# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - November 17, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 17, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5691 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5691?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-11-17 - **Last revised**: November 17, 2022 - **Length**: 23,372 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 convened on November 17, 2022, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed seven agenda items during the session, taking a total of 10 votes on various development plans and zoning amendments. The meeting included two public comments from community members regarding the items under consideration. The commission approved six of the seven items presented, including three development plans for residential projects: Newtown Springs Lot 8, Sand Lake and Estes Properties Lot 5, and the Cowgill Partners LP Property (Meadowcrest) development. Additionally, the commission approved the Elmwood OZ Fund LLC Zoning Map Amendment and two significant text amendments to the zoning ordinance - one consolidating open space regulations across multiple articles and another addressing zoning enforcement procedures. The only item that did not receive approval was the Amendment to Article 8-16 regarding the re-categorization of community center, day shelter, and adult day care uses, which was denied by the commission. The meeting demonstrated active engagement with both development proposals and regulatory updates, reflecting the commission's ongoing work to balance development needs with community planning objectives in Lexington-Fayette County. ## Attendance The following members were present at the November 17, 2022 meeting: • Larry Forester • Frank Penn • Judy Worth • Robin Michler • Bruce Nicol • Graham Pohl • Ivy Barksdale • Jan Meyer • Anthony de Movellan • Headley Bell **Absent:** • Zach Davis No members arrived late to the meeting. Ten members were in attendance with one absence recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on ten items during the November 17, 2022 meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **Minutes Approval** Janice Meyer motioned to approve the minutes from the October 27, 2022 public hearing, seconded by Judy Worth. The motion passed unanimously with 9 ayes and 0 nays. **Postponements** Three items were postponed by unanimous votes: - **PLN-MAR-22-00015**: Frank Penn motioned to postpone the Dutch Bros, LLC zone map amendment until December 15, 2022, seconded by Anthony de Movellan (9 ayes, 0 nays) - **PLN-MAR-22-00016**: Judy Worth motioned to postpone the Realty Unlimited Blue Grass, LLC zone map amendment until January 26, 2023, seconded by Anthony de Movellan (10 ayes, 0 nays) - **PLN-MJDP-22-00058**: Headley Bell motioned to postpone the Crestwood Montessori School development plan until December 8, 2022, seconded by Anthony de Movellan (10 ayes, 0 nays) **Approvals** Anthony de Movellan motioned to approve consent agenda items PLN-MJDP-22-00051 and PLN-MJDP-22-00052, seconded by Headley Bell. The motion passed unanimously (10 ayes, 0 nays). **PLN-MJDP-22-00055**: Frank Penn motioned to approve the Cowgill Partners, LP Property (Meadowcrest) development plan subject to 23 revised staff conditions, seconded by Judy Worth. The motion passed by roll call vote with 9 ayes, 0 nays, and 1 abstention. Voting in favor: Larry Forester, Frank Penn, Judy Worth, Bruce Nicol, Graham Pohl, Ivy Barksdale, Jan Meyer, Anthony de Movellan, and Headley Bell. **PLN-MAR-22-00018**: Graham Pohl motioned to approve the Elmwood OZ Fund LLC zone map amendment including applicant's recommended conditions, seconded by Headley Bell. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote (10 ayes, 0 nays). **Zoning Text Amendments** - **PLN-ZOTA-22-00016**: Graham Pohl motioned to disapprove amendments re-categorizing community center, day shelter, and adult day care uses, seconded by Bruce Nicol. The motion to disapprove passed unanimously (10 ayes, 0 nays) - **PLN-ZOTA-22-00017**: Robin Michler motioned to approve amendments updating open space regulations, seconded by Judy Worth. Passed unanimously (10 ayes, 0 nays) - **PLN-ZOTA-22-0018**: Bruce Nicol motioned to approve zoning enforcement amendments, seconded by Frank Penn. Passed unanimously (10 ayes, 0 nays) ## Public Comment Two community members addressed the board during the public comment period. **Walt Gaffield** [timestamp: 00:00] spoke in support of the Open Space ZOTA (Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment). Gaffield praised staff for their communication efforts and work on the proposal. He expressed his support for the Open Space ZOTA and suggested that the board consider conducting a future review to assess the impact of the ZOTA after implementation. **Kim** [timestamp: 00:00] addressed the board regarding social services support. Speaking on behalf of community members in need, Kim highlighted the increasing demand for social services due to current economic challenges. She emphasized the importance of maintaining accessible social services for residents facing financial difficulties and advocated for continued support of these programs. Both speakers focused on different aspects of community needs - one addressing land use planning through the Open Space ZOTA and the other emphasizing social service accessibility during challenging economic times. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary contested item that generated significant community opposition. **Re-categorizing Community Center, Day Shelter, and Adult Day Care Uses** The main point of contention involved a proposal to re-categorize certain community service uses from principal permitted uses to conditional uses. This change would affect community centers, day shelters, and adult day care facilities, requiring them to go through additional approval processes. Community members and advocates expressed strong opposition to this proposal, raising concerns that the re-categorization would create unnecessary barriers to essential services for vulnerable populations. The opposition argued that requiring conditional use permits for these facilities could delay or prevent the establishment of critical community services, particularly those serving homeless individuals, seniors, and other at-risk groups who rely on day shelters and adult day care facilities. The nature of the opposition centered on the potential impact on service accessibility and the additional regulatory burden that would be placed on organizations trying to provide community services. Critics worried that the conditional use process could introduce subjective decision-making that might discriminate against facilities serving marginalized populations. The outcome of this contested item was not specified in the available meeting data, though the significant community opposition suggests this proposal faced substantial resistance from residents and service providers who viewed the re-categorization as potentially harmful to vulnerable community members' access to necessary services. ## Newtown Springs, Lot 8 Development Plan [timestamp: 00:00] The board reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-22-00051 for Newtown Springs, Lot 8. Traci Wade served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The development plan outlines the proposed buildings and parking layouts for Lot 8 within the Newtown Springs development. The plan had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which recommended approval of the proposal with specific conditions attached. During the discussion, the board considered the technical aspects of the building placement and parking configuration as presented in the development plan. The layout and design elements were evaluated for compliance with applicable development standards and regulations. The Subdivision Committee's prior review and conditional approval recommendation provided the foundation for the board's consideration. The conditions recommended by the committee were part of the overall evaluation process for this development plan. Following the presentation and discussion, the board approved the Newtown Springs, Lot 8 Development Plan. The approval allows the development to proceed in accordance with the submitted plans and any conditions that were established through the review process. This approval represents a step forward in the ongoing development of the Newtown Springs project, specifically addressing the infrastructure and building arrangements for Lot 8 within the broader development framework. ## Sand Lake and Estes Properties, Lot 5 Development Plan [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-22-00052 for Sand Lake and Estes Properties, Lot 5. The plan outlines the building and parking layout for a proposed vehicle rental establishment on the property. Traci Wade served as the key speaker presenting details of the development proposal. The plan includes specific arrangements for building placement and parking configurations designed to accommodate the vehicle rental business operations. Prior to the planning commission meeting, the Subdivision Committee had already reviewed the proposal and provided their recommendation. The committee endorsed approval of the development plan, though their recommendation included certain conditions that would need to be met as part of the approval process. The planning commission ultimately approved the Sand Lake and Estes Properties, Lot 5 Development Plan. The approval allows the vehicle rental establishment to proceed with development according to the submitted building and parking layout, subject to any conditions specified by the Subdivision Committee's earlier review. The development plan represents a commercial use for the property, with the vehicle rental business requiring specific infrastructure considerations for both building placement and adequate parking to support rental vehicle storage and customer access. ## Cowgill Partners, LP Property (Meadowcrest) Development Plan [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed development plan PLN-MJDP-22-00055 for the Cowgill Partners, LP Property, also known as Meadowcrest. The plan outlines the proposed development of the property. Traci Wade served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The development plan had previously been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee, which initially recommended postponement due to compliance questions that needed to be addressed. However, following the committee's review, staff conducted additional analysis and ultimately recommended approval of the development plan, contingent upon specific conditions being met. The nature of the original compliance concerns and the specific conditions attached to staff's approval recommendation were part of the discussion. The commission ultimately approved the Cowgill Partners, LP Property (Meadowcrest) Development Plan, moving the project forward in the development process. This approval allows the development to proceed according to the submitted plan, subject to the conditions established by staff during their review process. ## Elmwood OZ Fund LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission reviewed petition PLN-MAR-22-00018, a zoning map amendment request submitted by Elmwood OZ Fund LLC. The petition sought to rezone property from High Density Apartment (R-4) to Professional Office (P-1) zoning classification. Hal Baillie served as a key speaker during the discussion of this agenda item. The petition included not only the zone change request but also a variance application to reduce the required parking standards for the proposed professional office use. The zoning change would allow the property to transition from residential apartment use to professional office development. The accompanying parking variance indicates that the applicant sought relief from standard parking requirements, which typically accompany such zoning transitions when existing infrastructure or site constraints make full compliance challenging. The planning commission ultimately approved the petition, allowing the zone map amendment to proceed from R-4 to P-1 zoning. This approval enables Elmwood OZ Fund LLC to move forward with professional office development on the property under the new zoning classification and with the reduced parking requirements as granted through the variance. The approval represents a shift from high-density residential use to commercial professional office use for this particular property, reflecting changing development patterns and land use needs in the area. ## Amendment to Article 8-16 Re-categorizing Community Center, Day Shelter, and Adu [timestamp: 00:00] The planning commission considered petition PLN-ZOTA-22-00016, which proposed amending Article 8-16 to re-categorize community centers, day shelters, and adult day care facilities from principal uses to conditional uses in certain zoning districts. Hal Baillie served as a key speaker during the discussion of this zoning text amendment. The petition sought to change the regulatory framework for these community service facilities by requiring them to go through the conditional use permit process rather than being permitted as principal uses. Staff recommended disapproval of the proposed amendment, citing concerns that the re-categorization could create potential barriers to essential community services. The staff analysis indicated that requiring conditional use permits for these facilities might make it more difficult to establish community centers, day shelters, and adult day care services when they are needed. The planning commission ultimately denied the petition, following the staff recommendation. The denial suggests the commission agreed with staff concerns that the proposed changes could impede the development of important community services and facilities that serve vulnerable populations, particularly regarding day shelters and adult day care facilities. This decision maintains the current zoning framework that allows these community service uses to be established more readily as principal uses rather than requiring the additional review and approval process associated with conditional use permits. ## Amendments to Articles 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23 & 28 Updating and Consolidating Open Space Regulations [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting addressed petition PLN-ZOTA-22-00017, which proposed amendments to multiple articles of the zoning ordinance to consolidate open space regulations into Article 20. The initiative aimed to improve the quality and accessibility of open spaces throughout the jurisdiction. Valerie Friedman served as a key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposed consolidation of open space regulations. The petition sought to streamline existing open space requirements that were previously scattered across Articles 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23, and 28 of the zoning ordinance. The consolidation effort was designed to create a more coherent and accessible framework for open space regulations, making it easier for developers, planners, and the public to understand and comply with open space requirements. By centralizing these provisions in Article 20, the amendments would eliminate redundancy and potential conflicts between different sections of the ordinance. The petition was approved, indicating that the governing body found merit in the proposed consolidation approach. The approval suggests that officials recognized the benefits of having a unified set of open space regulations rather than having requirements dispersed throughout multiple articles of the zoning code. This regulatory consolidation represents an effort to modernize and improve the usability of the zoning ordinance while maintaining the community's commitment to preserving and enhancing open space resources. The approved amendments will likely make it easier for stakeholders to navigate open space requirements and could lead to better implementation of open space policies in future development projects. ## Amendments to Articles 5 & 7 Regarding Zoning Enforcement [timestamp: 00:00] The council considered petition PLN-ZOTA-22-0018, which proposed amendments to Articles 5 and 7 of the zoning ordinance regarding enforcement responsibilities. The ordinance would transfer certain zoning enforcement tasks from the Planning Department to the Building Inspection Department. Valerie Friedman served as the key speaker presenting the proposed amendments. The petition outlined a reorganization of zoning enforcement duties between the two departments, though specific details of which responsibilities would be transferred were not elaborated in the available materials. The proposed changes represent an administrative restructuring aimed at improving the efficiency of zoning enforcement operations within the city's government structure. By reallocating certain enforcement functions from Planning to Building Inspection, the amendments would clarify departmental roles and potentially streamline the enforcement process. The council approved the ordinance without recorded opposition or significant debate based on the available information. The approval of PLN-ZOTA-22-0018 will result in the formal amendment of Articles 5 and 7 of the zoning code to reflect the new enforcement responsibility structure between the Planning and Building Inspection departments. