this has been an established church since 1908. The continued use of the church will provide an amenity not only to those parishioners, but has been utilized by the neighborhood association for their meetings. And then all necessary public facilities are there to serve this conditional use. Same conditions of approval as you might see with a variance on the other side. If you have any questions on the next one, happy afternoon. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Woodall. Thank you once again John Woodall and Scott Schutte for the record. We have a pleasure once again of representing Winterwood Properties on this application. Zach Worsham, Winterwood is still here. Scott Southall and the first cycle design is very competent. and in effect our architecture, our design. Being from Borg's Maze to Lexington, this is a property that I've driven by my whole life and so forth. When this particular plan came across our desk, it was really gratifying to see the neatness of it and just the hard work that Winter would have designed to do to put this thing together and to make it use of this church that was falling on a bit of hard times. But this is an R2 property that we're seeking to take to an R4. Just to clarify, I think I'm a big budget for the first year. Coming out of the Tom's plan and 18th replacement process is a requirement that before we file as a change application, we try to sit down with staff and the design team and try to get a consensus together about the plan. Things that we might not know because we're not doing what they do every single day with all the properties across Lexington. to Tom's point about the setback issue. It's just not something that jumps out, even if you're an engineer doing this every day. So we try to come up with the right way to put this on paper. And so like in this situation, if everybody thinks, get a consensus, you know, our board is the right thing. And then that's what you end up seeing. Now that doesn't mean that staff, at the end of the day, when the plans in front of them, just like the last meeting we had, can't say, well, we think that's probably, if it was going to approve, it got to be the right designation for this property. But that doesn't mean we have to recommend it. We understand that. And we have those meetings anyway because they're very worthwhile. Everybody learns a lot from it. And it makes this process feel better. And this particular application right here is a perfect example of that. Essentially what we're going to have happen is the second floor of this church will be transformed into eight living quarters for seniors. And then the new facility over here, the new structure, will be 30 units. So a total of 38 units. And the church will remain. The sanctuary will remain, and that's the reason for the conditional use permit. In an R4, religious gathering is a permitted use, but it's conditional, so we have to do that. And as Hal also mentioned, we're short on the parking, but the church has never been parked in accordance with the ordinance because it's so old. and due to the on-street parking and the walkability of the neighborhood and so forth, it's just not an issue that the staff can find a problem with. So that is part and parcel of our plan. We'll have to have that variance in parking as well. So we end up with 38 units, and along as far as engagement, in addition to our pre-application meeting and constant interaction with staff on a plan like this, the Zion team had a meeting with the Aylesford Place Neighborhood Association, which actually has their meetings in this church back in August of this year, August 16th, actually, and explained what we were doing. In their package, you'll see a letter of endorsement from that HOA. They've also met, I'm going to let them explain the extent of these meetings, but also met with the Lexington Taylor County Government, Historic Preservation Society, the Board of Architectural Review, and the Kentucky Heritage Council. All those meetings had to take place because of the school. I have respect for that. We are, I will tell you, willing to comply with each and every one of the terms of the recommendation for approval. There's one, though, that had to do with the U.S. Postal Service sign off. Those have been kind of slow. So those all have a little concern. I'll let the engineering team talk about that. So Scott, let me talk about that. Sure. Again, Scott Sotmall with Earth's Life and Design. The staff has gone through and given you a fairly good description of what the project is about. As been mentioned, you know, this parking lot, both parking lots, the one that's on-site, one that's adjoining, the site are existing. We are looking to redevelop those, make those more efficient in terms of increasing the parking count, but also reduce the amount of impervious area. Right now we're about 25 to 30 percent reduction in terms of that impervious area. So that's going to benefit not only the site in terms of the improvements that are going to be made with the roof area and the increase of the roof structure for the addition, but then also the adjoining property is going to have our adjoining location here will have actually a net reduction in terms of the impervious area. So that's our plan moving forward as far as stormwater management and parking. As the staff also mentioned, we are looking to preserve as many of the trees on site as possible as well as hopefully to increase that tree canopy coverage as part of the development. The only other item I will bring up which is what Mr. Woodall mentioned is on the item number six which is the U.S. Postal Service sign off for the kiosk. Since it's a preliminary development plan, we'll have to get that sign off for the final development plan. We're asking that that get removed as a condition because we only have this two week period of time once this zone change is approved from the planning commission to get all the sign-offs done before it goes to council and that has been a very kind of difficult one to get sign-offs on prior in that timeframe so that's the only request that we have with that I'm going to turn over to Mr. Copley and talk about the architectural elements the end check off the next number I can start by saying that as an architect, you love when projects like this come to you because it's an opportunity to do something that you normally don't need a change to do. When a client calls you, he's like, I've got an opportunity here to help the church that's in need, and we found a way to do it. And so the way they found to do it was get through Kentucky Housing Corporation and do historic preservation credits through the State Preservation Office. We've met with all those groups and we do have approval for state and federal historic financing. The way we're doing that is that we're going to put eight residential units inside the existing church on the back side of it. There are unused spaces that are inside the church right now. They don't have enough people to attend the church to be able to utilize those spaces. So we're bringing a new function to them. And then we're putting 30 new units inside what they're calling an addition. But I've always looked at it like a second building completely that's connected by a bridge that connects all three floors of the church. and in that connector is a raided stair which currently church does not have and then and it and except and the new code compliant elevator as well for the residents and for the staff and the prisoners of the church um go back to the slate so the connector is here the bridge that connects over there's the existing windows on all three floors so that connector actually just makes that opening there's and then the stair and the elevator are in the connector and then you have the extra building which i'm calling the second building instead of calling it an addition but technically it's an addition um the scale of the addition connects to the adjacent businesses that are nearby. They're all two to three stories. And because of where our location is, so all of the businesses of the scale of this church is really talking to these commercial spaces here and not necessarily to the single family residential. So when we laid the building out on the site plan, we pushed it over to the property line as as close as we could to allow an expansion of the parking lot at the rear and to give some green space in the front of the building and to the rear of the building as you get in and out. Now all of the accessible parking hanging entry to the building close to the elevator will actually be off of this back lot. Currently