So I give my love to you I remember finding out about you Every day my mind is all around you Looking out of my lonely gloom Day after day Bring it home, baby, make it soon I give my love too Look into my eyes You will see What you mean to me Search your heart Search your soul When you find me there You'll search no more Don't tell me It's not worth trying for You can't tell me it's not worth dying for You know it's true Everything I do, I do it for you Look into your heart You will find There's nothing there to hide Take me as I am Take my life I would give it all I would sacrifice Don't tell me It's not worth fighting for I can't help it There's nothing I won't know You know it's true Everything I do I'll do it for you There's no love like your love And no other could give more love There's no way unless you're there All the time All the way Yeah To your heart Oh, you can't tell me It's not worth trying for I can't help it There's nothing I won't want Yeah, I would fight for you I'd lie for you Walk the wild for you Yeah, I'd die for you You know it's true Everything I do Oh I'd do it for you Thank you. Yeah! You can't tell me what's that for I'll be there We'll be right back. I'm going all the way up. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. First on the agenda, agenda item two for the commission, I'd like to get the approval of the December 15th, 2022 minutes. So the floor is open for a motion for those minutes or any changes. Yes, Mr. Mickler. I move to approve the minutes of the December 15th meeting. Okay, thank you. We have a second by Mr. Demovalon. Any further questions? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. All right. Postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chair, you have two sets of minutes that you can vote on today. What's the date on the other one? What's the date on those minutes? November 17th. November 17th? Yes, sir. Okay, sorry about that. So we need a motion for the approval of the November 17th 2022 minutes. You wasn't here. Right. Mr. Mover. I move for approval of the November 17th minutes. Okay, we got a motion and a second by Ms. Wirth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, thank you. All right, motion passes. Thank you, Bill. So next up, postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Sayre School on your agenda. On page 16, item C1, the ZODA regarding the athletic fields and structures, we'd like to ask for a one-month postponement to the March 23rd date. several members of the SARE applicant team has had some conflicts come up and we wanted to make sure that all of us were able to be here due to some recent we'll say marketing information that had been distributed about our application. So we'd like one month postponement if we could. We have a motion for a one month postponement for the reasons given by the applicant. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. And that one month postponement is the 23rd? March 23rd. March 23rd. Yes, sir. February. Yeah, yes, February. One month, right? One month. One month. I apologize. Okay. I was filling out zone change applications before I came down here. All right. I was checking. February 23rd. Okay, Ms. Worth. Chair, I move for the 22-19 amendment to Article 8-2-D Athletic Fields to February 23rd is requested by the applicant. Okay, thank you. We have a second by Mr. DeMovulin. Any further questions? Please vote via Granicus. Thank you all. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Matt Carter, Vision Engineering. If you turn in your agenda to page 2, item 1A, PLN-MJDP 22-62, Hoover-Philpott Evangelistic Association Property, the Fountains at Palomar, the applicant would request a two-week postponement. We do have a favorable review from the staff now, but the applicant would like two weeks to review it. And they had one area they wanted to discuss a little more. And we would like to postpone that to your February 9th hearing date. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Carr. Any questions for the applicant from the commission? Okay. Okay, so we have a recommendation for two week postponement. The floor is open. Mr. Penn. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I move for a two week postponement for PLNNJDP 2260 to February of the 19th. Okay, and we have a second by Mr. DeMovillin. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes, thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Brad Boaz with CMW. If you turn to your agenda, page 3, item 1A, PLN MAR22-00015, Dutch Brothers LLC, would request a one-month postponement. Unfortunately, yesterday our legal counsel fell ill and was unable to be here today. Okay, thank you, sir. And I hope Mr. Simpson is doing better. We hope so, too. So we have a motion, excuse me, we have a recommendation for a motion for a one-month postponement. Does any commission members have any concerns or questions? Seeing none, the floor is open for a motion. February 23rd. Mr. Chair? Yes. I move for postponement of PLNMAR 2215 Dutch Brothers LLC as requested by the applicant until February 23rd. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Mr. Michler. Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Mr. Chair, we do have one other postponement. On page four of your agenda, item two, this is the Realty Unlimited Bluegrass LLC Zone Map Amendment and Higby Mill Court Lot 11 Development Plan. The applicant has requested a one month postponement to the February 23rd public hearing. They have indicated that they still have work to do on both their development plan and their justification letter. Okay. All right. Any questions for staff? No questions? Floor is open. Mr. Davis? No, I'm sorry. No, he's already did it. They already did it. We got a motion by Mr. Davis and a second by Mr. Meyer. Any further discussion? Please vote via Grant. Okay, motion passes. Okay. Staff? Chairman Forrester, we do have a number of items on your agenda today that can be considered by the commission as abbreviated items. We'll just need to know if there's anyone in the audience that's here to speak about them before you accept them as abbreviated hearings. So to the audience, we'll run through the agenda quickly and just ask if there's anyone present in the audience that wishes to speak about a particular case. And that is those that are here not as representatives, but as members of the public to speak. So the first case would fall on page six. Caller Properties, LLC. This appears on page six of the agenda. PLN MAR 22-22. And the applicant is Collar Properties, LLC. This is for a property located at 2400 Versailles Road. Is there anyone present who wishes to speak? Okay. Yes, sir. Great. Okay, so that one will need to be a full hearing this afternoon. The next case, I believe we do think there's opposition to this case for Item on page 8, IVCP Athan South LLC for the soccer stadium. I assume there's a lot of people here for that, okay. So that one will be a full hearing as well. The next item appears on page 10 of your agenda. Cowgill Development LLC is the applicant. The case number is PLN MAR 22-25, Cowgill Development LLC. And this is for property located at 340 Legion Drive. So anyone present who wishes to speak about the zone change at 340 Legion Drive? Seeing no one, that can be considered as an abbreviated hearing this afternoon. Next hearing, our case appears on page 12 for Lexington Habitat for Humanity. PLN MAR22-26, the applicant is Lexington Habitat for Humanity, Inc., and it's for property located at 712 Lancaster Avenue. Is there anyone here to speak to the property for rezoning at 712 Lancaster Avenue? Okay, seeing none, that can be our second abbreviated hearing this afternoon. Moving to page 13 of the agenda, case number seven, PLN MAR22-27, liberty park development llc this is a zone change for property located at 2819 liberty road the staff does have a revised recommendation for this case for approval and we'll see if there's is there anyone here present today that wishes to speak for property located at 2819 liberty road okay seeing none that case can be considered in an abbreviated fashion as well moving to page 15 of the agenda the au associates inc case is pln mar 22-28 this is for property located on a portion of 410 sporting court is anyone present who wishes to speak about this case ms clark you do as well I have objections, but do you want to enter some information into the record? I mean, it would take a moment. You may not want to have a whole hearing for that. Technically, that then qualifies it for a full public hearing if you plan to speak. And I think that comes to the end of the agenda. So our first item for an abbreviated public hearing, again, we'll start on the agenda. Go backwards. Can't remember what page. With the, yes, Calgill Development LLC on page 10 of the agenda, and our staff will be ready momentarily to present that case. Thank you. something for the record? Yes. And it would be in the record. Yes. And it would be in the record. Yes. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. Hal Bailey for Planning Services and the Division of Planning. We will be starting today's agenda with PLNMAR 2225 Calgill Development LLC. The applicant is asking for a rezoning of the property located at 340 Legion Drive from the neighborhood business B1 zone to the high-rise apartment R5 zone for 2.29 net and 2.52 gross acres in the hopes of developing a three-story multifamily development with 105 dwelling units for a density of approximately 46 dwelling units per net acre. The property is located off of South Broadway right here and then entering into the property off of Legion Drive here. There are a host of different zoning categories surrounding the property. However, the vast majority of properties that front onto South Broadway are that commercial zoning, whereas those properties that step back are in a residential zoning type. As you can see from the aerial photography, there is a host of land uses that have developed over time, including multifamily residential, more highway service businesses, as well as single-family detached residences. Jumping into the property itself, here we have a view of the frontage along Legion Drive, heading towards Man of War Place, down Legion Drive towards South Broadway, and then across the frontage of the current property, which is currently being utilized as offices. With all zone changes, we must review the place type and development type that is recommended within the place builder element of the comprehensive plan. In this case, the applicant is seeking to apply this in an enhanced neighborhood place type. Staff is in agreement with their recommendation as they are seeking to place this within an established area of residential development as it transitions out of that residential development over to the commercial areas. They are seeking to develop a medium density residential development type. This is associated with the multifamily and low level multifamily that is being provided and represented per the development plan on this site. The applicant is not utilizing a recommended zone within this place type and development type. However, the place builder element recommends that with an appropriate justification, an applicant can request a different zone type. In this case, the applicant is seeking the high-density apartment, or R5, zone so that they can more adequately address the open space needs, parking needs, and place more residential development on the site. Staff agrees that the R5 zone can be appropriate with the supplied justification letter and development plan. Staff is recommending approval of this zone change as the applicant is providing a multifamily residential redevelopment on this site. They are seeking to apply a well-designed development in which they are activating the frontage of the structure, providing a walkable area, and then also that they are seeking to achieve an effective and comprehensive pedestrian network that connects not only to the local streets, but also to arterial roadways that allow for mass transit use. The applicant has provided a development plan and justification that meet the design criteria for place type and form, as well as transportation and pedestrian infrastructure, and then also they are increasing the amount of trees associated, tree canopy, and open space associated with this area. With all zone changes, this is incumbent upon the approval and certification of the development plan, in this case PLN-MJDP-2277, which Mr. or Ms. Galt will be presenting here in just a moment. If you have any questions on this, I'd be happy to answer. Any questions for the staff? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Thank you, sir. Oops. Good afternoon. Oops. There we go. Sorry about that. Okay, as you can see, there we go. This is Legion Drive. You can see this is the access point into where the apartment's going to be. The apartment's going to front here on Legion Drive and then wrap around. This is the additional multifamily residential that Hal spoke of. And then heading this way will be towards South Broadway. We had revised conditions, which should be on a purple sheet for everyone. First, if this zone change is approved and then is approved by the council, that's our first condition. We have just a couple other sign-off conditions. Then we had a couple cleanup conditions left. Addition of lot address on plan face, addition of record plot information. We want to have adjacent property information to include street address, cabinet and slide numbers. that way we know exactly the adjacent property information. Denote that this property at 1250 South Broadway is not part of the amendment. This is the car wash that we had done, which has the access or how it leaves the property access going to Legion Drive. enter off of South Broadway and then you go around and access off Legion. We want to make sure that we denote that this is not part of the amendment. We want to have that next to the site statistics. It's kind of wrapped up in the notes, so we want to make that clear. We also want to denote compliance with the multifamily design standards to be addressed at the time of the final development plan. And then our last condition is discuss place builder criteria, which Hal has gone through and explain that, and I believe at this time we can remove that condition off this list of conditions. And so with that, I'm going to open it to you to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any comments or questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Applicant? Zach Cato, Billings Law Firm, for the applicant. We're waiving our hearing and speaking time. I've submitted some materials into the record. I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them, but we agree with the staff's reports and recommendations and that's about it. Thank you, Mr. Cato. Any questions for the applicant? Not seeing any. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Let's do one more call. Is there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? We do so by stepping up to the podium. All right, thank you. So we will bring this back to the commission for a motion. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2277 with the revised 13 conditions as presented to staff on the purple sheet. Okay. You're going to do the zoning as well? You want separate motions or you want the same motions? Can we do the same? Okay. Okay, move for approval of PLNMAR 2225 for the reasons staff presented on their staff report. Okay, thank you, and we have a second by Mr. Davis. Thank you, sir. Any further discussion to this motion? Okay, seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Motion passes. We got everyone, yep. Okay. Well, yeah, he voted, Zach seconded the motion. Yeah. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wouldn't mind just entering your vote one more time. All right. We're good to go now. Thank you very much. And we also heard that you were possibly having some issues opening some files. If you go to the agenda and go to the specific item, you should be able to open it through the agenda. There's still some kinks and granic is for you. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, staff? Mr. Forrester, we still need a motion on the development plan. What? Put it individually there. So Mr. Penn, we need, Mr. Penn actually did the development plan first. So now he's got to do the zone change. Mr. Penn and I will talk later. now we've all been thrown under the bus which one do you want me to do i was trying to save you man you couldn't save me she's already thrown me into the bus so you want to do the development plan you want to do the you did the development plan first to do the zoning now yeah if you've already done the development plan then we need the zone change i've turned the page and we'll we'll address that in the minutes Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMAR 2225 for the reasons provided by staff. Okay, thank you Mr. Penn. We got a second by Mr. Davis. No discussion, please vote via Granicus. All righty, all right, motion passes unanimously, thank you. All right. The next item on our agenda should be PLN MAR 2226, Lexington Habitat for Humanity, Inc. All right. So this rezoning request is a request to rezone .012 net acres of the property of 712 Lancaster Avenue from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone. This is intended to construct a single-family residential dwelling at this particular property. The applicant in their review of the application has indicated that this is an enhanced neighborhood place type and a low-density residential development type. Staff agrees that both the place type and development type indicated by the applicant is appropriate at this location. To orient