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of the minutes of the October 27, 2022 public hearing - **PLN-MAR-22-00015** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of Dutch Bros, LLC zone map amendment - **PLN-MAR-22-00016** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Realty Unlimited Blue Grass, LLC zone map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-22-00058** — postponed (10-0): Postponement of Crestwood Montessori School development plan - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of consent agenda items PLN-MJDP-22-00051 and PLN-MJDP-22-00052 - **PLN-MJDP-22-00055** — passed (9-0): Approval of Cowgill Partners, LP Property (Meadowcrest) development plan - **PLN-MAR-22-00018** — passed (10-0): Approval of Elmwood OZ Fund LLC zone map amendment - **PLN-ZOTA-22-00016** — failed (10-0): Disapproval of amendment to Article 8-16 re-categorizing community center, day shelter, and adult day care uses - **PLN-ZOTA-22-00017** — passed (10-0): Approval of amendments to Articles 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, 23 & 28 updating and consolidating open space regulations - **PLN-ZOTA-22-0018** — passed (10-0): Approval of amendments to Articles 5 & 7 regarding zoning enforcement --- ## Full transcript Favorite song Oh, enough is enough I won't take anymore I'm picking myself up off the floor Cause you can't keep a good man down Can't keep a good man down Oh, no Can't keep a good man down Baby Can't keep a good man down Gonna dress up in the finest Close that I own Take you to the streets I won't be lonely for long Gonna put all my best moves On every single woman I see Now you thought you could break me Add me to your lips Notch me on your gun Let me tell you this I got news for you baby I don't break that easily Cause you can't keep the good man I'll be out there on the scene, hanging with my friends. This world's gonna see me smiling again. I'm taking some time to erase you from my memory Don't write me any letters Don't call me on the phone Don't knock on my door Cause to you I'm not at home I know there's a woman out there for a man like me Cause you can't keep a good man down Can't keep a good man down Oh, no, can't keep a good man down. Baby, can't keep a good man down. Oh, enough is enough, I can't take anymore. I'm picking myself up off the floor. But you can't keep a good man down. Baby, can't keep a good man down. Honey, can't keep a good man down. Sugar, can't keep a good man down. Hold on Thank you. Steal it up Little darling Steal it up Come on baby Come on Steal it up Little darling Steal it up It's getting along Steal it together Since I've got you on my mind Now you are here to cry It's okay to see what you think you do Just me and you wanna stand up I will say, little darling Steal it up Come on baby Come on and steer it up Yeah Little darling Steal it up Oh It's time to steer it together And I bless you by you And I satisfy you Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Thank you. Now 1.30, welcome. It's November 17, 2022. First on the agenda is item number two. The chair is opening for a motion for the approval of October 27, 2022 minutes. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the October 27th minutes. Thank you, we have a motion, do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion? Okay, all in favor, please vote via Granicus. Yep, there we go. Okay, motion passes. Okay, staff, postponements and withdrawals. Hi, good afternoon. I'm Adam Bender with CMW. This item is on page four of your agenda, item number one, Dutch Bros, LLC. We would like to request a one-month postponement to the December 15th hearing. There's some items we're working through with the owner. Okay, so we have a motion for a one-month postponement. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none, Mr. Penn, the floor is open. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement. I need a date. December 15th. December. December what? 15th. Yep, December 15th. Postponement to the December 15th meeting for PLNMAR 2215. Second. Okay, we got a second by Mr. DeMovlin. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. Chair, also another zone change postponement on page 5, item 2. It continues on to page 6, but it is PLNMAR22-00016, Realty Unlimited Bluegrass, LLC. The applicant would like to request a two-month postponement to the January 26th public hearing. Okay. So there's a request for a two-month postponement. Any questions from the commission? Seeing none, now the floor is open for a motion. Ms. Worth. Mr. Chair, I move for a two-month postponement of PLNMR 2216, postponed until January 26th. We have a motion and a seconded by Mr. DeMovilland. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chair, because we did not have a quorum last week for the Planning Commission's subdivision item agenda, the staff rolled four items to today's agenda. One of those is an item that we understand from the applicant they want to postpone until December. And that appears on page 3, item D, under development plans, Crestwood Montessori School. That's MJDP 22-58. Again, Crestwood Montessori School, the Redwood Co-op School expansion. They also have a conditional use that's in process. So they would like to have a one, I guess it's less than a month postponement now, to December the 8th. December the 8th? Right. Okay. Yes. So we have a request for a postponement until December the 8th for Crestwood Montessori School. Okay, thank you. Yes, I need a motion. Mr. Bell? Move for a postponement until December 8th, PLNM, MJDP 2258, Crestwood Montessori School. Thank you. We have a seconded by Mr. DeMovillin. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, is that it? Mr. Bailey, you're fine? All right, good. Moving right along. And consent agenda? Yes, sir. We do have a consent agenda today. And like I mentioned, we had four development plans that were rolled to today's agenda because of the cancellation last week. Two of those do appear on your consent agenda and can be approved together. Unless there's someone in the audience that wishes to have either of these items heard. The first item is on page 2, item 1A of your agenda. PLN MJDP 22-51 for Newtown Springs, lot 8. This is for property located at 1432 Newtown Pass. Is there anyone present that wishes to have this item heard today? I see none. The second item appears on page 2. It's item 1B, PLN MJDP 22-52 for Sand Lake and Estes Properties, Lot 5. And that's an amended final development plan for property located at 121 Sand Lake Drive. Is there anyone present that would like that item heard today? Okay, seeing none, unless the commission would like to see these, you can approve with one motion. Okay, thank you. Okay, so the floor is open for a motion for the approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented by staff. Okay, thank you. Got a second by Mr. Bell. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. So now, let's put us on page 2, PLNMJDP 22-55, Calgill Properties. And we also have revised staff recommendations here as well in the blue sheet. Good afternoon, Chairman Forrester, members of the commission. Mr. Martin went and got married on Friday, so we let him take the rest of the earlier this part of the week off. So because of that, he got out of reviewing this final development plan. So you have the pleasure of hearing Ms. Wade present. That's the first time I've seen him blush before. Uh-huh. Isn't that nice? Okay. So again, this appears on page two of our agenda, and it's a final development plan for the Calgill Partners LP property, also known as Meadowcrest. The subject property is located at the intersection of I-6475 and Winchester Road. So we have the interstate on the left-hand side of the development plan, and then Winchester Road along the north side of the plan. And then this property is also bound by Polo Club Boulevard. which is one of our collector boulevards within the expansion area. And you can see from the development plan color-up that the applicant has prepared for us. There is a large tract, tract 17 or lot 17, that shows no development plan because or no particular development at this time. They are proposing both a preliminary subdivision plan, so the subdividing of the lots and the construction of infrastructure, as well as a final development plan for the 16 lots that border this larger 17th lot. Lot 17 has been under negotiation with UK for a health care facility. And so because it is the university and they are exempt from zoning, we wouldn't anticipate having a final development plan for that lot, but rather potentially a public facility review. So at this time, the applicant is showing or depicting development of the 16 lots surrounding with frontage on Winchester Road as well as Polo Club Boulevard. Previous to today, the staff had recommended postponement. The applicant has resubmitted the development plan twice since we last reviewed it with the subdivision committee. And based upon that resubmittle, the staff can offer a recommendation of approval at this time. But there are still some conditions that I want to review with you related to the development plan. As the applicant has mentioned to us several times, the main purpose of this plan, while it does show development for office use as well as supportive uses, the main purpose is to construct the infrastructure associated with these 16 lots as well as that 17th lot for the University of Kentucky. Knowing that, we still have to make sure it meets the zoning ordinance as well as review it for compliance with the expansion area master plan. So one of the conditions of approval beyond the normal sign offs is that the planning commission agrees that the plan does comply with the expansion area master plan. And we have a short report about that. In addition, one concern that had been brought up during review was access for lot one. And lot one is at the southern corner, southeast corner of their site and depicts an office building, but also a direct access to Polo Club Boulevard. While the spacing of that does meet an approved final development plan for Polo Club, there's been discussion about another access point just to the south that would connect over to Sir Barton. And really, we can't have both of those access points in such close proximity. so at this time the staff wants the applicant and then the planning commission to know that that would be a temporary access until construction is completed on the site and would be closed at the time construction on lot one is complete so that would allow construction on the rest of the site as well but that last piece it would be closed when that lot developed And that would allow for future access both along Commerce Drive, internal to the site, as well as any future access through the property to the south. In addition, there was a previous preliminary subdivision plan that the Planning Commission heard, which related directly to access to Winchester Road and an intersection improvement that was desired at that point. The Planning Commission did approve a waiver which would allow for the construction of a signalized intersection with Commerce Drive, which is the main connector road between the Baptist Health site and Winchester. But as part of that, it also includes a realignment of Hume Road. The realignment of Hume Road was previously on the development plan and had been removed. At this point, the staff believes that it should be denoted on this plan in order for the applicant to receive a permit to build it. Really, it's going to need engineering's approval of land disturbance, as well as potentially the county fiscal court's approval of the realignment of a county road. and we really need to resolve how that is designed and ensure everyone is satisfied with it and also the timing of the construction of that and how it might be tied to the rest of their site. And we think that can occur with development plan notes. Item 15 is just to resolve a traffic circle location. The Division of Traffic Engineering is concerned about the location of this northernmost traffic circle and want to make sure that it functions correctly with Winchester, the Winchester Road intersection. We want to also correct some information on the plan related to site statistics, the square footage of building on lot two, open space calculations, and then to update some notes and denote a few other things related to the adopted ordinance. So the zoning ordinance for the ED zone requires timing of construction of supportive uses. We want to ensure that that is noted on this plan. They can only construct 20% of the supportive uses, which are shown primarily on these lots on the north end of the property, that those be restricted until such time as the principal permitted uses. either these offices or UK in terms of a medical facility are constructed. We also need the applicant to denote exactions that are required for the site. At this point, although there's been conversations among the administration about potentially modifying the exaction program, those have not been adopted, and so exactions need to be denoted on this plan for payment. And then the last few things have to do with coordinating. If there is to be a tunnel road, making sure that that can be coordinated both on Lot 17 as well as to the south, and denoting that no building permits should be permitted or allowed for Lot 17 until there's a final development plan, which we don't think is likely unless UK walks away, or a public facility review. And that gives the Planning Commission then the opportunity to see what UK is planning for the site as well and make sure that the rest of our planning coordinates with that site development. And then the last thing is just to denote development standards. They're actually required per the ordinance to identify setbacks. The ED zone with any of our expansion area zones doesn't have a minimum setback. It has to be established by the developer, but it does need to be denoted on the site on the development plan. so those things need to be just addressed on this particular development plan these are things that a lot of times don't come up until that final review because it's the first time it has a final development plan for the site so again the staff is recommending approval i'll just note a few other things the full intersection to the north the applicant also has depicted the agreed upon spacing for another full intersection on polo club with a signal 800 feet from that intersection another intersection for access which would allow right in right out left in left out on polo club at the 500 foot point and then again this access to be removed at the time the site is constructed The staff also prepared a EAMP compliance report, and with it we've attached what the applicant submitted in terms of their assessment of whether they agree with the expansionary master plan. And in total, the site primarily does comply with the expansionary master plan. It meets the land use recommendation in terms of ED use and supportive use for that. the only thing that really is out of line with the expansionary master plan is that intersection the planning commission approved. And so the staff can't recommend to you that it is in complete agreement because this intersection was really not contemplated by the EAMP. But there are two items that the staff believes need some correction. and one of them I mentioned already was to support the infrastructure and connectivity within the site. We want to ensure that traffic circle operates correctly, and then also that this intersection is terminated correctly. It appears like it might want to continue if you zoom in, but it needs to have either an elbow or an appropriate kind of L intersection there. So those are just two corrections that need to be included with their plan. Happy to answer any questions about this development plan. And I know the applicant is here as well. They did submit an affidavit related to their signposting in the expansion area where they have to post a sign related to the development plan action for the commission, too. Any questions for staff? Yes, Robin. Yeah, I have a couple questions. Okay. One would be, I guess, a similar question on three different points in the plan. But there's creating some pretty wide roadways with pretty long crosswalks. Mm-hmm. Both at Polo Club Boulevard and at Winchester Road, those are five-lane crossings. And then at that roundabout, for example, on Commerce and Paramount, is someone supposed to walk three ways around that road because they've got a right-only lane and three lanes around a roundabout? I mean, I know we have roundabouts like on alumni that are single-lane roundabouts, that handle high volumes of traffic very well, and then roundabouts on, like, Reynolds Road that are two-lane roundabouts that don't necessarily handle more traffic but have more conflict points because of the additional lanes. Looking at this, I guess, considering there's two major arteries that are carrying a lot of traffic, Winchester, and polo club that people would be getting to pretty quick. What is the necessity to blow up, especially that roundabout, to a five-lane roundabout? I'm thinking traffic engineering would probably be the best to answer that question or the applicant's engineer. I believe they want to accommodate right out as well as to left out back towards the interstate. And then the end movements would be across, Hume across, and then a right end movement. That would be why they would have five lanes. And at a major intersection with Winchester Road, I think that's fairly common. Nobody else is jumping up here. Are they anticipating a pedestrian that's going from the one office building on the sort of one side of Commerce Avenue to the other side of Commerce Avenue to walk three quarters of the way around a roundabout? Yes, I think roundabouts reduce conflict points mostly for vehicles. Well, they don't show any crossing on one side of it where they've blown it up to five lanes. Right, so you would have to cross and go around as a pedestrian. Do we think that a pedestrian would do that? Well, I don't. I think it would depend on the existing traffic at the moment, whether they would choose to make those decisions. But sure, Darby, you can rescue me anytime. Thank you, Mr. Bickler and members of the commission. I'm Darby Turner, representing the applicant. And obviously those roadways are designed to handle a significant amount of traffic because of what's going in, anticipated to go in on Lot 17 with a major medical facility. So the challenge is to provide adequate pedestrian movements safely as well as handle a significant amount of traffic. This road system is the access system to that facility. So it's a balance, as best I can say. Does that answer your question or not? Well, I mean, I understand that this is a vehicular area of town. I do suspect that if that comes to fruition, that that medical complex will have a large number of employees, as well as perhaps patients that would walk to get something from lunch, from one of the restaurants that are red on either side, and that having good pedestrian connectivity from the medical center to those restaurants that are in those outlots would be important. The maze of pedestrian connections there seem unlikely realistic trajectories for people walking from the medical center to those restaurants. Well, it's anticipated that there will be a significant amount of pedestrian and multimodal between the sites. So, again, it's a balance trying to make that access safe and readily available and also to move a significant amount of vehicular traffic in that area. And this is a preliminary plan, is that correct? Or no, this is the final plan? Because we need a final plan in order to construct the infrastructure. And we need to construct the infrastructure so that we can comply with our contractual obligations to the University of Kentucky. So they can get to their site. Mr. Penn. along that line Ms. Wade I understand what we're doing about the road system because that is but the rest of that is pretty much a placeholder until we see them as it develops out so really all we can focus on is the land and the roads because the rest of what you see there today is kind of a placeholder based on the needs of that's what we were told at the subdivision committee so we really don't know a final development plan. We don't know what's going to go in those outlaws. Well, at this point, they are very preliminary in terms of use and specific size, but the uses that they're depicting comply with the ordinance and the EAMP, and if someone were to come and approach them and say, hey, we really like the hotel at the corner there. we want to build it, they would be able to move forward based on this development plan. I understand that. My point is we're really just talking about the roads and the traffic system here rather than the uses of the laws. Yes, I think that's accurate. I think it is. I didn't mention that because I know Tracy doesn't like the word placeholders. Well, I don't know any other word to use, Darby. I don't mean it. If you can supply me another word, I'll be glad to use it. But yes, the infrastructure is what is critical to the applicant at this point. So ensuring that the roads are adequate to meet the needs of the ED uses they're proposing, as well as any of the through traffic that might be coming through. And that's roadways, but also storm water, sanitary sewer, the open spaces. Any further questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have worked very hard with the staff to get to this point, and we'll obviously have some more work to do, which we think we can accomplish, as we're well on that way. But we're in complete agreement with the staff's recommendation on both the compliance report and the staff recommendation on the plan. If I can answer any questions, I'd be glad to. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Not seeing any. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. If not, we will bring it back to the commission for a motion. You want two motions? And we would need two motions because one will be for the EAMP compliance report. Yes, Mr. Penn. Oh, Ms. Worth, gotcha. That's right, Mr. Penn, go right ahead. Okay. Let me do it. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval for PLN-MJDP 2255 with revised report of 17 conditions as presented by staff. 23 conditions. I didn't look on the back. You're right. 23. Okay. So we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Do you want us to? Okay. Okay. Motion passes with one abstained from Mr. Mickler. Okay. Mr. Penn. I move for acceptance of the compliance report of PLN MJDP 2255 as presented by Stale. We have a motion seconded by Ms. Boxtale. Please vote via Granicus, please. Okay. The motion passes and I want an abstention from Mr. Mickler. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. So House, page 7, are we PLNMAR 22-18? Yes, sir. All right. We are moving on to our loan zone change for today's meeting. This is PLNMAR 22-18, Elmwood Oz Fund, LLC. This zone change is for the property located at 203 East 4th Street. The applicant is seeking to rezone the property from a high-density apartment R4 zone to a professional office P1 zone for .768 net and 1.27 gross acres. The applicant is seeking to reuse the current structure on site and associated parking for an office use, specifically an architecture firm's office. The applicant is seeking to retain the structure in its current form with some updates and is also seeking a variance request for this property, seeking to vary the maximum amount of parking from 34 spaces to 20 spaces within the infill and redevelopment area. As you know, there has been a change in the zoning ordinance. This was applied for prior to the establishment of the new regulations governing the parking in our community. So just looking at the location of the property, we are located along Man of War Boulevard and East 4th Street. We have North Lyme just running right here, upper, jumping into the property itself. You can see that there is just a host of residential, high-density residential zoning in this area. a blend of R3 or planned neighborhood residential and R4, which is that high density apartment zone. Jumping to the specific location and the aerial. Can we get the voting moved forward so we can pull up the plan? How about now? Sorry, Hal. Didn't mean to... You guys are looking at different things than I am. All right. So this is the aerial photography for the area. You can see while the zoning is residential in character, there are a host of different land uses at this site. Across the way is the Living Arts and Sciences Center. We do have a school located in this location. and then a host of business uses on the corners nearby the subject property. The subject property, jumping into the specific photos, you can see is an older style structure. It was originally constructed in 1856 and then had a major rehaul in 1908. The change made in 1908 is what you see nowadays. here we see a photo looking down towards downtown on east 4th and then heading out of downtown towards duncan park on north martin luther king here along the north martin luther king adjacent from the property we can see other multi-family housing single family housing multi-family housing in a single family house at that location. Jumping to East 4th Street right here, that's looking towards Elm Tree, the Living Arts and Sciences Center direct on, and then on the side of the structure itself. And then here we're looking just down Martin Luther along the Living Arts and Sciences Building. With all zone changes, we are looking at the place type and development type to make our recommendations. The applicant is seeking to put this in a second tier urban place type. This is a place type that is close to the downtown area in which we are trying to create a blend of uses, both commercial as well as single family and a little bit of multifamily, scaling up as we go downtown or scaling down as we leave downtown. town. The applicant is seeking to apply this under the medium density non-residential or mixed use development type. This is primarily for multi-storied structures that allow for a mix of different uses. It is a recommended development type within the place type and staff is in agreement with the applicant's justification for the medium density non-residential or mixed use development type for this site. The applicant is not choosing a recommended zone. This is not a problem with a zone change. They just need to go through why they have chosen a separate zone. In this case, the applicant worked with the neighborhood to come up with an agreeable development type or zone that would allow them to produce offices and have a little bit more business into the neighborhood. Staff reviewed their justification for the P1 and is in agreement that the P1 can be appropriate at this site. The applicant has submitted a host of conditional zoning restrictions that they negotiated with the Neighborhood Association while reviewing this development. Within their letter of justification, they made two different arguments. The first were for banking institutions and drive-through facilities. They noted that this could have an increase of vehicular traffic through the site, which would negatively affect the established pedestrian facilities, as well as the legacy trail, which runs across the front of this property along 4th Street. Staff was in agreement with that justification for those two uses. The applicant also made a justification for the next six uses that there was not adequate parking. Staff in review of this justification found that they are actually requesting a parking reduction with this application and therefore did not find that these uses were of an issue at this location because many of them are substantially similar to the office use that they are proposing. just jumping back to the aerial of the the site staff did review their development plan with the development criteria and with the keeping of the structure the maintenance of the trees through the parking reduction as well as the continued flow of the site they are meeting the development criteria for the second tier urban place type and the medium density non-residential or mixed use development type. So staff is recommending approval of this zone change. The applicant is seeking to do an infill project that increases the intensity of land use at the site while also maintaining a historic structure that has been on this area for quite a bit of time. The proposed project reduces some of the parking and maintains the trees that would be on site. This is particularly important with the increase in heat island effect within our community as well as the maintenance of stormwater within our community. And then this does allow for that intensity of land use that can be supportive of the community by providing jobs within a neighborhood that is more walkable and bikeable. The applicant is meeting the development criteria for building form, site design and location, as well as the transportation and pedestrian connectivity, largely because of the established facilities that are in this location. And then also the green space and environmental health. If you have any, oh, jump into the conditional zoning restrictions. These are the two conditional zoning restrictions that staff was in agreement with due to the impact that the proposed increase in vehicular traffic could have on the established pedestrian facilities as well as the legacy trail. And then with all zone changes, this is incumbent upon the approval of the development plan, which will be reviewed just here in a second. If you have any questions on this, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions? Not seeing any help. Oh, Rob. In the place builder, one of the recommended zones is B1, which would achieve everything they're asking for. Was that neighborhood concern, or are you, that was neighborhood concern that they sought a P1 instead of a B1? There was a concern from the neighborhood specifically with the increase of restaurant facilities in the area and other additional uses that they felt might not fit their neighborhood character and the context of that area. Thank you. Is this in a historic overlay zone? No, sir, it is not. The historic overlay zone is located along North Limestone. it ends pretty much with the school and then jumps again to another historic overlay zone. Was any consideration given to attempting to restrict demolition of the existing structure? That is a tough push for staff to make with this site. just based off of some of the conditional zoning restrictions that we can have. All too often when we see some of these historic structures, the best way to keep them is to keep the use viable at the location. This was an R4 zone that was converted to a conditional use for the Episcopal ministries in which they had some of their offices at this location and held some services. So there was an established change in kind of the layout. So it has moved away from at one point single family residential to a conditional use that had offices and now it would be going to a full office, which conversion back from that is a little bit more difficult. So staff sees this as being something that could keep this structure from a land use perspective going for as long as possible. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, the development plan that is associated with this is one of those that you just heard. They're maintaining the building. They're maintaining the site. They're not proposing any changes to this development plan. Make sure I hit it. There we go. Of course, here's the existing structure. Here we have access off a fourth into the parking lot. And again, it was important they did not modify. The original plan had some modifications to that parking where they sought to increase the parking. It was going to conflict with a tree in this area and a tree in this area as well. Existing sidewalk system you can see. Again, here's the house. Sidewalk out to the street. This is the existing alley. Barnes Subdivision is a much older subdivision. It's an older part of our community. And it's interesting to note that this lot is exactly as it was shown on that plat. when all this was laid out at the turn of the century, not this one, but the last one, the 20th century, this was laid out as a nice big rectangular lot that you can see. And there were a series of other smaller lots that were platted back at that time. This is a public alley. It's very narrow and the pavement is not centered exactly. It's a little bit off to the side. we raised a question with them about the location of the trees. There's a line of trees through here, and the older trees, the majority of them, actually appear to be located in the right-of-way. That's not necessarily a bad thing in that we know they should be protected, but of course streets and roads also has a certain amount of authority to go in and work on our streets and highways. The good news, this alley is not heavily accessed by any of the joining properties. There's only a couple of access points on the alley. So it's not apparently significant in terms of vehicular traffic as far as we can determine. But again, it's a very simple, no changes being proposed on the development plan. And your staff does recommend approval. Answer any questions you may have. Questions? I'm not seeing any. Okay. And Mr. Hal Bailey is going to get back up and discuss the variance here. And ladies and gentlemen, there is a request for a variance of 41%. This is the exact size of the variance that we had last time, percentage-wise, down from 34 spaces to 20 spaces. When looking at a variance request, staff is looking at not only how the site is used, but also the available facilities nearby, as well as what can we do to preserve certain elements of our infill and redevelopment areas, saving the character of the established neighborhood. In this case, I'm going to just jump over to the context of the staff's review. This area is considered very walkable and very bikeable. Those are two very important things. I actually believe that the bikeable score will go up when they do their next review because there is the legacy trail running across the front of this site. In terms of walkable amenities associated with this site, Gratz Park, Duncan Park, Phoenix Park, Charles Young Park, and the neighboring businesses and downtown businesses are all available within a half mile walking distance. Distance to transit is incredibly close to this site, less than 300 feet to the Route 4 and less than 800 feet to the Route 7. When looking at the historical context of this area, of course, this building was constructed and then adjusted before there was parking. The parking that was added was specifically added to this site for the ministry use and it is meeting the need currently for the applicant's use. The on-street parking, there is on-street parking across the way along East 4th Street and then up and down Martin Luther King Boulevard. There is shared parking that can be available to the applicant with the Living Arts and Sciences Center. I know that the applicant has reached out to them and they're agreeable to allow them to use that parking when necessary. And then they are saving those historical trees, reducing the heat island effect, and allowing for a little bit more stormwater retention on site. So staff is recommending approval due to those different reasons, and this is contingent upon the zone change to the P1 zone, as well as everything being constructed in conformance with the development plan and with the appropriate permits from the Division of Planning, Traffic Engineering, Engineering, and Building Inspection. Thank you, Hal. Any questions? All right, nice to see you. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Yeah. Just, there's probably extra there as well. Good afternoon, Chairman and Commission members. My name is Scott Schutte on behalf of the applicant, Elmwood Oz Fund, LLC. With me as well is Joe Raznick of Integrity Architecture. They are the ultimate tenant of this property. Also with me is Representative Elmwood, Mr. Joe Costa, as well as our engineer, Matt Carter, from Vision Engineering. what Hal's handing out is an email from the HOA president more or less giving his blessing and appreciation for our work with them through this process like Hal said this originally started back in late spring when we first took this to the neighborhood and originally we did go with the B1 zone request at that time spoke with the HOA members the surrounding neighborhood members and they were concerned with the number of permitted uses within the B1 zone. And so we said, that's fine. Talk to us. Tell us what you think is more appropriate here. That's how we ended up getting to the P1 zone. In addition from there, that's also how we got to the conditional use restrictions was through their request. And again, you have the ability to approve the zone change with or without the totality of the conditional use restrictions. But on behalf of the neighborhood, we are asking for those to be in place. You'll hear from the applicant today, and what you'll hear is that there is no intention of doing anything in this property other than it being an architecture firm. There will be a lease in place that at some point there will be an opportunity for the firm to purchase the property or a piece thereof so that they can stay in there long term. Like Commissioner Pohl said, there is no historic overlay here. so there is real no prohibition on tearing this property down and building a high-density apartment, but that's not what we want to do. We want to preserve this building. It's been here since 1908. It's a lovely property. It's very unique to this area and to Lexington in general, these older, larger homes. We did originally look at going residential, but it just didn't work to be able to break it up into residential without altering the actual building. The variance request, we are asking for a 14-spot reduction. Like Cal mentioned, there is agreement in place in theory between us and the Living Arts Center that should there be any run over parking that we can use in their parking lot and they can use ours likewise. As far as the conditional use restrictions, which I think are just about the only thing ourselves and staff disagree on, banking institutions drive-throughs were in agreement with staff. Those would negatively impact the traffic flow and the safety of the pedestrians in this area. If you look at the remaining ones, the community center is likely the biggest sticking point. Prior to the applicant purchasing this property, it actually came before the Board of Adjustments for a CUP application. And staff at that time did recommend approval for the CUP, but the Board of Adjustments ultimately went against staff and turned down that application. So Board of Adjustments already spoke and thought that they didn't think this is an appropriate place for a community center. We would second that and ask for that to be a restriction as well. In addition, similar to the BOA hearing back in 2021, it's the same type of issues. There's an excess amount of community centers in our belief in the immediate vicinity. You have the Dunbar Community Center on Upper, New Life Day Center on MLK, Charles Young on 3rd, William Wells Brown Center on 6th, and the Lighthouse Food Center on Spruce Street. And those are all within a mile of this property. Similar to that is the funeral homes. If you drive around downtown Lexington, there's actually quite a few that you probably drive by and don't even realize they are funeral parlors. but you have the Hawkins Funeral Home on Ray Street, Kerr Brothers on Midland, Smith & Smith on 3rd, and Millward on Broadway. So there's plenty of these uses already in existence right around this area, so we don't think that it's going to harm or prohibit this property from future uses should those restrictions be in place. Similar, the day shelters, I think that falls in the same category as the community centers. In the parking lots, you all have obviously just gone through a revamp of your parking regulations, and we think that just furthers this in preventing this lot from ever being demolished and turned into a high-rise parking structure. And like we said, we've always tried to work with the neighborhood through this process. We wanted to be good neighbors. We wanted to accommodate them. And I think that this is the result of a lot of hard work between the property owner and the neighborhood but to make sure that this use was going to be acceptable and agreeable to everybody and nobody would fail as though they were being imposed upon by this use. With that, we would ask for approval of our zone change and the variance request, as well as the seven conditional use restrictions. At this time, I'm going to let the property owner, Joe Costa, here speak to you all for a minute, as well as Joe Rasnick, the ultimate tenant. Hello. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to address you. The only thing I guess I can add that you haven't already heard is it's easy to be sensitive to the neighborhood associations when you are a neighbor. I live on North Limestone, on the corner of North Limestone and Fifth, and so I'm about two blocks away from the subject property. and so I am a member of the Northside Neighborhood Association who was communicated with and was obviously concerned about what would happen in this location. So we've tried to work with the neighborhood. I am a neighbor. I live in an old home. I respect the architecture of this old home and what we think we're proposing is a way to preserve that home that would allow the character of the neighborhood to remain intact. So thank you for your time. If you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer, and I hope you don't, so I can go sit back down. Can you state your name for the record, please? Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Joe Costa. I live on 461 North Limestone. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you as well for giving me the opportunity to come. My name is Joe Rasnick. I'm a principal and co-founder of Integrity Architecture, PLLC. We were founded almost right at 11 years ago. Actually, 11 years ago in a couple of days now. So I also don't have a lot to add other than to just make an assurance that as an architect, we tend to consider ourselves having a professional obligation to our communities. And we are going and already do consider ourselves a steward of this property. Our goal, just as it's already been said, would be to maintain this property just as it is. That has been the course of the renovation thus far. And our goal, we have been languishing out on Palumbo Drive for our entire operation up to this point. I like to think we've earned our right to move into a more special place. And I truly cannot think of many other places in our city that would be a more appropriate home for a firm like ours. We are a very design-focused firm. It will be my mission in this location to be not only a steward of this property and to just occupy a piece of this neighborhood, but to be an active and very involved member of that neighborhood. I cannot wait. My staff cannot wait to be a part of this place. We've already carved our pumpkins for Halloween there. We had our families out there. um we are very much looking forward to being uh an active member of that neighborhood and are very appreciative of the neighborhood up to this point for um hearing us and entering in conversations with us and letting us get to this point so thank you and as well if you have questions i'm happy to answer any questions for mr rasnick not seeing any joke thank you and then i do have a another document here i got proposed findings of fact which include all the conditional use restrictions. We're fine with the remainder of staff's recommendations and conditions, but to the extent you want to grant all seven of the conditional use restrictions, they're included in there. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Yes, ma'am. Step up and state your name. Hello. I'm Lori Halligan. I'm the executive director of the Living Arts and Science Center. And as they mentioned, we are the property directly across the street on 4th. And we are in support of this variance. We appreciate the conversations that have been had with our organization as well as with the Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association. And we feel it will be a really great addition to the neighborhood. We think that it will bring just a great energy and vibe, and we're excited to have fellow designers across the street with Living Arts and Science Center. And so we just want to let you know that we do support. We have had the conversations about sharing parking and sometimes parking can be during the day. Usually parking is acceptable on the street because neighbors are leaving to go to their jobs. And parking tends to be harder in the evening as folks come home. But both of us have more general office hours for days. So we do think the parking variance will be acceptable. And as they mentioned, we have already had some discussions and agreements about how to share parking. So I just wanted to let you know that we are in support of this. Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. No questions, thank you. Is there anyone else? Seeing any, bring it back to the commission. Just for staff, we need to take the variance separately, right? Okay, no, it's a staff question. Okay, thank you. The floor is open for any further questions or discussions or a motion. Mr. Chair, move to approve PLN MAR 2218 Elmwood Oz Fund LLC. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Second by Mr. Michler. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. So I just want to clarify, that was with the staff's findings? There was a difference. So the staff recommended two prohibited uses and the applicant asked for seven. Yeah, I would like to include staff findings. So you don't want to have an additional restricted uses? Yeah, and I'm sorry. Sorry, and including the restrictive uses recommended by, well, I need to get straight on this. Graham, you wanting the motion to be accepting the applicant's proposal or staff's? Well, I guess I need clarification on the difference. So the difference is in finding number three. So under the staff's recommendation, only two uses would be prohibited at this site. Under the applicant's request, there would be seven prohibited uses. This is what the applicant said. Those were acceptable. Is that right? Yes. Well, they proposed them. They proposed it. Yeah. No. They proposed them. The staff. The applicant is proposing more. All seven is fine. Two is fine as well. If the applicant is proposing more than what staff has proposed, that usually doesn't happen. Yeah, I think I'd like to make my motion to include the applicant's recommended conditions. That's fine. Okay. All right. Thank you. And, sir, you do need to get a second on the amendment of the motion on that. Since our parliamentarian is not here today, I just wanted to throw that in there. Thank you. You second it, Mr. Penn? All right. So we have a motion and a second on the amendment to that motion. Thank you. And I have a question. Yes. Okay, so the motion is for the seven restricted uses, and is law okay with the findings to go along with that? Yeah, their findings are okay. if you want to impose those. Thank you. Mr. Mikler, you had a question too? Well, this was just, I was just trying to figure out the tendencies of preferring more flexibility like both the applicant and staff said to allow for more uses and the request to the neighborhood. I was sort of curious to hear some of the other opinions of the, that's fine. Okay. Mr. Pohl, you're still up. I got a question. I'd like to hear from staff on their opinion of the difference between the two, please. I was supposed to ask these questions on the front. The difference in the conditional zoning restrictions that were proposed by the applicant and that those that were agreeable with staff really fell down to the justification made by the applicant. The justification for the two conditional zoning restrictions that were recommended for approval by staff were justified in force. We felt like that there was actually a fair finding for that. For the others, the applicant has provided further justification, noting that there are greater amounts of those types of uses in the area. Now, staff does have a concern with any regulation that would limit the services that would be provided to low or housing insecure individuals, specifically those individuals associated with community centers and day shelters. We'll be talking about that here shortly. But that would be the two that staff would have greater concern with any conditional zoning restrictions. Mr. DeMovlin, is that okay? All right, let's check. Oh, still up. I'll stay with my recommendation, my motion. Okay. No, we still have the... J.J., we still got to keep moving. He just did his own change. We still need a motion for that. So at this point, I would ask the commission to vote again to basically reconsider that so that we could have it on the record of who is voting for the... motion for the zone change with all of the restrictions because I believe you voted. We did. And Mr. Sheehy recorded your vote, but now we've got some clarification. So I think we need reconsideration. Is that how that works, Tracy Jones? Because I don't think we can just change it, if you will. Well, I mean, it would be best if you would ask questions before you vote in the future. So, just saying. That's exactly what I was going to say. That might be directed to me. But let me say this to further clarify because I'm watching your faces and there seems to be some significant confusion here. What you're doing is you're voting on a zone change for a specific piece of property. And the conditions that we're talking about are being self-imposed by the applicant. In other words, they are agreeing that they want to put those on the property per their zone change. Zone changes apply to individual pieces of property. The concerns that have been talked about and that I think I'm seeing on some of your faces, that is different than a text amendment or a regulation that you all adopt and impose because that applies not to a specific piece of property but across the board within the urban county. So if you want to impose these conditions, it may be best to clarify for the record that you want to accept and impose all the conditional zoning restrictions based on the applicant's findings they submitted to you, which they're okay if that's what you want to do, and it will only apply on this piece of property. So if that clarifies. But on the other hand, you do not have to do that because they propose them. You don't have to accept them, but you can. But it only is going to apply to this piece of property. And it may be best to go ahead and take the vote again just so the record is clear since the question came up after the vote. Right. That's kind of why I asked for any questions or discussions before I said it. Okay. All right. Yes, ma'am. To commission members, I spent 20 years in an office in an old house on the corner of Constitution and Martin Luther King, and I would say there are a lot of these uses in that area. Supporting the neighborhood request here I think is not out of line for the particular location they're in, as opposed to some other locations. Okay, thank you, Ms. Worth. All right, so we're going to vote again. We're starting over. We're going to start over, Graham. It's all new. Floor is open. Move to approve PLNMAR-2218, Homewood Oz Fund, LLC, including the following restricted uses, as recommended by the applicant, drive-through facilities, banks and other financial institutions, funeral parlors, community centers and private clubs, hospitals, nursing homes, personal care facilities, and assisted living facilities, day shelters, and parking lots and structures. Thank you, sir. And we have a second by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion? Okay, thank you. All right, we can vote via Granicus. Yes. And we're ready for motion on the variance request? Yes. I move to approve the variance request regarding parking, reducing the required 34 spaces to 20 as requested. All right, thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please vote for the parameters. We'll do the check. does fund llc go ahead and get a second you have a second okay um for condition number seven the applicant has asked to modify that condition of approval so that we are denoting the location of the post office kiosk and or delivery as opposed to asking for their sign off which has been difficult to get lately so so i modify my motion to include the staff's recommended conditions 1 through 14 with revision to number 7 to indicate that location of the kiosk be included on the plan thank you Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. And before I start, we have five letters of support for this application and five letters in opposition for this application. With an application like this, I also have several things that I need to enter into the record. First, I would like to enter into the record the ordinance and final report associated with the 2013 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment that established adult daycare centers in the zoning ordinance. and then the ordinance and the final report that further amended that which we will be discussing today the five-year strategic plan to reduce and effectively eliminate homelessness and enhance affordable housing in Fayette County as produced by the mayor's office the resolution establishing the affordable housing fund by the urban county council the resolution supporting the 2019 study or the five-year plan the 2021 annual homeless assessment report to congress and the right to adequate housing disabled individuals in the united states a report prepared by the immigration and human rights law review this is plm zota 22-00016 the applicant is seeking to recategorize three uses within the b1 zone located in article 8-16 three uses being community centers adult day care centers and day shelters shifting them from primary uses or principal uses within the zone to conditional uses. The applicant, Mr. Keith Clark, is citing within their letter of justification a board of adjustment disapproval for a community center for the property located at 203 East 4th Street. You might have heard of that one. Citing the intent of the neighborhood business B1 zone, citing the intent of the zoning ordinance, and then discussing transparency, discontent with the definitions of the land uses and the planning process. Within the applicant's letter of justification, the applicant does not provide explanation as to the negative impacts caused by community centers, day shelters, adult daycare centers. They provide no information regarding how the uses are different or similar to those in the zone. The applicant provides no information regarding the amount of these types of land uses within Lexington and the populations they serve. The applicant does not provide any information as to the appropriate locations or conditions that would allow for the location of these facilities if they were to be moved to a conditional use. And the applicant does not review the broader impacts of the proposed change on the overall zoning ordinance. Within the zoning ordinance, each of these land uses is defined. The community centers are those buildings and facilities for a social, educational, or recreational purpose operated by a non-profit organization, which are generally open to the public and which render a service customarily carried on as a business. The difference between a community center and a business for profit is the operator. This is probably, out of the three, the only one that has a broader kind of connotation. These facilities provide various different populations and serve various different needs throughout our community. The adult daycare facility is a very clear definition. It states that any adult care facility which provides part-time care, day or night, but less than 24 hours to at least four adults that are not related to the individual that is operating the business or the operation. and it may include some assistance and care, but it must be carried out by a certified or licensed individual. Day shelters, again, a very clear definition that states that facilities which provide free or not-for-profit access to indoor shelter, getting people out of the elements, and typically occupying the hours or occurring during the hours encompassing dawn to dusk. These are not to be construed with emergency shelters. There's been a fair amount of conversation with the Urban County Council about emergency shelters, but these do provide a very necessary resource for individuals within our community who are homeless or experiencing economic insecurity. So what is the difference between a principal primary use or a principal use and a conditional use? You hear us talk about this quite often. a primary or