it comes from across the street and goes into this entry here. So we've actually helped through the accessibility entry and exit out of the building as well. So with that... We'll put that quick question for the record. Jay, at the zoning subcommittee meeting, Commissioner Pohl asked a question or made a point about the facade of the existing building and how it would match up with the new construction. Did you bring that to the record? So the idea of being able to relate, when we started meeting with the State Historic Preservation Office, their regulations, their rules, we've done several historic preservation projects within our office for several years now, and it is the idea of paying homage to something without trying to replicate it. So the idea of the indentation of the front porch of the church, we try to replicate or pay reference to it. But the problem with our building is that the first floor of the church is actually under grade. And I think grade is currently right now about, there are about 42 inches above the floor line of the first floor. So when you actually get the The entry into this piece here that connects over to the front porch of our new building is actually submerged underground. So there's a set of steps that actually go down right there into the front, whereas we have the reverse effect on the church. There's actually stairs that go up to the entry into the church. So it was creating references to some of the things at the same time, not trying to mimic or recreate anything. We pay reference to the elevations of the church by continuing the stone facade across the bottom of the belt line that goes around our new building. And then the brick would be of a similar color to make reference to the existing church as well. But the architectural details of the church, one of the great things about setting it back is that you still let the church take prominence on the site. And then we move it back to kind of be subservient to that. We keep the height of the church, the addition is down lower than the existing church, also to reduce scale. And a lot of the detailing that is done on the church cost prohibitive, so we did more of a streamlined design, more contemporary looking, but also not trying to compete from a detailed standpoint either. I hope that addresses your team very much. Thank you, Jay. At this time, I'd like to bring Zach Worsham up to the microphone here and explain what Winterwood's vision for this project was. To the commissioners and staff, thank you again for your time and effort going into this meeting. We appreciate you hearing about this project. I think we, again, I'm Zach Horsham with Winterwood. In keeping with my first presentation today, this is another opportunity that we feel is important for us to provide more quality, affordable housing options for residents of A County. We think this project does just that. We think it is well-suited, a great part of town to have seniors have an affordable place to be. and the unique opportunity here is that we get to partner with the Christian Church and not only preserving a historic landmark for our city, but preserving a piece of history that has been part of our community for over 100 years, the members of that church. So we want to see them be successful, and we want to make sure that out of this project not only are we providing great services and great living opportunities for seniors, but we're going to allow that church to continue to worship here for the next 100 years. So we're grateful to be a partner. We have some representatives from the church here today who should be applauded for their courage to try to move forward with this project. Again, we greatly appreciate the time and look forward to continuing the discussion about this. I'll be brief again. Thanks. Thank you. Any questions for us? Yes, Mr. Pope. We had some letters from business owners about concerns about the fact that they've been renting parking spaces from the church for as many as 30 years and concerned that there will be a reduction of parking availability for business people that are using the Woodland Triangle businesses. what is the anticipation with regard to the availability of sharing parking? I know it's not required. I'm just curious about what... Sure, and this is really the best answer I can give until this project comes to fruition. We would have no control of that, but if this project is to move forward, we're successful with starting this development. We will review any existing agreements with neighboring businesses for parking at that time. I can't speak until we haven't seen any of those agreements, don't know if they exist, so I can't answer that. So I guess, so presumably you'd have to see the, whoever's operating the facility would need to take a look at what parking demand there is from the residents and then make decisions after that. Yes, sir. So we'll be operating the facility, Winterwood's also a property management firm. I can't speak to how many cars folks will have. It's all one-bedroom apartments. So presumably you have a lot of single individuals living here, but you may have married couples. I can't say how many vehicles each of those folks will have until they start living there. And it's hard to ascertain the parking requirements and the church activities, again, until the project's done. So at that time, yes, to your point, when we have an understanding that we'll be able to review any existing parking requirements. and with the one left sorry one last question would the polling place still be in the church i don't i can't imagine why not yes i was going to ask the parking in either way we all have all the minimum required parking you swear required part as all that parking if approved I'll be dedicated just to the promotion yes here yes we're gonna dedicate our yet there's a so there is a required parking for the church and there's a required parking for the development of the housing. And essentially, the production that we're requesting is basically for the church. The housing will have its parking bent on a day-in, day-out basis. So it's really the church because of the date that the church was built there was no parking requirements whatsoever associated with that so does that answer your question? I just wanted to hear minimum required parking will be dedicated just to the development. And then the other question is I've been in an adjacent property I think it is 520 East High building across the Pepe Avenue. Yes. committed with it it actually faces and walks straight out into that parking lot. Let me jump back to the site planning. Yeah, over there to the left. It's this one right here. The little house right there. It actually walks straight out into the parking lot. The main entrance is still off of High Street or Maxwell at that point in time. But there is a secondary point of egress, and we're maintaining that secondary point of egress. Thank you. Yeah? If I'm just, this is just a clarification. If I understand correctly, what you're proposing is the church and the residents will share the total number of spaces. Yes. That's it. Okay, that's it. All right, thank you. Okay. Parking has been a theme. The citizens comments. It's time for the citizens to step up one at a time. State your name. Three minutes. We'll have you on the three minute clock. Oh wow. Yeah, I know. My name is David Feinberg. I'm a psychologist. I get paid by the word, so three minutes doesn't work for me. This is my building right there. So I am literally on their parking lot. Their parking lot, which is full all of the time until about 7. Street parking, full all of the time during business hours. The idea that it's going to be reduced by a very considerable amount I don't see how that works. Now, the architecture looks lovely. The idea looks lovely. I've got to say, I've been the neighbor for 32 years. I've had great neighbors. The church and the fire department are the best neighbors ever. They've got a lot further. The church is very accommodating. So the way this was represented is that it's fortress Woodland Christian Church. Beautiful setback, runoff, yada yada yada. We have enough spaces for our people to heck with the rest of you. Which is not my experience of Woodland Christians at all. They have been great neighbors, great part of the neighborhood. So for any of you who are small business owners, if you suddenly found out, oh, you don't have any parking anymore, do you think that's going to affect? So this whole idea, oh, these seniors, they're just going to come out their front door and they're going to walk to Triangle and they're going to go and see all of those nice birds. Those birds just won't be there. There's no parking. They're going to be gone. They're going to tank. It's not, I mean, a lot of these people are just holding on. I'm doing fine. I'm not starving. But I need my parking as well. There ought to be an accommodation that allows, I mean, I love what the church is proposing. It sounds great to me. It sounds a little too big, but, you know, whatever. The idea is great. But accommodate the environment. So who's parking there? Maxwell Elementary teachers and staff people who patronize the merchants people who go to Woodland Park people who live along Maxwell in Kentucky who have a broken down car and they've been in that parking lot for God knows how long There's just all kinds of people. This is not... I mean the idea that is represented sounds ideal. I want a room. It sounds wonderful. But In the last couple years, there's a lot of crime in that area. When I come in, I'm the first one in, I have to look at my backyard to see who's sleeping in my backyard. Because there's so many people with drug and alcohol problems. that people may camp there or defecate on my sidewalk. I had KU wire extra lights in that parking lot at my cost because I couldn't send my female staff out at night and feel safe. So the idea that they're connected to the church, that part sounds fabulous. but you have to consider the crime. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Members of the board, developers of the public, I appreciate you hearing me out. Like I said, my name is Brennan Lippert. I am a permanent resident of 347 Oldham Avenue, which is the just adjacent street to Woodland Christian Church. I walk by the church on actually almost a daily basis, anytime to go to get coffee or spend the day in the Woodland Park. It's just a staple piece at that corner. It's a beautiful building. And I do believe the developers have come with great intentions here to provide much-needed housing in an area that is constantly in need of it. But I think the primary concern here and the primary thing that we have not had addressed is the amount of new vehicle traffic, and as we've stated, parking. That is not ample enough to accommodate that. Obviously, we are a very walkable area, having lived there for the past six to eight months now. You know, as a young man, I'm able to walk to the grocery store about half a mile away. I'm able to cycle to my classes at University of Kentucky, where I study foreign language. But I still require a vehicle. To get to work, I have to drive. And if this is going to be senior housing, seniors especially have mobility issues, they have hip replacements, they have an inability to walk long distances, especially on part of home green, and they're going to require vehicles because if any of you have used the public transit system, I'm sure you know, it's not reliable, and it's very often dangerous. It's very often full of individuals who have drug and alcohol problems and we do have a safety issue in this neighborhood on a daily basis. As he said, you have a massive homelessness problem. You have people sleeping in their cars, you have drug use, you have like he said defecation on the sidewalk. The US Department of Transportation estimates that each US household or residence has an average of 1.88 vehicles. That means just the addition of these 38 residents to our neighborhood will add an average of 71.44 resident vehicles alone. That also does not account for guest vehicles, visitors, family gatherings, friends, people who come in from out of town. And you did mention there is street parking. If you've lived in our neighborhood, the street parking situation is abysmal. There's parking at the park, right? A, it's not 24-7, it closes at night, and B, it's always full. I have the luck of having a driveway at our residence at 347 Oldham Avenue. My two roommates often have trouble finding a spot and sometimes have to park as far as one or two cross streets over. The addition of 71 additional vehicles to our neighborhood is simply not accounted for here. The variance especially to reduce that parking, to reduce that accessibility for those vehicles, it's just going to make things more congested. It's going to make things more unsafe. And you also have to think of the traffic issues this is going to cause. Getting out of my neighborhood in a vehicle is already a slow, dangerous, and disorderly affair. Our small two-lane streets that are already congested with parking on both sides in all directions, directions, our small intersections simply cannot handle this abundance of traffic. Our infrastructure is not built for this many residents who need vehicles to be built in this area. If every one of these people can live without a car, and could take the bus, I'll finish very shortly, if every one of these people didn't need a vehicle, this residence would be an amazing idea. But with the addition of this much parking and this many vehicles, it simply is not well thought out and not accommodating to its neighbors. Thank you. Yes, ladies first. Happy Diwali. Somebody grunts me this morning. Just quick. I wrote down my thoughts. We established the historic district not because we want box gutters and true divided light, but because of pressure for the university and investors to make money off of student housing. So, just quickly, I wrote it down. We moved to Woodland Avenue in 1993. In 1995, my mother-in-law bought a house on Kentucky Avenue so we can see the church from that house. I paid $5,000 to replace the front window because it had to be true divided light. And now I have a renovated house that's a historic house that has not true box gutters, which we have to do something with. It's a disaster. Okay. My mother-in-law and I went door-to-door to get signatures to establish the historic district because of the pressures to demolish the old houses, the original housing, to make cheap apartment housing for all the students. the historic district was established but the churches in the area chose not to be part of the historic district. So, 2010-2012, we lived three doors down from one of the churches that decided to be excluded. And that's up on the map, it's on High Street and Woodland. And the church sold. And then they built an apartment building. And it's not just an apartment building. It's a five-story apartment building, which looks down on my yard now and shades it the whole day. And I hear talking all day. And it's nice to see the people. They do walk their dogs. We have a walking neighborhood, and we see a lot of people that way, but that's kind of their contribution to the neighborhood. But we did not protest the building of that building. But having to live there, the builders, they were from New York and it took, it was a lot of complication, but basically they were greedy and rude. I mean it's a rude building to have a five story building when everything else is shaded out by it. We don't want more traffic or more apartment buildings. The apartment buildings that were built before the historic district from, say, the 60s to 1998 are horrible. Why don't you tear them down? They're bad and they're being decrepit. Like you, your place, Nickler, is in our neighborhood. There's a huge parking lot there. That's not very pretty. And that apartment building right there that was built when in the 70s or 80s, it's horrible at least. Why don't we just build some nice buildings instead in there? And then what happens, like I said, the church, you know, we don't know about this church. It sounds like it's not doing well. And I wish you well, but what if they go bankrupt? And what if this makes them go bankrupt? Well, who's going to be in charge of it? Do they really care about my neighborhood? Do they care about my houses in the neighborhood? And like I said, I didn't say this. I'm intimately concerned with affordable housing in Lexington, but this is not the place for it. So I'm a resident there and I also have rental property. We've maintained those other two houses. Yes sir. So you can come in the front row right here. folks my name is Chris McCoy excuse me my wife and I own this and my business is there so I'm there all week long and my concern and our our objection is only to the variance and only on the basis of parking during the week and I wrote you all a letter last week hopefully as part of your file hopefully you've seen I'm just gonna hit a few highlights here and I'll try not to get any new testimony that other people express concerns about. There are some other people up there and around that area that also poses variance based on parking. The church's