principal use is a by right use. It is something that is able to be done without review by extra levels of government, low or no barrier review. You need to go get your permit, make sure that you're meeting the zoning ordinance, and you can operate in a zone. It is substantially similar to the other uses in the zone. When we look at any zoning ordinance text amendment, we review the uses in that zone to make sure that there is some sort of continuity. Conditional uses require a public hearing. This is to determine if the use is suitable for a specific location within a zone, a very specific location. You heard with our previous case that that ruling that you made with conditional zoning restrictions was also for a specific location. These are not meant to be broad overviews of the whole of the community and a broad overview of the use in the zone. Again, conditional uses are also barriers to the use. You have to jump through hoops to get an approval. With a lot of the letters of support for this, there was a focus on this not being a barrier to the establishment of these facilities. A conditional use is a barrier to establishing a use on site. Now, why do we have those barriers is because they might be more intense than the adjacent land uses. They might not be substantially similar to the adjacent land uses. And we will be focusing on land uses with this discussion. So where are these three land uses allowable within our community? They are conditional uses in the planned neighborhood residential high-density apartment and high-rise apartment zones. Those are three residential zones. In this case, they would be bringing in a use that is substantially similar to business operations but are run by nonprofits. So that is why they are incorporated as a conditional use in a higher-density zone that is focused on residential. They are also a conditional use in light industrial. Why are they a conditional use in light industrial? Because of access. A lot of these services are focused on individuals that are economically insecure or experiencing homelessness. And to get them to these facilities, we need to make sure that there are proper pedestrian facilities and access to transit. They are principal uses within the P1, B1, B2, B2A, B6P, P2, CC, ED, and I1 zones. and the I-1 only when associated with an adaptive reuse project. The reason why that was added in was specifically because the adaptive reuse project is a melding of neighborhood businesses with some more of the industrial uses in which neighborhoods have come to industrial zonings and industrial sites, and we're trying to save those buildings. things. The Board of Adjustment Decision or the PLN BOA 2218 was made for the disapproval of a community center at 203 East 4th Street. Whenever the BOA reviews a project, any type of conditional use, they are looking not at the whole of the community, they are looking at a specific property and looking at the specific conditions of that property. They They look at noise, traffic impacts, availability of off-street parking, site-specific details. They look into the general fit within the established uses of the area and the ability for the uses to comply with the overall requirements of the zoning ordinance. In this case, they were located within a residential context. There were other established facilities in the R4, not just in the B2A, which is down the way, but within that R4 context, and the board made a decision for that specific property that it was not appropriate for that location. The neighborhood business, or the B1 zone, is meant to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities, but as you know, there are a host of other services that are included within the neighborhood business zone. So whenever we are looking at removing or adding in uses, it is incumbent upon the planning staff and the planning commission to look at those other uses, to decide if they are substantially similar or dissimilar, and then make a judgment of whether or not they are appropriate within the zone. Within Lexington, less than 2% of our urban service area is made up of the neighborhood business zone. A lot of the land uses within the B2, B2, and the B6P zone refer back to the B1 zone. So there are major down-the-line impacts with any modification of the B1, and we need to be cognizant of those impacts. The B1 zone was also the basis for the CC zone or the community center zone within the expansion area and allows for these to occur as a by-right development for the community that they serve. So just an idea of where the B1, it makes it look a little bit bigger because I had to bold it out, but those are where the locations of the B1 are. You'll see that there are a substantial amount along some of our arterial roadways, a fair amount along those areas that have the more dense and intense development within our community. So what is equivalent to the B1 zone? B1 zone. When staff was reviewing the principal uses within the neighborhood business zone, staff found that the uses associated with this application, a community center, an adult daycare center, and then the day shelter is substantially similar to the principal uses that are occurring on site. Banks and credit agencies lend money to individuals. They work with individuals on a profit basis trying to work through economic issues. We have offices that are community centers that are doing very similar things. Offices for businesses, professionals, governmental, civic, social, fraternal, political, religious, and charitable organizations. So, in this case, these are the offices associated with the people that would be running these corporations or not-for-profits. Childcare. Childcare is a significant one, especially to look at when looking at adult daycare centers. Adult daycare centers typically work with individuals of an older age or a disabled have a disability. In both cases, they are protected citizens and they are substantially similar to a child care facility. Research development labs, medical and dental offices, clinics, restaurants, if we're talking about food, we're going to look at if this is a soup kitchen or if someone is providing food free of service. The difference between them and a restaurant is what they are charging. All of the land use implications of a food service center that provides something that is free compared to something that is not free, it's the exact same from a land use perspective. There's no difference. Places of religious assembly, we'll jump into that here shortly, and then dwelling units are allowed by right within the B1 zone. Conditional uses. Staff looked at the various conditional uses within the B1 zone and found that they are dissimilar to the three uses that are being discussed today. Upholstery shops do create a fair amount of noise. Self-service car washes do create a fair of nuisance noise and water runoff. Rental of trucks and trailers. These are not things associated with individuals that might be seeking services. So why not define further, specifically looking into the one that is slightly more opaque with community centers. Community centers covers a lot of things. With staff reviewing community centers, we could pull things out and say, well, this is a restaurant that is specifically tailored to providing food for free for individuals. What is the difference of the land use in that? Absolutely nothing. The real difference is the operator in this. The operator is a non-profit. The other one is a for-profit entity. The land use impact, the exact same. So when looking at the various different land uses, there was a fair amount of information that provided context as to, well, we would like to choose the type of businesses that are in our neighborhood. This is a B1. This is the Catholic Action Center. It is a community use. It is also one of my favorite pictures that I found on Google because it has two people walking hand in hand to get service, to get help, to get some sort of opportunity. But when we're looking at the other uses, we cannot define between a liquor barn and a total wine. We cannot define between a bakery shop and a sandwich shop. And we can't define between the various uses that are along the stretch of Southland Drive. They all have very similar land uses. If I wanted to go get tax help from a non-profit organization, they would be considered a community center. H&R Block provides that same exact use for a profit. If we're talking about preparation of food and the individual served, we have the food chain located off of 6th Street. It is right next to Smithtown. They have the same land use. They are both serving food. They are both a restaurant. They both need a registered kitchen. They are providing the same thing, and they're in the same building. Family services. Across the way, we have the Catholic Action Center that is providing help for individuals that are economically insecure or experiencing homeless. They have facilities associated to help with children. Just across the street, there is a child care facility. What is the difference between those two? In a land use perspective, absolutely nothing. Places of religious assembly are quite interesting when talking about social services. There are approximately 230 places of religious assembly in Lexington. They serve a substantially similar, if not the exact same use as to a community center, a day shelter, or an adult daycare facility. They are regulated in the same way as a principal use in the B1, P1, B2, B2A, all the same commercial zones are where you can get a principal use with a place of religious assembly. They are operated as conditional uses in residential zones. As time goes by, we are also seeing a shift in how the courts are also observing this. These cases are all cases in which churches or church entities went out and sought to establish themselves either as a community center, a day shelter, an overnight shelter, and adult daycare facilities. In each case, they were denied. In each case, they went to the courts and they were overturned. It is more and more apparent that it is part of the mission of these places of religious assembly that they provide these services to the public. Now, what is the difference between these places of religious assembly and a non-for-profit from a land use perspective? It is the providing of services from a religious perspective. So this is changing, and the more and more we look at this, our community does regulate churches in the way in which they would have to go to the board. but this might have to change as these different cases move up to the federal scale. Other zones that are impacted by this text. I've already said it. Our downtown zones refer back to the B1. This text would effectively eliminate community centers, adult daycare facilities, and day shelters from the B2 and B2A zones. It also creates a discontinuity between the B1 zone and the P1 zone. When we look at land use and the regulation thereof, we often look at it as a curve going up with the intensity of land uses going up. We talked about a P1 that was described as being a less intense use and more agreeable to the neighborhood today. By doing this, we would be regulating the P1 in a different way than the B1, allowing them as a principal primary use within the P1 zone and disallowing them within the B1 zone. There was a previous text amendment that delved into these various different aspects. In 2013, community centers were included with adult day care centers. The council, citing concerns by the neighborhoods and the individuals experiencing homelessness in the downtown areas, decided to initiate this text amendment to separate them out, making adult daycare centers a conditional use in both residential and commercial zones. In 2015, the Department of Justice filed a complaint on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, indicating that the adult daycare facility was substantially similar to the uses that were being done in the community center and negatively impacted a protected class. That is important to note that individuals that are disabled, that are low income, that peoples of color are protected classes. This necessitated another review and a text amendment to rectify this issue. In 2015, the Urban County Council reestablished adult daycare facilities, added the day shelter use, made both principal uses in commercial zones, and made all three conditional uses in residential zones that allowed multifamily. An important aspect of this is that between 2012 and 2015, when this application started, there were zero adult daycare facilities that were established in Lexington. It's important to also look at the adopted documentation within the Lexington community to guide us into how we change some of our zones or some of the uses allowed within zones. In 2014, the government established the Affordable Housing Fund and the Innovative Sustainable Solutions to Homelessness Fund. This put money annually into trying to support many of these nonprofits that would then have to go through various different barriers to get established in our community. In 2018, we adopted our comprehensive plan that specifically gets into providing community facilities that are integrated into neighborhoods. And these are community facilities that are for all of the neighborhood, not just portions of the neighborhood. Providing social services, community facilities that address homelessness, substance abuse, mental health, and other significant issues within our community. Just recently, the mayor, which we submitted for the documentation, finalized their five-year strategic plan to enhance affordable housing and reduce and effectively end homelessness in our community. Adding barriers to these facilities within our community would limit our ability to successfully achieve the goals that are set out in the 2021 report. In 2021, the Lexington State Housing Authority also opened a federally funded housing stabilization program in association with the Community Action Council, a non-profit within our community that is located within a B1 zone. In 2021, the council also declared support for the five-year plan, which was also entered into the record today. What are the greater impacts? There are also specific impacts that this text would have by adding barriers to services for individuals of color, as well as for Hispanic and Latino individuals. Currently in the United States, 13.6% of the U.S. population identifies as Black or African American. 45.2% of those seeking services, those in sheltered situations, are Black or African American. 19% of the U.S. population is Latino or Hispanic. 22.4% are seeking services to get into more stabilized housing. There's also a greater impact on those with disabilities. All too often you have heard that there is a choice some people have to make between medicine, food, and housing. By adding greater barriers to services that provide relief to individuals that are suffering from income insecurity and homelessness, this would make it even harder for individuals to get by. Disabled individuals suffer a higher risk of both sporadic and chronic homelessness. and 24% of those who are experiencing chronic homelessness, which is multiple months over multiple years of homelessness, possess a disability. Nonprofits and not-for-profit corporations actually fill the gap that the government can't fill and that these people need to get by with their everyday lives. There are also ethical concerns. When we talk about the health, safety, and welfare of our community, that is laid out in our zoning ordinance and quoted by the applicant, We are not talking about the health, safety, and welfare of just those who have housing or just those who have businesses. We are talking about those that are all part of our community. Another thing with all of this is we don't talk about the people when talking about land use. We talk about what is the land use, what are those impacts. If we're talking about the people, we're talking about the wrong thing. Everybody should be served in our community. What is the responsibility of this planning staff and the planning commission is to support the goals and objectives and make sure that we are supporting all of our community, no matter their race, income, or ability. I would be remiss if we did not call out urban planning's past. Urban planning has served as a significant barrier at times to individuals getting services, getting into housing. We have a significant history in which the tool of zoning, which can be utilized for both good and for bad, has been utilized to separate people, to move people out, and to limit their access to services. Staff believes that this would create a barrier to services within our community in which it would make it harder for services to establish themselves within Lexington. Staff recommends disapproval of this zoning ordinance tax amendment for all the reasons that we have described today. These are laid out in each of the findings here that we have already reviewed in the previous slides. They are in front of you in your staff report. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey, do we have an applicant on this one? I'm the applicant. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Please step up. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'd really appreciate the opportunity to come up here and talk today. I'm a little overwhelmed by the response, but I'll give you an example of what I'm trying to do here. Nowhere in my application for this ZODA was I trying to prevent anybody from occupying anything anywhere. What I'm asking for is a clear and transparent discussion that would be required of any applicant wanting to do those three things in a B1 zone. Presently, it's a primary use. And that means that all the people impacted by a decision, since it's a principal use, don't get a say. They can't have a comment. And the presumption of the staff is that if there's a discussion, it's a barrier. I don't know how we got around to a discussion becoming a barrier. What I see is we have people with rights and we have people that are diminished in their capacity and their abilities. and we have people who have established themselves in neighborhoods all over the city who have spent their livelihood and their time developing an environment that they want to preserve. There are a lot of things that come along with social services and not just daycare centers and everything else, but there are a lot of things that come with that that impact those activities in those areas. People are really impacted by them. And we see it every day when we drive down Third Street and other places like that where there's a preponderance of services and there's people awaiting those services. I think that what we're trying to do as an app, what I'm trying to do as an applicant for this ZODA is to compel a discussion about how these entities will impact the neighborhoods that they're wishing to relocate. Presently there is none, absolutely none. I won't speak, I won't address how this particular incident came to pass because of the acquisition of a piece of property totally under the radar by everybody in our community. We were very surprised that this was, that it happened. But it happened because it was allowed to under the current zones and rules. And that's why I'm here today is I want to try to compel a discussion before you allow this sort of thing to happen. If you think a discussion is a barrier, if you think bringing something to the table for consideration and going before the board of adjustment is precluding something from happening, then I have no business being here. If that's the hot button, if that says you can't do it because you're going to talk about it, there's no point in having a committee. Let the five people or ten people on staff make the decisions and make it permanent, and there you go. So I don't think it's reasonable to expect the public to not have at least some semblance of notification and comment. And that's all I have to say. I won't take the bait on the homeless issues and on how disadvantaged people are served or not served in our community. This is about awarding a discussion point to property owners, to neighbors. and it's not necessarily something that is going to be negative. The assumption is that it's going to be negative, that it's going to be no. And I disagree with that. I think that a discussion will bring out other aspects of what can happen in a community. They don't know that. Community needs to know that, right? So thank you for your time. I appreciate it. I've got a lot invested in my neighborhood. I'm not going anywhere. I got a lot of neighbors wanting to leave, but I'm staying, and I've been there since it wasn't a very good neighborhood, and I intend to stay forever. So hope you all can see your way clear to give us a voice when stuff like this comes to the table. Any questions? Thank you. We do have a question so far. Mr. Penn? I'm kind of perplexed by this situation. Let me ask you this question. Are you thinking that the Board of Adjustment, you want them to make the decision of where it's fair and equitable? I want the Board of Adjustment to review what is going to happen to a community when you put a social service agency in the middle of a community on an individual basis. Yes, I do. I just was in Bloomington, Indiana, and you can't get a B-1 zoning through without a full review of the council for any purpose. Every purpose has to go before council. Period. End of story. Maybe that's the solution. Maybe there are no principal uses. Maybe everything's conditional. But at some point, you've got to give the neighbors a voice. You've got to give us an opportunity to object or to support. We don't even have that. I'm just trying to, I'm trying to in my head decide the process here and what the process does. I think what's disturbing to me and to my neighbors is this, is that the assumption is if you give us an opportunity to speak, you're not going to get what the major plan is. Is that not the deal? The barrier? Is the barrier? Mr. Clark and I sat next to each other in a neighborhood meeting four months ago. Yeah. And I think we witnessed the same thing. but you're not expressing it the same. What I witnessed that afternoon or that early evening was a neighbor, two neighborhoods upset, very, very upset about a nonprofit entity purchasing a piece of property and moving forward with their social service service in our community. what i was in the same meeting and i was a participant and i'm in that neighborhood and it was ugly frankly and so for yours for you to say for you to say that the staff is assuming this way let's let the applicant address the the board place on the both of you need to talk to us not each i'm sorry i'm i'm not sure of the protocol i beg your pardon if i said oh yeah i understand we're here every thursday um you want to hear from the staff or me no i want to I want to make sure that there's any other questions for you first. Out of respect for you from the commission, do we have any further questions for the applicant? Okay, all right. You want me to respond to the staff's statement? Yes, sir. Right here, you can do it this way. Okay, so her assertion that it was ugly and there was a meeting there and there's two neighborhood associates there and they were very upset, is 100% accurate. And it was because this entity was permitted to purchase this building under the radar, which was fine, they can buy anything they want. But they were permitted to go in and change the dynamic of one of the few neighborhood jewels that Lexington has without so much as letting anybody know that there was going to be a very large 30,000 square foot social service agency located within the confines of an established residential and small business area. Nobody knew. We were totally blindsided. We found out from the newspaper. And in a conditional use environment, that purchaser would have been compelled to say, hey, we're coming in, we'd like to buy this and we'd like to talk to the neighborhood association, a la the previous applicant that was just in here. They went through the normal process of making the impacted people aware of what they were going to do with that building. Now that was a historical preservation project, and I understand that, but still they had the decorum to go in and say, hey guys, look, we're coming to town. We'd like to buy this. We'd like to renovate this. We'd like to change it. We want to be a good neighbor. Didn't happen. And it was because it's legal. It was simply, yeah, well, no, it's not a conditional use. It's principal use. We don't have to tell anybody what we're going to do on a scale that size. That's a monster building. They're going 1,400 square feet to 35,000 square feet overnight. Thank you. Okay, again, it's not about precluding their existence. It's about notification and an opportunity to have a say, at least discuss it. And that's the anxiety that my neighborhood has. Thank you, sir. Thank you all for your time. All right. Next up, citizen comments. Walt. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm president of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. I live at 2001 Bamboo Drive. This is a tough issue. I think the complaints that we primarily get related to social services agencies are frankly from minority neighborhoods and from north side neighborhoods. We don't hear from Hamburg or Beaumont or anything like that. So it's kind of a mixed impact. They're providing a service. There are some issues with them. You're all aware of them. Don't really need to talk about it. I was looking at the comprehensive plan, and it's very clear that staff and the commission want public engagement in development, and I would include, I would broaden that to, you know, big changes in neighborhoods that have an impact. And the other thing that's obviously important in the comprehensive plan is its support for small business and for, and we're talking about a business zone. And the third thing would be on focal points. Successful neighborhoods have focal points, and they can be small businesses, they can be schools, they can be recreational facilities, they can be all kinds of things. But I'd say small business in particular is very important to a successful neighborhood. And on balance, I decided to come down and speak to it, because I think there really is no say in a principal use. I mean, it can just happen, like the gentleman explained. Can it get ugly? Sure. Should it? No. And I think it's important, and the comprehensive plan recognizes this, that neighborhoods work with developers and try to reach accommodations. And right now that's really not happening. So I urge you to do something about it. Now, as to Mr. Penn's question, should it be the Board of Adjustments? Should it be the Planning Commission? I'm not sure the body that does it is that important. as long as it's addressed. One of the problems with it, and one of the ways it's been interpreted to have public involvement, is really, well, the developer or the owner of the property will come down and they'll have a meeting and they'll keep notes and then they'll come back. When the developer works with a neighborhood and can reach accommodation, it works a lot better and there's not really a method to do that right now. Thank you very much. I want to point one other thing. So the neighborhood council is, I think, you know, we have a position of trying to work for equity. I mean, we actually gave a neighborhood hero award a few years ago to the Catholic Action Center, and we're actively recruiting minority neighborhoods. We haven't been terribly successful in doing that, but we've been working on it, and we've had some success. So that's not really where we're coming from. And I know staff's not coming from that way either. But we're not trying to say that minority neighborhoods should just have to take whatever they get in this regard. There really needs to be some way to communicate and try to work out issues. Thank you very much. Okay, not seeing anyone else. Sir, step up, state your name. I'm John Hackworth. I live at 220 Market Street. I'm retired. I used to be 10, 12 years ago, I was director of admissions at Sayre School. and that's when the daycare center, the New Life Center moved in on Martin Luther King. It just happened. Now, and it's still there, but before it was there, there were three established schools less than 200 yards from this facility. And those schools and nobody around had any input whatsoever before that place was established. I think it's a wonderful thing for the community to have. But I'm still ticked off that it was able to get there. It's less than 100 yards from the parking lot of Sarah School. And it's a problem. And any idiot could see that it would be a problem. And I'm, you know, and I'm, you know, I'm very sensitive and concerned about the homeless situation. And I've worked myself. I live 100 yards from New Vista and interact with homeless all the time. But to have one of these entities without any input from the neighbors and the surrounding people, the people that are impacted. is in my humble opinion, ludicrous. And I lived through that. And you've got St. Peter's, you've got Sayre, and you've got the middle school magnet on limestone, less than, as the crow flies, less than 200 yards from this day center. And that's just my personal experience. Again, I do live in the north side. We as the gentleman just pointed out, these problems don't exist in our suburban areas because there's a concentration. As I say, I live 100 yards from New Vista, which impacts all of the neighbors around there every day. We're doing our very best to work with New Vista. We had a meeting. I happen to be president of our neighborhood association. We had a meeting with New Vistas, how we can better work with them to help them and they can help us. We're making an effort to communicate with them. Communication, talking, it's not such a bad thing to have a discussion. We're not trying to, as the other gentleman said, we're not trying to prevent this from happening. I think it's only fair for neighbors to be informed and have some input. Thank you very much. Thank you. I am Kim Livesey with the Lexington Rescue Mission. So I'm kind of coming from the other side. And I just wanted to take a couple of minutes just to kind of represent the people that don't have any voice here today or in many other places. is with COVID recently and also with inflation now, we are seeing the number of people we serve exploding. We are serving 19% more people coming for meals than came a year ago. Those are families often having to make choices whether I'm going to pay for fuel to go to work or if I'm going to feed my family. They're having to make some tough choices. We also serve people who are homeless. That's gone up a lot. We work closely with the city. We work with the mayor's office a lot. We support everything the city is doing, and we want to also eradicate homelessness. That's one of our goals. We want to value every single person, and I'm not saying anybody here doesn't want to do that. But there are so many people in need in our city who need our help. The neighborhood in question, one of the neighborhoods, the 40508 has one of the highest poverty rates in the city. So we want to go to where people are. We want to go to where we can serve them best and help them out of poverty. And I just wanted to come here today and just speak on their behalf and lift them up since they can't be here themselves. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll keep this relatively brief. The applicant did not apply for greater discussion except for these three uses. That's what they want to have greater discussion on. That is why staff presented all the material that you saw today, because those are the three uses that this applicant is most concerned with. What is the difference from a land use perspective between a food kitchen for individuals that do not have to pay and a place in which someone's paying $10.99 for a sandwich? Absolutely nothing. When the applicant said that there is nothing more than just a discussion with this, that is untrue as well. A trip to the BOA necessitates an application, application fee, mailings, interaction, hiring individuals to support them. All too often when you see these applications go through the Board of Adjustment, you will see an attorney with them so that they can be protected. This is an application to talk about three specific uses in the B1 zone. It's not talking about all uses in the B1 zone. It is targeted at those uses that are meant to provide services to those who need it the most. Buy right is buy right in our community. This is a community in which we say, if you own it, you're in that zone, you're zoned for it, you can move forward with that. That works for a lot of people when it is making them happy. It sometimes makes people upset when they look at it and they say, I didn't know that was there. But it is the right of the ownership of that property to operate. And when you're talking about uses that are substantially similar to the other uses in the zone, We can't make a distinction between those who have and those who have not. That is all staff has for today. Thank you, sir. Mr. Poe. Hal, I have a question for you, if you don't mind. Yes, sir. So it's striking that no one is talking about data here, right? So if the concerns about these uses are based on data that we could look at and consider, why haven't we heard that? So I guess I'm asking, is there data that suggests that these uses should be treated any differently from other uses? I mean, is the sandwich shop really different from the food kitchen? The way that land use is considered. I'm not talking about land uses. But that's how we categorize the data more than most. But from the community standpoint, clearly there may be a difference in terms of the effect of the activity, the people that are coming to those places. Again, we cannot talk about land use. in terms of the people that are going there. We must talk about the land use, about the use and impact on there. It is very clear within the Fair Housing Act, with the American Disability Act, that we cannot talk about how the people either have something, do not have something, look one way or do not look one way. We cannot talk about those people in that sense because they are people. When we're talking about the crime rates, we can talk about crime rates, violent crime. The FBI just released their 2019 data not long ago. The most violent place in which the greatest amount of crime occurs is in a single-family household. The eighth most highest rate is in a restaurant. So when we're looking at the data or things associated with land use, we can look at that kind of data. But it doesn't give us the minute aspects of the land use that says, well, this land use is far worse than this land use. Sea stores are often talked about as being tough places. They're also associated with gas stations, and depending on where they're located, they can be great or they can be a little bit more rough. But when it comes to the establishment of facilities, especially those that are substantially similar to one another, we absolutely cannot talk about the people that access them. Oh, you got any more questions? Okay. Any further questions? Ms. Worth? Just out of curiosity, because we've heard some specific examples of what we're talking about here. the senior center out Richmond Road in Community Action's headquarters up in Woodward Heights or Southern Heights would those fall into this category? So the senior center no because it is a government use anything that is a government use is a sovereign immunity type use they can go anywhere as soon as you're looking at other uses like the Catholic Action Center off of Winchester Road that is located in a B1 zone. Now any change that would be made to this documentation would be focused in on future uses, not the current. So everybody would be non-conforming. They would not be able to expand unless going to the Board of Adjustment. But those are the types of uses that we are talking about. New Vista is a great discussion point. That one is actually located in a downtown business zone, a B2B zone. They actually support individuals with mental health in both a child capacity. They do the full range. They're supporting individuals that are from the youngest of five all the way up into older ages. And these are individuals that cannot pay for the services that are located in the exact same zone that are allowable by right that are not being discussed today. Medical offices, offices for clinics, things like that. Those aren't being discussed today. What we're being discussed are those land uses that are specifically focused on individuals that need help. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to make sure we close this part out too. It's just a discussion from the Planning Commission. Go ahead. If the land use is the same between a mental health service that is not for profit and one that is for profit, a soup kitchen and a restaurant, why are we defining them separately at all? That is a history of zoning as well. Specifically, we are looking at something. But we don't define soup kitchen. Yes. There's no definition for soup kitchen. There's no definition for social service. That's not in our ordinance. What's defined is community center. And that falls under anything that is operated as a nonprofit. This is one of the most interesting discussions that I've had in a long time. Because it fits a situation where you really wonder about the public's right to know versus what's right for the community. And that is two really interesting subjects to debate at the same time. And that's what we're asking to do here, Graham. And that's what makes this so tough. Because on one hand, we've got the public right to know. On the other hand, we've got the other. And I buy your land use situation. Land's there, it's going to be used. It's owned to be used. It's owned within one or the other. But to me, this gets bigger than that. And I don't know where to land it. So, Mr. Penn, I would respond with, you don't get to choose your neighbor. It doesn't matter if it is an individual that you've known for years or someone that's new to the community or someone that is somewhat different. We don't get to choose our neighbors in a residential context. They get to move in. They get to be there. That is their space. Now, economics is often a factor with that. But when it comes to these facilities, they are an allowable use. They are substantially similar to the uses in that zone. I don't get to choose if McDonald's goes into a restaurant or a Tony's. They are the same land use. They serve different people at times. I don't disagree with the word you just said. I'm just telling you, when I'm up here thinking about this through the whole thing, It comes down to that for me. Whether it's the right answer or the wrong answer for this commission, I don't know. I'm just voicing what I'm dealing with and struggling with here. I may be the only person on this commission that's struggling with that. But we need to start this conversation. We need to get to some kind of point. And if I started the wrong way, I'm sorry. But that's my issue right now. And I don't disagree with the thing you said about that. But to me, it's those two issues. Yeah, you said. Any further questions, discussions? It's a heavy breathing. I think we need, I don't know where to go from here. Well, having sat on the Board of Adjustment, and I did hear some of these cases, and one in particular comes to mind, and there was a problem with the facility, and it was an overnight facility that has had some problems with it. And, you know, it just, it's unfortunate that there, you know, there isn't an avenue for discussion. You know, I want to support the neighborhoods, but by the same token as Mr. Bailey said, you know, we don't get to choose our neighbors. It's a by right, you know, principal use. And I'm taking it from what I heard, too, is that if we take it out of B1 as a principal use, it could have some ripple effects in other business zones. And I think that's something for us to consider as we talk about this. So, you know, I see both sides like Mr. Penn, you know, I hear, you know, people want, would like to, you know, the neighborhood would like to have some discussion or some notification about what's coming. But I think that we also have broader considerations in zoning down the road, ripple effects. Yes. I'm just curious, Jan, in your experience in the Board of Adjustments, did they end up typically as up or down votes, or was it ever constructive? Well, the one that comes to mind, I think, I want to think that we did not allow it. And then I read the case, the minutes of the case that Mr. Clark, the person who's bringing this forward, talked about. And the overriding principle of what we were charged with was the health, safety, and welfare of the community. and that, again, it's for all people, and I think that sometimes we can forget that. You're looking at me like you want me to talk. My concern, I agree 100% with the communication and understanding, and it's just not always the case that that's going to happen, even though we would like it to. On the residential side of things, there are very, very, very few things that will be brought up in advance of any type of purchase or use. The few things that I know are there, more of notifications required after a purchase. So I'm not ready to support this at this time, but I think it's a great discussion that needs to be had somewhere on how to resolve it. Mr. Garfield, I think, addressed some of those items on, you know, how do we communicate in some areas of development where everyone gets to be part of it, and I know this isn't development necessarily, and we don't in others, and I don't know the solution today. But that's my thoughts. Thank you. A lot of discussion to it. The floor is open for a motion. Regarding PLN ZODA 2216, amendment to Article 8-16, I move for disapproval for reasons recommended by staff. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. Okay, Ms. Box there, beat you to the punch. Okay, we have a second. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, next up, PLN Zota 22-17. I wish there'd be a middle road there somewhere. Staff made the point. Where are we going now, Coach? Page nine, P.L. Lanzota 22-17. Need an open space. This should. Are we ready? I don't like it. It's bad. No. Tell her you're ready. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon. I'm Valerie Friedman, senior planner and green space planner in the Division of Planning. And today I'm going to be presenting Rethinking Open Space. This is our proposed update to the open space regulations of our zoning ordinance. And for anybody who's not already familiar with this, I'll refer to it as the open space ZODA during our presentation today. If anybody needs a copy of the text to follow along on their phone, we've got a QR code. I'm not sure if that will work, but hopefully you can name your phone at that if you do want to follow along with the draft text. So just to state this right at the beginning, what is the goal here? So our goal for this ZODA is to incorporate intentionally designed and equitably distributed open space and green space into all new development projects. We're not talking about providing parks or public land as part of this text amendment. What we're talking about here is small scale developer provided open spaces and green spaces. And a foundational goal of this text amendment has always been not to ask for more quantity of open space, just better quality of the open spaces that are already being provided. And we'll talk a little bit more about how that works here in just a moment. But first, let's just revisit how we got here. Our staff have been working on this for over two years now. We started this project in May of 2020. And during that time, we've done a lot of research. We've looked at national best practices from across the entire country. We have reviewed open space regulations and zoning regulations for about 25 different cities that could be considered peer cities. And we brought all of this to bear on Lexington's specific context to help us develop the first draft of this text. And then we took that draft text to a lot of meetings. We've had over 20 meetings with stakeholder groups, the public, different organizations. And several of those groups have sent in letters of support, which I believe have been circulated around or are about to be circulated around. So we have letters of support today from the Parks Advisory Board, the Environmental Commission, the Bluegrass Climate Action Team, and the Fayette County Neighborhood Council as well. We've also presented this to this body at five different work sessions, so you've heard of it. We had two in-depth focus group workshops with folks from the development and design community here locally in Lexington. These are people who are regularly submitting development plans, and they gave us very detailed feedback on the text as well. And we've carefully coordinated with other divisions of our government, making sure that these proposed regulations are helping to be comprehensive and supportive of the city's overall goals for open space and green space. We also, during the time period that we were working on this text amendment, had an on-the-table event that was very successful. We heard from over 2,400 people across Lexington through the survey. And you can see here the top 10 topics that people talked about in the survey responses. Top of the list is people want walkable, bikeable community. They're looking for more amenities and quality of life. They want environmental sustainability and resiliency in this community. They're talking about urban green spaces. And these are all things that this ZODA positively addresses. But this is not news to us. So if we look back to the 2018 comprehensive plan, we have goals and objectives. And one of those goals comes from theme A, which is about successful neighborhoods. And the objective clearly states incorporate adequate green space and open space into all development projects, which serve the needs of the intended population. From those goals and objectives, we get a couple of comprehensive plan policies. In theme A, the theme about neighborhoods, we have design policy nine, which says provide adequate green space for all neighborhoods within walking distance. In theme B, which is about protecting the environment, sustainability policy four says that we should make recommendations to locate new development within walking distance of existing green space and community centers or to create green space and community centers within walking distance of residential uses. We also have an action item in the comprehensive plan that just says amend the zoning ordinance to redefine open space requirements. So we have very clear direction that this is something that we need to do. So we know that this is something that we need to do and we do have some existing open space requirements in Lexington. So let's just take a look at those and talk about why they need to be updated. First of all, they're out of date. Our current open space regulations were introduced in the 1965 version of the zoning ordinance. Currently, the zoning ordinance contains about 170 mentions of open space. It's scattered across multiple different zones and articles. So through our text amendment, we're consolidating this, making it much easier to use our zoning ordinance. Currently, the open space regulations that we have lack direction, and they don't provide any incentives for open space to provide environmental benefits or green infrastructure. Currently, we have a very unfocused definition of usable open space that does not ensure that open spaces are actually usable by people. So, you know, the patch of grass behind the dumpster gets counted as usable open space in our current regulations. We currently have no requirements for open space to be visible, accessible, or viewable by the people it is intended to serve. And lastly, the standards that we do have don't apply in some areas where they should. We'll talk about all of these just a little bit more. But what was helpful for us as staff was to categorize these issues with our existing requirements so that we could make sure that we were addressing them thoroughly through our ZODA. The first issue that we have is an efficiency problem. So the definition of usable open space is unfocused. That makes it difficult to interpret, difficult to use, and our regulations are scattered around the different zones. So there's an efficiency issue. Secondly, in the multifamily context, the current requirements don't ensure that our neighborhoods are having access to common areas that are planned for use by people. and also it's not incentivizing environmental landscaping. In the single-family context, in the single-family detached home context, we currently don't have any requirements for walkable community-focused open space, but we know that these neighborhoods deserve access to common open space gathering areas as well. And fourth, in the commercial and industrial zones, we need open space, And in particular, we need vegetated area requirements to help offset the environmental impacts of the built environment. So across the board, the regulations that we have right now aren't delivering consistently good results for our city. But I also want to point out that we're not alone in this issue. Many cities have similar issues with equitable access to open space and green space and out-of-date regulations. So one of the things that Lexington is doing to address this is that we've joined forces with other cities that are looking to do better by their open spaces. So in December of last year, we got some commitment from the top when Mayor Gorton signed on to the Trust for Public Lands 10-minute walk commitment. She joined over 300 mayors across the country pledging to make sure that everyone in their city has access to a park or open space within 10-minute walks of their home. And then in May of this year, the Trust for Public Land invited Lexington to be one of six cities to participate in their inaugural Park and Green Space Equity Accelerator. And this is partly because of the work that we've been coordinating on and doing through this text amendment. And the text amendment that we're presenting today positively contributes to making sure people have this walkable access to open space in our city. And one of the other benefits, and I apologize this is small and you probably cannot read this text, but you'll have to take my word for what it says. But one of the additional benefits that we've received from this partnership is we've had a review from a third party, the Trust for Public Land, helping us to review some of these other cities' zoning ordinances. So we provided them with the name of eight different cities that Commerce Lexington says are our peer or aspirational cities. So those are the cities that you see listed here. These are also cities that rank higher than us on the Trust for Public Lands Park Score ranking. So these are cities that we are seeing as being aspirational in terms of the way that they're treating open space. And what was found through this review is that these other cities all have, with the exception of St. Louis, they all have open space zoning ordinance requirements very similar to what we're proposing in this text amendment. So while there are a lot of cities that are facing similar challenges, I think it's important to point out that our peers have already taken similar steps to address open space standards in their zoning just as we are. So let's dive into what we are proposing in our text. So if you're following along in the packet, I'm just going to go in order of what's there. So the first thing that you'll come to is Article 1. This is where we house definitions for the zoning ordinance. And we've added a new definition for green infrastructure. We've deleted that unfocused definition of usable open space and replaced it with a more general definition of open space with three different very distinct subsets of open space types nested underneath that common area, usable area, and vegetated area. We'll talk about those more in a moment. We also added a new definition for walkable route because walkability and access is very important to us and we want to make sure that these distances aren't being measured as the crow flies but as people walk so we needed to add a definition for that. The next thing that you'll see in the ZODA is a series of minor revisions and cleanup items to these articles. Essentially, in these articles, there was either a reference to open space or a reference to usable open space. And so essentially what we've done here is directed people to the new Article 20, where we're consolidating all of this, just said, see Article 20 for open space regulations. So it looks like there's a lot there, but that's just minor cleanup. up. And then we move into Article 20, which is the bulk of the changes that are being proposed through this ZODA. So Article 20 has been a blank page in the zoning ordinance for several years. It says reserved for future use, and we're proposing five pages worth of regulations for open space. The first thing that you come to in the new Article 20 is the intent statement. The intent is this is our goal, right? So it's to incorporate intentionally designed and equitably distributed open space into all development projects. We're doing this to protect and enhance public health, safety, welfare, quality of life. We're doing this to increase environmental sustainability and resiliency. And we're doing this to support the urban county government's goal of providing access to open space within a 10-minute walk of all neighborhoods and communities. The next thing that you come to is a section, it's a regulation on the overlap and use and purpose of open space types. This section here is foundational to making these regulations both highly focused and highly flexible. So, like we talked about before, we have this general umbrella term of open space, but these three different subsets, very specific subsets of open space nested within that. And having these distinct from each other allows us to make sure that we're getting environmentally beneficial green spaces, those vegetated areas, that we're getting those places that are intentionally designed for people to gather. Those are the common areas. And then usable areas are the other types of open spaces that might be needed on a project, such as walkways or balconies. It just depends on where these would be applicable. And we've set this up so that you can creatively use one type of open space to fulfill the requirement of the other types. So this is where folks can get creative or economical, I guess you could say, with the land that they have. So you can design intentional gathering spaces, common areas, but you could also make them highly vegetated. And by doing so, you can meet one set of regulations with the same space, essentially condensing your open space requirements into one compact, highly functional open space. So this flexibility, we believe, is direct evidence of our goal of not seeking more land for open space, just incentivizing ways to get better use out of that land that is already being provided. This table that you come to next is a summary of open space requirements. So this is where we have taken all those requirements that are scattered across the zones and condensed them into one table. Essentially what you can see here is that there are some columns that show the amount of usable area, vegetated area, and common area that would be required. You all have seen this before, so I'm not going to go into too much detail about it. But I will take a moment just to show again, this is a table you all have seen before, that summarizes some of the change from