lots are used heavily all week long. They're packed. I included photos of them. It is not a church that only comes on the weekend. These spaces have been used for many years and I kid you not, they fill up twice a day every day and then there's cars all up and down both streets and everybody's fighting for every space there is. By far the biggest user of the parking lots is a magical elementary. They have a lease with them, I think, and there must be 40 to 50 cars that arrive every morning and every afternoon and fill up the lots. Drop off and pick up. There's no drop off and pick up at the school and it's a magnet school. So everybody has to be driven into the school and it is swarmed. with cars. It always has been. We're used to it. But, and I know it's not the church's responsibility to accommodate the school, but it is a godsend that the church has been a great neighbor at allowing that to occur. They also rent out spaces, lease out spaces to businesses, and Fairwood is not saying what's happening. And I think you've already clued in to the fact that they're not clarifying what's happening to all the people that currently park where did all those people go the church is operating a daycare out of there these you know these parking lots are used all week long um some other people have already talked about kentucky avenue winnerwood has reached out to the ellsford place neighborhood association they have not reached out to the woodland triangle neighborhood association which is immediately to the north um we've reached out to them but it was so late in this process they don't at this point they don't really seem to be interested in revising their plan to address our concerns. Our primary concerns are the, you know, the increase of parking from daily residence to a lot that's already full where all those people would go. They have land to expand some parking that they're not using and filling it all up with parking. And it's open land. There There aren't trees there. And it slopes down in the back. It won't compete with the front. I think you can achieve most of what they're trying to achieve architecturally. Yet still increase in parking. Maybe provide a few less units. I think there could be a better balance. They're not limiting the number of cars that their tenants can use. They're not saying how much of that lot has been used by tenants versus how much might be used by the church. So again, just to point out some things, we think that their answer request fails on a couple points. They don't really have special circumstances that prevent them from providing increased parking. They have land to add some spaces. They can still have most of the apartments if they would just add some more parking. Therefore, it doesn't, a more strict application of the ordinance would not deprive them or reasonable use of their land. And their balance request is excessive. Um to provide only 60% of the required minimums with all of this weekday parking going on is huge. Um so I just wish they would clarify that and limit the number of vehicles. Thank you for your time. Yes, sir. Hello, I'm Gary Barksdale. I'm the chair of the board with Christian Church. I also oversee parking in the World of Christian Church. I'll answer a couple of questions about parking, but I think it's more important to talk about, I think it was a comment made about this was not a good plan or not well planned or a little thought out. We at the church think it's a divine plan. We think it is divinely driven. A year ago, our church was at a point that we thought we were going to have to sell the building and move it. Because we could not handle the cost of maintaining that hundred-year-old property for the size of our population. We thought there was no alternative left to us. We looked at everything to try to stay where we are, but we just couldn't do it. until winter would divinely, and you'd have to just know all the connections that brought them together with us. We believe it was divinely brought together and it's being divinely planned. We think it would be useless. Senior housing is so aligned with what our church is about and everything that we do. So that's one thing. The parking comment has been an issue that I've dealt with for years and years. It is a private parking one. It was never meant to be public parking. It was always by permit only and we had signs that said that every time we put them up they were taken down immediately. We do have, not only, but every year there's an annual agreement with the school board to have about 22 parking lots parking spaces. Every year we sign that. We have an agreement with the psychologist for parking. Nobody else right now is renting parking for us. And so there's businesses who would like to use our lots, and we'd be happy to rent them some spaces, which is what the plan was, but they're not renting today. So it was never meant to be an open parking. The rent we get from parking goes into the church budget, and so it is a way that we cover our costs. So just to clarify some of the parking situation, And I went to church all the time, and the parking lot is not full all the time. It may be crowded and pick up and that kind of thing, but the lot has unused parking almost any day of the week. It's almost always final parking. Thank you. Yes, sir. Amy, are you stepping up? Oh, you're coming? Okay, yes. Yes, sir. After Amy. You can go after she. Yeah. And I'd like especially to thank Chris McCoy, my old neighbor, for speaking as an architect. He has a national reputation for designing houses of worship, so I found his observations interesting. I just would like to say what a missed opportunity is here. There is so much potential in this site, in this project, in this idea. and by the time of the first neighborhood meeting, as is usual, it pretty well was set. They'd done their pro forma, they'd done their financing, and providentially funding had come in. And I realized they're very constrained, the developers, in going through the hoops to get the Kentucky Housing Corporation funding on time and the different hoops to qualify for historic tax credits. and I realize it's a complex thing to pull off. But I invite you to look at the site plan. All this area is owned by the church as well as all this. They propose putting a building in the churchyard, in the green space, which has been a community resource for generations, a very welcome space, especially for the art fair. This is an equally large, really a larger area. It's a parking lot. It's a surface parking lot. It's legally non-conforming. R2 doesn't allow a stand-alone parking lot. It has to be accessory to a building, something of use. Why can't we have a wonderful affordable housing building with podium parking in the parking area improve a surface parking lot to be building up not out in consonance with the historic neighborhood. There's been a lot of talk about parking I will say this about the parking we are not the idyllic streetcar suburb that we were when this was developed and designed. there's enormous pressure to turn everything into parking and there isn't enough parking what would it take to really do something creative and have more housing that does not impinge on the residential immediately nearby all along here with a with a moderated setback. What would it take to have a building with podium parking? It would probably take Lex Park to fund it as a public parking lot. It would probably take still more complication and planning and a whole lot of neighborhood cooperation and collaboration. I think we welcome growth that's needed especially affordable especially for seniors, I think we're not the least bit realistic about the parking needs. If people can be, I think it's 52 or over, maybe it's 55. We're most of us older than that. Do we keep one car per household? Do we keep two? Do we keep three quarters of a car? So I regret what it could be, and I especially regret that our entire comp plan has this vision of what it could be that's based on the idol of a streetcar suburb when we no longer have streetcars, when we no longer have any adequate bus service. And I will say that riding a bike is a chancy business. It's best for the young at heart, the dairy. Thank you. Yes, sir. Hi, I'm Scott Gleason. Thanks for having me, Sweeney. Thanks for all your hard work. I'm a resident of the area, a homeowner there. I have to deal with the historic commission all the time. I'm happy to accommodate every little detail. So I don't actually understand why it's possible to apply for a change in zoning in the historic district. I don't get it. So I came to the meeting really out of information because I didn't hear anything earlier. I didn't go to the elsewhere meeting. and there wasn't any plans in the information that I got. The picture of the Woodland Church edition was minimally, hopefully, my worst fancies about what it was going to look like. So it doesn't look bad, right? Although it may not look new enough for some of the Christians. Or different enough. I understand that one, too. We've been around one of our houses, so I guess what I'm worried about is, I mean, I don't want to oppose God. I certainly don't want to oppose fortability and seniors, but I just don't see how we can do this to a historic district. and I'm especially worried about the church because we just went through this with the church as was mentioned on Woodland and High Street. What was the story there? I would just sort of watch that happen. There was a nice old church just about the same vintage as this one and And what happened? It was going to be renovated. That was the plan. That was the proposal that was approved. And then it turned out that it couldn't be renovated. It was going to become apartments and some gorgeous stuff. And it turned out that it had to be condemned. They couldn't do the renovation. And overnight, it was demolished. And now there's a gigantic modern thing that really didn't turn out too well, so they had to rebuild the whole thing, but now it seems to be functioning. So I'm looking at the picture here. It's not up there, but that's what we're being sold here. But I just ask you if you approve this, and I was interested to hear that the staff approved it. I just ask you to keep an eye on this if you okay it. make it come out this way if you think it's going to be good. Because this is not necessarily what it's going to have, but it's not going to be for seniors necessarily. We're affordable, because it's certainly not an affordable neighborhood. And, you know, the idea of the church in these older neighborhoods, that was the feature building. That was the centerpiece. It was supposed to be noticeable. Right? So if you put a building up there, that's the centerpiece. Woodland Park is the centerpiece of the historic district. Okay, so if you approve it, make sure that they do this. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. My name is Christy Jo. I'm the senior pastor of Woodland Christian Church. It is such a gift to be here today, and we do at the church care so much about our neighbors, our businesses, and our community. We believe that this partnership with Winterwood is truly beyond our wildest imagination. We believe that this is going to be the most innovative way that our community can offer affordable housing and a vibrant ministry for the whole community. And we dare to believe that there is more than enough room for all of us to thrive. We want to continue sharing parking spaces with our business people and our neighbors, and we believe that there will be enough room to do that. As Gary, our board moderator and overseer of parking stated earlier we truly believe that this has been divine intervention and we are grateful for the staff's support so far and we just want to echo the message that we are committed to working closely with our neighbors and our community and this project is actually giving us an opportunity that a year ago we knew that we did not have with this partnership we We believe that we will become a cutting-edge, innovative model of ministry for affordable houses and churches, not only here in the Commonwealth, but across the country. Many churches are coming to a crossroads with their properties. And we believe that this partnership is going to be a thing that gets not only Woodland Christian Church on the map, but Lexington, Kentucky, because we have the courage and the support to do something new, to imagine that there truly is enough space and room for all of us to thrive. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. All right. Bring us to the rebuttal stage. Mr. Woodall? Mr. Woodall? You guys go first. Yeah, you go first. Mr. Chairman, thank you. comments from the folks that spoke before against the plan only uh only not want to make for the record in terms of how affordable housing works the money to build these projects is generally either state or federal and it comes with rental constraints if you violate the constraints the penalties are rather severe so the notion that well we'll just change the rents once we do this there's a maximum above which they cannot go that's what makes it affordable so that's how this works this is what will be built and it's a fantastic plan and that's why your staff has recommended approval on this but beyond that as far as the parking side that's that's been addressed well enough by others i'm sure i'll touch on thank you thank you Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is there citizen rebuttal? Who's going to rebuttal too? You want a rebuttal Amy? Just briefly. Okay. See how. Regarding the variants, I would repeat that you know that you have to find that it's needless the property. In addition, I would point out that the wholly redeveloped parking lot across the right-of-way, which is a legally non-conforming use, it removes mature trees, so does the other parking lot, which is an accessory to the church building. As a non-conforming use, it is proposing an increase of four spaces over the current design in its redevelopment. I don't believe that the Planning Commission is authorized to address the enlargement of a non-conforming use, or even just swapping a non-conforming use. And also the conditional use, the notice for the conditional use did not embrace the parking lot and the area that it would cover. Was it adjusted? Yes. Okay, thank you. and finally the dumpsters really nasty for the neighbor it's right here and this is the nearest neighbor right next to it thank you sir I've got a lot of things that I need to jump through but I will try to get through it in my bit of time I'll start with the historic elements of this the The H1 overlay does cover this property. A zone change can occur on a property that is within the H1 overlay. The H1 overlay is pertaining to the exterior appearance of a site. It has nothing to do with the use of said site. An applicant is able to seek a zone change for that property. In terms of going up or trying to change some of those aspects, the Historic Guidelines actually specifically states that an applicant should stay within 10% of the established roof lines in the area. This actually goes to the point in which the applicant is stepping down from the roof line associated with the church not to exceed it. The Board of Architectural Review often states that they don't want to see buildings go above the highest structure in that area especially if it is associated with an established building. Affordable housing should be available anywhere in our community, no matter the location or the economic value of that area or if there is an issue with parking. We need to have affordable housing throughout our community. There were several comments about the amount of parking. This site is already non-conforming. If the applicant were to just provide the parking for the church itself, they would need 76 parking spaces. If they are adding in the 26 for the affordable housing on this site, only 26 is required by the current ordinance. So what the applicant would be required to do is ask for more parking just by going through the conditional use process. If they were not to go through the conditional use process and not have the ability to expand or change the outline kind of structure of the place of religious assembly, they would be held to the 59 parking spaces as they are, which would require the site to have 85 parking spaces on site. There is not room for the additional parking. That is why the applicant is seeking this variance. They cannot build up, nor could they go onto a podium and provide a three-story structure on top of that because of the historic guidelines. In terms of the ownership of the parking, the use of the parking by other entities, this is a private property use. If the applicant were to say tomorrow that no one else could use this product or this parking in this area, they would be under their right to do so. It is wonderful that the applicant is willing to work with some of these entities. And it's wonderful that the church has been so open to allowing the parking to be utilized by different individuals. However, to hold an applicant to utilizing parking for someone else's use long term is somewhat problematic. And it is incumbent for them to deal with the