what we currently require in terms of open space with what we're proposing through this text amendment. So in the single family residential context, really the change here is the inclusion of common areas whenever more than 25 dwelling units are being provided. And this change is critical because everyone deserves access to open space within a 10-minute walk. In the multifamily and group residential context, our goal is to incentivize density while getting better open spaces. So in this instance, you can see some down-facing arrows indicating that generally we're asking for less open space in exchange for better open space. In the consumer and service commercial and also in the industry and employment context, we're bringing a baseline consistency across all zones. So particularly in these zones, we're requiring vegetated areas to help address the stormwater and heat island effects of the impervious surfaces that are likely to be found here. And lastly, in the downtown context, in some cases there's an increase and some a decrease in open space required. But overall, these changes will make it easier to use our zoning ordinance and will lead to improvements in the quality and access of the open space that is provided. Moving on to the vegetated area standards, this is a set of regulations that requires better practices for planted areas, promotes the survival of vegetation, and excludes invasive species from being counted. The next section provides incentives for smaller sites, so that would be three acres or less to provide green infrastructure. So this is another example of a tool that people could use to provide less open space in exchange for better green space. And then the next section moves on to common area standards. So these are the development standards for those areas where people are meant to gather. There are location criteria for common areas. This is where we say that a common area must be within a 10-minute walk, measured as a quarter mile along a walkable route to 90% of applicable building entrances. So there's some flexibility there in that 90%. There's also a requirement that common areas be connected to each other and other open spaces via walkable routes. The next section has dimensional standards for common areas, and these are a little different depending on which context you're working in. In the single-family context, we're looking for 10,000 square feet with a least dimension of 100 feet. There are two basketball courts there for scale, so that gives you a sense of about how much land we're talking about, a little bit more than two basketball courts. And then in the multifamily mixed-use and commercial context, we're asking for 8,500 square feet with a least dimension of 20 feet. So a lot more flexibility there, and that open space common area, excuse me, can be broken up into multiple different areas as long as they're connected by a walkable route. We have standards, development standards for the common areas, and these are really aimed at making sure that these spaces are promoting health, safety, and welfare in our communities. So there are requirements for primary access and visibility. This is a frontage requirement. We want at least 50% of the perimeter to be visible and accessible. There are also requirements that secondary entrance points are at least 20 feet wide with a five-foot sidewalk, that some physical improvements are provided, think walkway, play area, pool, that canopy coverage is provided at 30%, and we're prioritizing large canopy trees for that, And also that in terms of topography, that at least half of the common area is generally flat and dry and suitable for people to recreate on. Moving into the next section, this is where we have some exemptions and some incentives for walkable development near existing publicly accessible open spaces. So basically what this says is that if you're developing within a half of a mile walk of a city park or a quarter mile walk to a greenway or other publicly accessible open space that meets the common area requirements, your project is exempted from the common area requirement. So if it exists nearby within walking distance, you don't have to build it again. This map is from the park's master plan and it shows the 10 minute walk shed to neighborhood parks. So if you're developing in one of those areas, for instance, you do not have to pay any attention to the common area requirements of this zone, ZOTA. Moving on to the next section, there's a requirement for signage, for signs to be posted at the access points to common areas, and there's also a requirement that appropriate easements be provided whenever a shared use path passes through a common area. And the last section of the new Article 20 is providing some clarification on when common areas are determined. And, you know, this is basically because we want to make sure these are intentionally designed parts of an overall development, not an afterthought or remnant piece of open space. So there are standards requiring common areas be calculated based on the overall development, not one phase at a time, and also a requirement that the common area and any improvements shown on the development plan are completed prior to the certificate of occupancy for the final building. And there's one last set of updates included in the open space SOTA, and that is a minor update to the expansion area zones. So right now, the way we have this set up is that Article 20 does not apply to any of the expansion area zones, and that's because the expansion area has its own expansion area master plan, and open space is tied closely to that. Currently, the expansion area zones that are listed there, there's a current requirement that 25% of the net developable acreage shall be open space. We're not changing that. What we are proposing is that where common open space is provided in the expansion area, just common open space, that there be an access point every quarter of a mile, and that access point be a minimum of 40 feet wide with a 5-foot sidewalk, and that a sign be posted at that access point. And we feel that that is very important to make sure that common open space is accessible to the neighborhood that it is intended to serve. And it's also important from a health, safety and welfare perspective for safety reasons that people are able to access this and know where the access points are. So I'll wrap us up on this slide. At the direction of the Planning Commission, the 2018 comprehensive plan called for staff to, quote, modernize the zoning ordinance. And so we've been tackling this through a series of intentionally coordinated regulation updates. The open space ZODA works in tandem with the parking ZODA, which is about reducing parking requirements, and the floor area ratio ZODA, which is about increased density. The three things that constitute a site are the building footprint, the parking areas, and open space. The parking ZOTA and the FAR ZOTA, which have both passed now, make more room for development in exchange for the more purposeful open space and green space that is being asked for in the open space ZOTA. So that concludes my presentation. So thank you all very much for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for staff? I have a question. In one of the letters we read, there was a recommendation of, is there any maintenance plan in this soda? I know we all know that we have issues around town with, you know, we get our trees planted and then they don't thrive. And so how do we deal with that? Or do we deal with that? Yeah, it's a good question. And it's a question that has come up a lot from neighborhoods. I think with the issue of the plants or trees that we require to be installed through the zoning ordinance, the enforcement there is something that does need to be addressed. But that is something that needs to be addressed probably through a new hire or filling a position that has been empty for a while here in the government. We don't currently have a commercial landscape examiner. In terms of the long-term maintenance, once this is turned over to an HOA or tenant association or neighborhood association, we made the intentional choice not to include any of that type of maintenance requirement in this text amendment. Ms. Moore? I'm just thinking about not just maintenance, but watering. New trees going in in areas. I'm seeing for example in Lansdowne lots of water going in right now but when we think of maintenance we are thinking more of tree trimming often and recognition that we got to also factor in getting water to some of these in dry years particularly. Yeah typically the the contractor is on the hook to water for the first year but beyond that I think that's something that needs to be worked out between the owner. Yeah. Right. They're on the hook. We're there. I've got another question. In the is there encouragement for naturalized areas in I know you're giving I think you're giving you want to open it up and have people think out of the box and all of that and naturalized and pollinating and all of that. So you've got something in the ordinance that kind of speaks to that in ways. Yes, especially on the smaller sites, the intent is to incentivize green infrastructure practices. I think that in terms of providing more naturalized areas, there's certainly nothing in here that is going to prohibit people from thinking creatively. I think it will encourage people to think creatively about how they can create spaces where people can gather that are also vegetated. We hope that this is a step in that right direction, but it may be that the city could be doing more to incentivize that type of naturalized planting or native plantings. But that's not something that we're specifically doing through this text amendment. It's about getting the space. Just again, I think you guys have done great work on this and encouraging us to incorporate not only more open space but green in the communal space. Do we have to adopt this? Thank you. Good job. Do we have anyone in the audience? Let's see, I've already introduced myself once. Neighborhood Council wants to thank staff for really communicating well on this particular ZODA. And my background is in public administration, and I think this thing has gone on for a year. I think they've gotten the best result that was possible. And I think it may deserve a greater look in the future. I'd recommend maybe that the Planning Commission ask staff maybe a year, year and a half out, to come back and report on the results of it. I've seen similar open space plans in other places in the United States, And one that I find really interesting for new development is one that has very small setbacks and allows for less affordable housing, or housing that's affordable, is what I mean, and then larger public open spaces. And it's a concept that might work to preserve land and get more affordable housing. And I think this is a good step, and it's interesting. I agree with the comments on maintenance. One of the things we hear is the planning commission will pass something, there will be landscaping requirements, and then the landscaping dies, empty flower boxes and things like that. Again, I'd just like to thank staff. I think they've done an exceptional job and gotten the best result that was possible. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. If you're not seeing any, we'll bring it back to the commission. The floor is open for a motion. Yes, Rob? I'd like to motion to approve PLN ZODA 22-17. Okay. Updating and consolidating the open space regulations into Article 20. Great. Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. We have one more. Can we get it done? Let's go. Good afternoon. I think we have just about five more minutes in the chambers, and that's all the time I plan on taking. So this is PLN ZODA 22-18, Zoning Enforcement, changes to Articles 5 and 7. So this zoning ordinance text amendment is in response to council action taken on August 30th to transfer five positions related to zoning enforcement from the Division of Planning to the Division of Building Inspection. That included one staff assistant, one senior zoning enforcement officer, and three zoning enforcement officers. So just for over about ten years, the Division of Planning has held all responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the zoning ordinance, including investigating complaints and things like that. So this ZODA is representing a return of certain tasks back to the Division of Building Inspection, which had prior to 2012 held that responsibility. So Article 5 is being updated. This article has the delineation of divisional responsibilities for activities that are regulated in the zoning ordinance. Planning will retain zoning compliance permitting and zoning sign-offs for building permits, but we will return the responsibilities for zoning enforcement, including responding to and investigating zoning complaints to building inspection. This largely includes things that include on-site inspection of property when we receive a complaint, and it's substantially similar to other activities that building inspection conducts in the field when they are conducting inspections of new construction and renovations and things like that. Article 7 will also be updated. The zoning enforcement officers also inspect on an annual basis conditional uses. So again, going out into the field and making sure that the conditions of those conditional uses are still being met and that they are still operational. So pretty short and sweet text amendment. Staff is recommending approval. This is necessary to implement the organizational changes that were made by council and will hopefully better manage the interpretation and enforcement of the zoning ordinance as well as the permitting process by delineating the responsibilities between our two divisions. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. That's good. The floor is open for a motion. You want one? Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN Zota 22-18, amending the articles 5 and 7 regarding zoning enforcement. Okay. And we got a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. We got everybody. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. That was quick. Mr. Duncan, we have four minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And there is a council meeting of the whole at 4.30 where they will be discussing the complete streets policy that the Division of Planning has been leading. So you all are welcome to stay and participate in that. But we do have one more quick piece of business. And I wanted to bring to you the question about the Goal 4 report. So we sent this information to you earlier. I believe the Vice Mayor's office sent you the Goal 4 report that was being presented to council last week, a week ago today. It was presented to a committee of the whole at that time. And then on Tuesday of this week, the full council voted to recommend endorsing the Goal 4 report to the Planning Commission. And that will be on their agenda tonight for first reading. So they'll get second reading on December 1st. But what we wanted to ask you is, I hope you're familiar with the Gold 4 report, and if not, we can give you a quick primer. But really, do you want to receive a presentation about the Gold 4 report in the same manner that the council did last week? And if the answer is yes, then we can settle on a way to do that. If you would like to receive a presentation very similar to what the council received, then we probably want to do that at one of your meetings in December because that way the council staff will be available to make that presentation. If not, and if we move on to after the first of the year, then planning staff will take over and make that same presentation. But really the question, Mr. Chair, is do you all want to receive this presentation and which meeting in December, if so, would suit you? And if not, would you rather do it in January? And certainly if you have any questions about goal four, what it is, and what might be coming out of that. But to tell you today to preempt anything, we're not making any recommendations to you or we don't recommend having any discussion about the merits of Goal 4. All we really want to do is know, do you want to know more about it? Mr. Penn had one question. I would urge us to go forward and at least hear the presentation. the disinformation that's out there we need to hear it for ourselves before we have to start responding to rumors and there's a map out there that has got a lot of people very upset and i don't think we're going to know the answer to some of this until we get the presentation so i would hope that we would vote to hear it in december okay um i'll second that you want to make a motion Sure. I'll move that you try to schedule it in December. If we can hear what the council heard, then we can reply with some kind of intelligence because very few of us really were involved in that at all. And this is something that we need to not chase rumors. That would be our recommendation. And if you don't mind, we'll look at the schedules and see what the agendas look like and try to pick the one that is most suitable for you all, knowing that December 15th is getting awfully close to Christmas. So we'll try for the 8th, but if it looks like that's a very crowded agenda, we may push it off to the 15th so we don't have to rush this and can give it its due. Thank you. Okay? Thank you all. And then just since I've got the floor, just a reminder, no meetings next week. It's Thanksgiving, so we hope you all have a great holiday. We'll see you again on December 1st for your committee meetings, Planning Commission subdivision at 830 and zoning at 130. All right, meeting as adjourned. Mr. Chair, may I just real quick? Yes, sir. I'm just constantly, well, I'm proud to serve on Planning Commission, and I'm constantly impressed with our staff. I thought Hal was so passionate in his expression and just y'all sharing, and y'all allow us to make decisions, and y'all allow us to make this the best city possible. We thank you. Thank you for the comments. All right, meeting's adjourned. Thank you. I can't find you Thank you. Long, long distance, love affair I can't find you anywhere I told you I'm a terrible thing But you're never gonna be Long, long distance, love affair I remember waking in the morning to the sound of a rooster's crow. Mama cooking in the kitchen and Arthur Godfrey on the radio. Me and dad were just like strangers We never did see eye to eye It came to blows one Sunday morning So I packed my bags and I said goodbye And when you leave that way you can never go back The train won't run on a torn up track