leases on hand until they reach their end. And then they can formulate their parking strategies going forward. There was a comment about this being a nonconformity on this side. It's a nonconformity with the amount of parking, but the parking on this side of the road, on the westernmost on the plan, is actually associated with the conditional use for the childcare facility and the education that is occurring at the church. They do have a conditional use for that operation, and the board ruled that the parking across Kentucky Avenue was part of that. So it is part of this and the notification for the conditional use was incorporated with the zone change application. Everyone that received notification for the zone change also received notification for the conditional use. Everyone that received notification for the conditional use which exceeded the distance required for the zone change notification also received notification of the zone change. So we have expanded our notification in this area. I'm trying to go quick, sorry about that. Crime and parking, staff has not found any relevant connection between those two aspects. If there is crime in an area, that doesn't mean there's less or more parking. That is a outside kind of perspective. If you have any questions for staff, we'd be happy to go through. quick the new construction they have to go through the boar uh certificate of appropriateness review so they will have to agree with the historic guide thank you thank you all right okay you bring it back to the commission Any further questions, concerns, comments? I'll make some comments. Yes. Were you going to say something? I sat on the Board of Architectural Review for over eight years, and I can tell you that we rarely saw a project that came close to the quality of what we're looking at here. And I commend the team on putting this project together. I think Ms. Clark's ideas about podium development is very appealing, but the problem with that is they're extremely expensive, and that would obviate the idea of being affordable. and you know as Hal pointed out the challenge of making it acceptable to the Board of Architectural Review would be considerable. I think that we're looking at an excellent excellent project here The historic overlay would prevent any changes to the existing church. So there's no danger of it being demolished. The reason that other church was demolished is because it wasn't in the overlay zone. It wouldn't have been demolished had it been in the overlay zone. So I just don't see any holes in this. It would be nice if we could make everybody happy about the parking, but my hunch is that first of all, I don't think it's the responsibility of the church to provide public parking. Secondly, I think that it's very likely that the community will find that there are far more spaces available after this is done than they're anticipating, than their fears lead them to believe at this time. So that's my take. Thank you, Scott. What comment as someone that grew up a block from this and currently owns a business a block from this? I really appreciate the businesses in the Triangle as part of the neighborhood, and I certainly understand and relate to their need for parking for their customers and fears that the decline in parking could impact their business. I also see from a lifetime in this neighborhood a church that has always been nothing but welcoming to any and everyone from the neighborhood, but also has suffered as the neighborhood has fewer people who attend church, and they have a large historic building. And I can appreciate the creativity and the need and the potential for this to generate revenue in a major way to enable the congregation to continue to be an active group and member and citizen to the community that I'm a part of. And I overall appreciate the thought and creativity that this will help the congregation and the neighborhood. I would add to that that one of the biggest challenges in historic preservation is keeping properties viable. And a building like this is very expensive to maintain. And if you start letting it go down, it very quickly turns into something that you can't save. And so if you can find a way to make it work as the applicant has, you're very fortunate. And it's a rare example of a very innovative way of preserving a fabulous piece of architecture. I'd just like to echo that. I think there's always a dance and trying to find a balance after a hundred years of being what it is to stay relevant. It's extraordinary that they've got a situation here where they're serving the community in a broader base and the ability to really re-engage with their programs about. And I think they can be exemplary. And for me, that's it. I really, I compliment them and I'm excited for the future. The floor is open. We've got a vacuum on it. Okay. Floor is open for a motion. Grant. I gotta find my cheat sheet here. Grant. You move to approve PLNMAR 2214 Winterwood, Inc. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Polk. Any further discussion to that motion? Good. Go for it. Second by that. Sorry about that. All good. I'll wake you up. Yeah, wake me up. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes. It's on. So we need to take the variance next. Somehow page six. Page six, line item B. Is it? No, I think it's on page seven. It goes to seven? No. It's six, there. Six. Yes, six. Oh, there you go. Gotcha. So I move to approve the variance request as presented by staff. Second. Okay. Motion. Second by Mr. Bell. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. There's not a conditional use, which is still on page 6. Line item C. Down to the bottom. I move to approve the conditional use request. Okay. Second. All in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. And now the preliminary plan, which is page 7, item D. Move to approve PLNM JDP 2256, Woodland Christian Church, Inc. Okay, with the 16 conditions recommended by staff. No, it's actually the revised. Oh, sorry, you're right. 12 conditions. Sir, the applicant asked about the condition about the sign-off for the mail. If we can change that to denote on plan location instead of the sign-off, I think that would meet the need for the applicant and also allow them to get to a final development plan to deal with the USPS and the specific look. Okay. Mr. Bell, are you okay with that? Yes. Yes. Accommodating what Hal just said. Mr. Cole has agreed. And it will be resolved at the time of the final. Okay. Mr. Bell, second that motion. Okay, let's revoke. All in favor, please raise your hand. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. One more, Al. Yes, sir. We are now moving on to our ZODA, which is a continued item from our August 25th public hearing. As such, I will not be doing a full review of the ZODA, but be keeping to what has changed since that time. Just a quick update on why we are reviewing the intense statements within the zoning ordinance. There are legal and technical reasons for this, making sure that we have the most up-to-date information and not reflective of the comprehensive plans that were established in 1983. The practical reasons, making sure that we have updated this in a manner that is reflective of our current society and our current context. And then transparency, giving a better idea on how this fits between the comprehensive plan, place builder criteria, or the comprehensive plan and the development plan, and then reaching over into what you would see with any type of regulation. So, initially this was started in December 2020 and we brings us to today. We've had many meetings on this to the August 25th public hearing in which we continued it due to some concerns about the actual language within the text. Just going back to what is in the text, the intent of a zone is to do what? And what we're trying to do with the proposed text amendment. Prior to the meeting, or during the meeting, members of the community voiced concerns, concerns specifically with the bullet points of the intent section that they exceeded, or not associated with the regulations specifically discussed in the zone. There was a concern with the inclusion of intents in general, and then there was a concern with the outreach conducted with neighborhoods. With the revised text you see on the left over there, what STAT has done is removed some of the language that was of the most concern regarding elements that were not pertaining to the exact zones in the text, but maintaining the original intents statement that reference to the specific locations and the specific requirements of the zone. So as you can see we have eliminated those. This should be in your packet as well. While keeping some of this language on the top, we have had meetings with some of those that voiced concern and of the attorneys that came to that meeting they indicated that this was an acceptable change to the proposed text and not to do a hearsay or not so we can't say they were in support or not but they are not here. So staff is still recommending approval of the text for all the same reasons that you had seen previously, specifically that this provides greater consistency between the adopted documents, specifically the small area plans and the comprehensive plan. The proposed text modernizes the language of the zoning ordinance that connects to a non-MAP based comprehensive plan and getting into more of our policy based comprehensive plan. Provides greater transparency to the community as what the proposed zones can provide and act as a foundation for the future tax amendments. And then it does meet with the comprehensive plan's goals, objectives, and policies. Provides that accurate and modern ordinance. It proposes language that updates everything to reflect where we're going for the next 20 years, not the 1983 version of our zoning ordinance. And then the proposed language allows for the implementation of the comprehensive plan, and specifically some of the elements of the comprehensive plan. Do you have any questions? I'd be happy to answer. Yes, sir. Al, this basically follows the comp plan that we're working under now, the 18th comp plan. Yes, yes. So these changes are made in support of the 18 comp plan? Yes, sir, and reflective of even the 2013 comp plan. We really needed to modernize that around that time, but as you know, implementation items take quite a bit of time to get through. So as long as we're supporting that work? Yes. You mentioned earlier in the last proposal that something later today might have passed. Were you referring to this? Not to this. I was referring to something that is at council that is possibly receiving its second hearing today regarding different types of things. And I do have copies of all the language in here, but I don't think you need me to go through this at 5, close to 5.30. I'm encouraged there are no lawyers here. You mean planning lawyer? No, lawyers for the public. Lawyers. Well, I got the comment. Yes, sir. I think actually they signed off. Amy. There you go. That's what I'm talking about. That's exactly right. They did. Amy. Attorney Sue raised objections. I'll get a slideshow on it. That's three. I need a card. I'll give you three and a half minutes. I'll give you three and a half minutes. Okay, I'll try and talk as fast as I can. Yeah, we'll give you three and a half. New intents are a good idea. The 2013 plan sort of made the pump the old intents. They're critical in zone change decisions, you know that. You judge whether the zone is suitable for that property, that location, that land. They guide ZODA decisions. Regulations specific to the zone, allowing new uses, new intensity of use, density of use, altering the dimensional standards, how high the buildings are, how deep the yards are, and so on. I'm going to focus on the residential zone intents. I have some concerns about them, and two in particular. In general, the residential zone intents, they no longer make a distinction between R1A, B, C, and D. They're identical. The comp plan language that is here incorporated explicitly in the zoning intents, rather than being incorporated by reference as it was for the earlier Com Plan pre-2013, no longer offers clear measurable guide for intensity of use. And the KRS actually suggests FAR as a possible way of doing that, or range of dwelling units per acre, which is what we used to use. We didn't say it must be this many, but we said between this and that. and that. And maybe they needed adjusting. There are ways of doing that. But you don't have a specific metric, a clear measurable guide. The locational standard now employed in the intense is a start. They relate it to the class of road, the functional class of road. But we all know that a road of a certain functional class could be very different. It could be lined with single-family homes or in a different context it could be apartments or professional uses for example I'm very concerned about R2 and I'm going to go to the map of it and read from my thing which you can see here the new intent for the R2 zone no longer limits it to duplex use and the intent would be father to the opportunity to change the regulations so it's not limited to duplex use the R2 zone like R3 is to allow a mix of housing types but we have R3 for that and the special thing about R3 is its planned residential development it has a development plan it's governed differently it has far better more careful oversight by the planning commission and by the pertinent regulations in the development plan. In fact, R3 provides for medium density residential development. R2 is curious, the new title for it is mixed low density. If it's low density, I'm puzzled by the extraordinary amount of rhetoric talking about missing middle housing. It would seem to me that middle housing would be medium density housing. So it's hard to know what low density could mean. And this goes back to the larger concern that we don't have a metric for density. It doesn't say this much FAR and no more. It doesn't say from this many dwelling units to that many dwelling units per acre or anything like that. R2 is troubling because I believe there's little public awareness, especially among those who reside in R2, and they are probably in great part rental. At least half the building would be rental if it's a joint one. and many of both sides of the duplex are. And much of it is traditionally and still single family. Of course, like any other, there's no mail notice to impacted properties. So I invite you to consider where they are. You'll see that a lot of it is in our older central core of the city, some of it historic, and a lot of it is affordable. It's a terrible thing when you remove affordable housing that someone actually lives in and owns to build taller, actually less affordable housing, although within certain standards. The R2 Zota under development proposes a use and density of up to 12 townhouses attached, or a sixplex as a single family apartment building. Now, I don't need to tell you about a Zota that you're going to review later, But this intent pays the way for that. It would have the minimum lot dimensions of an R1T townhouse, 1,500 square feet tiny lots, and so forth. Again, I would urge that R3 is the better place for that intent and that kind of development. And that quantifiable density would be appropriate. In fact, I think KRS says that our zoning ordinance can talk about, or is authorized or even almost obligated, I would say, to talk about general types of use and the location suitable for them and the intensity or density of that use. That's my thinking. You have lawyers to do your thinking. Please, also, I have a concern about the R1, and that's this. already it has had for a number of years in the intent provision for two of the three things and now it adds I think compact housing housing design for zero lot line for compact housing there's a third one there essentially what you're doing was that patio homes okay these are all a great idea essentially what you're doing is taking single family residential development which only needs a building permit and you're designing the yards to group the houses to have houses on tiny little yards and group them to share the yards or do it differently. That belongs in plan design. It belongs with the development plan I believe. So I would ask that you not only not add the compact housing, but remove what's been there all along, but has never been actualized in ordinance regulations for the zero lot line houses and so on. Is that clear? That's to say it's in the intent, currently, that we have zero lot lines. But it's not in the regulations that you can have zero. yard width in any of the dimensions. So I think it's better that it not be in the R2. I think if R2 is low density, it should remain duplex. And the people who have it and the plot and developed and invested in it is duplex. And in fact, there's been quite a lot of recent duplex building in the R2. And what else is in the R2 was imposed on earlier zoning in one of the earlier comprehensive zoning. So my concerns especially with the R2, with the R1E, and also in general, we are lacking a measurable and enforceable and articulate, a standard by which one can judge whether the density is suitable for this zone or that zone. It says medium density, it says medium to low to medium, and then various zones. But what is that if it isn't? If they are worthwhile ingredients. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's been again, my God. And R1E is already the smallest lot size in the single-family residential zones. Sir, I will go very quickly. The intents for the R1B, R1C, R1D are not changing in any way. They are staying the same. The R2, there was a reference to missing middle that is not within the text that's in front of you. The conversation about the R2 zone will be had at a later time in which we can have greater involvement from the neighborhoods with a discussion of different types of low-density mixed housing types. At this point in time, within the R2 zone, you're allowed to have a single-family home or a duplex. Staff believes that is a mix of low-density housing options. Staff does support the inclusion of patio homes and the compact housing types, as well as the zero-lot line homes in the R1E. Two of the three are established within the intense section already. The third would be a potential option to allow for different housing types. Compact housing types are often described in different ways as tiny homes, things like that. We are looking at different options in the future to provide for greater types of housing to occur on some of our zoning. But that does require a text amendment. This still allows for the housing that is allowed for right now, today. It does not change that. It just provides a greater information to reflect modern housing types today. So that's all we have for right now. We just need to get that on the record. Thank you. I'll be bringing back to the commission here. Oof. Okay, floor is open. Whimspring. So, Hal, I have a question for you, if you don't mind. So is it staff's position that changing the intent language for the R2 zone to allow a mix of housing types doesn't bias the future discussions with regard to R2 changes? Staff sees that as a possibility to include other types of low density housing options. Currently, the comprehensive plan that describes that as compact housing types, duplexes, and then gets into a bit of discussion with townhomes. Currently, the R2 zone does not allow for townhomes to occur, even though it is considered a lesser intensity zone. So it would allow for future discussions of other low density housing options, yes. staff doesn't see it as a bias, it sees it more as representative of what is currently going on in that zone, which if you look at the R2 zone, a large portion of that is single-family detached, not duplexes, not two-family residences. So staff sees this as more reflective of what is occurring there and can lead to greater options in the future, like the inclusion of those housing types in the R1E or the R1T zones. Good, okay. All right, all right. Long answer to the short question. Any other comments, questions? Either. Right. I'm trying to figure out, overarching, I know what the 13 comp plan, 18, I know what we're trying to do. We're getting away from the map base all the way through. What I'm trying to find out is, are we headed down the road to where R1, R2, R3, all that is still relevant? No, not at all. This intense section does not push for any other work. These really focus in on that connection with the comprehensive plan. And then a better descriptor of what we're actually getting. When you are looking at the R3, R4, R5, what we're seeing with R3 is more medium-sized multifamily. R4, we're still seeing a medium-sized multifamily, and it includes more townhomes. So we have restructured this to have a conversation about the densities that can occur with the setbacks that are involved, with the FAR that is required, and with a lot of coverage that restricts what can be put on the property. So there's still distinct separations between them, with the R1A being the biggest lot, down to the R1E, which is usually the smallest lot. And then going into more options and housing type once you go to the R1T, R2, R3, R4. Yeah, I mean, that's an evolutionary process. I understand that. Yeah, but I don't see us merging them all together. Well, I'm not necessarily saying merging. I'm saying the antenna are changing because the uses are changing. and the housing stock is changing. So we're changing the intent to catch up with that? Yes, a bit. And I wouldn't say for the R1 zones. I would say really for the R2 and above. The R1 zones are remaining single-family detached and associated with a certain lifestyle. I'm just thinking about the trend that you use. I'm not trying to micromanage that. And with the traditional land use planner, when we look at our zoning, we look at it on that curve. We see the intensity of options. Thank you. I am way out of my depth here because I've not served on the zoning committee. That's new territory in me. The question Amy raises about as we go to multiple units in our two-line yard, if we went to the 12-counting houses, whether that means do you convert to planned, as opposed to not? Do you want to respond to that? So right now that is a whole other ZODA process. The next we will be talking about R2 will be in the future but that would be a conversation of is there a difference between two dwelling units being attached or more than two being attached. And from a land conservation perspective and from a comprehensive plan perspective that might be where we want to go. But that is a different and distinct process to talk about missing middle from what is described within the R2 intent right now. But there will be a conversation about it. Most definitely and this body will be a major part of that and members of the public will be able to discuss and work with staff at the Planning Commission to get to the best possible language. What's going to be interesting to see is is we evaluate how we've done when we finish up the 18-comp plan, if we've actually increased the density per acre. That is, I'm looking back there at a long-haired fella, and I know that they are keeping an eye on that. We have been looking at that with all of our development plans and the text amendments that you all have been passing since that 2018-compense plan. We were thinking about this in 13. are we making you know we're doing all this micro management but are we actually are we actually creating any more dense housing and and I would say you all just recommended approval of a zone change in an infill context that would allow for the development of 38 dwelling units where it currently would only be allowed to have two if they subdivided the church and go out of business. So when we're moving, you know, to this R2 zone, in that, as we're going to define, we're going to identify. We're going to identify. Yes, we actually have defined it in a way with the comprehensive land current, with our low-density residential development type. We've already defined it in a way. Now we need to look at, well, is it appropriate to incorporate new housing options or different housing types that are low density into the R2 zone? And I think that is an appropriate conversation for this next step. But what we are doing with the intent right now is just reflective of what we're getting. We're getting single family detached and new plexus. Both are, as we defined it in the comprehensive plan and as we have been talking about it for the past three years, four years, we lost one there. There has been a fair amount of focus on what is low debt. This is what we're getting right now in the R2 is low debt seatbelt. I'd like to comment, I'm sure, on behalf of everybody for all the hard work that y'all do and your guidance towards us. and in working with the community I am the lawyers and all of those matters and then you come back to us so thank you thank you for your service you guys do the hard work yes sir in soda 22 15. second motion second all in favor please vote motion passes unanimously thank you commission items um tracy do we need you on that or we we need a vote on the adoption of the 20 23 minutes. A motion for the adoption. What about schedule? Meeting minutes, sorry, 2023 meeting and filing schedule. Yeah. So we need a motion to accept. So moved. Second. I got a motion and a second. All in favor, please vote. Motion passes. And then Mr. Duncan asked me just to do the typical reminder for you all. Next week we're back in the subdivision committee in the morning. I'm not going to be here next week. I won't be either. Larry? Neither one of us are going to be here next week for the zoning committee. You don't care. No, because the way Bruce is coming. Are we adjourned? Yes, we are adjourned.