you to where the subject property is located, here we have Lancaster. It runs between Loudoun and 7th Street here. There is one small typo with the map here. The subject property is actually the last property here shown in red, not the white like it is normally. But the zoning in this area is categorized by residential, a little bit of B1 zoning, and some existing industrial to the rear. However, the land use in this area is almost exclusively residential, with the exception of the industrial property located behind the subject property. This is an instance where some of the older zoning that has existed for a while is not really matching up with the character of the area that it's in. So the subject property here has always been used residentially. It had a former single-family residence at this location. However, it had that commercial zoning. Here we have the preliminary subdivision plan for the property. So upon conferring with the applicant, this was originally submitted as a development plan. However, in this instance, a preliminary subdivision plan, which we'll be touched on in a moment, was more appropriate. So this is an instance a single-family residence is being constructed here. The applicant does have some flexibility for the final design. However, that is yet to be determined. Staff is in approval of this request. It is meeting numerous goals within the comprehensive plan. It's providing infill residential. It is activating a currently vacant lot and is matching the character of the single-family residences along Lancaster. It's in line with the comprehensive goals, objectives, policies, and is in line with the site development, transportation, and environmental criteria. This recommendation, of course, is subject to the approval of the corresponding preliminary subdivision plan, which we will be on momentarily to discuss from staff. At this time, I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff. Any questions for staff? No, sir. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the plan associated with this zone change is again, we have revised handouts to you on your pink paper. This is a preliminary subdivision plan for this property along Lancaster. This all was originally platted, and if you look at the name, you all know I like the old historic names in the 1890s was when this property was originally platted. But they had initially, as you know, filed a preliminary development plan which has to be followed by a final development plan, except in the case of residential and industrial properties where preliminary subdivision plans are allowed for the provision of infrastructure. In this particular case, there will be no public infrastructure, but it simplifies the process and their ability to pull a permit off the plat. Now, once this zone change is put into effect on this property for the R3, they will be subject to the R3 single family home development requirements. Those are under special provisions in the ordinance. In fact, in this case, they're bound by the very last section of those special provisions that deals with single family homes in the R3. You can see by the revised conditions that staff has, we have several sign-offs. They need to clean up some things. They need to correct the public utilities list. They refer to an incorrect utility. Very easy to fix. They need to delete the certificate of accuracy and all development plan certifications. It's not a development plan, preliminary supervision plan. It doesn't have those certifications. Furthermore, the certificate of accuracy is required on a final record plat. That's a state law requirement where a surveyor has to sign and state this information is accurate. They need to delete the proposed R3 zone regulations. regulations. They just put a statement on there of what they are. They're not even applicable in this case because those are the general R3 conditions. They're going to meet the special provisions for a single family home in the R3. And again, that's the purpose of number nine, which is denote lot must comply with Article 8-12-0-5 of the zoning ordinance. Those are those special conditions in the R3. And then just correct the title. And with that, be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. I would add they're in the infill and redevelopment, and there'll be additional standards placed on this single-family home to meet design criteria in Article 15-7 of the ordinance as well. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions for staff? Mr. Davis? Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin, at the zoning committee meeting, we had a discussion about the driveway for 710 and where the property line between 710 and 712 lied, and was there a shared driveway that may or may not complicate things later on? Is staff satisfied with that question, or is the applicant? The applicant, I think staff is good with that, but the applicant could elaborate on that for you. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Mickler. Just a clarification from my knowledge here. There was a house on this lot prior. With that being historically used as a residence, was it necessary that they do a preliminary subdivision plan? Theoretically, they could have come back on that footprint and built what would have been a nonconforming. Mr. Mickler, if I can answer that really quickly. The applicant, because of the demolition of the property and the eradication of the nonconforming use in that zone, by doing that of their own actions that eliminates their ability to come back onto the site, either with the same exact structure or with a different layout. In this case, they are coming with a different layout, too. Okay, thanks for the clarification. All right, not seeing any more questions. Thank you, applicant. Hi there, I'm Houston Roycer with Lexington Habitat for Humanity. Thanks for having us here today. I just want to say that we're in agreement with staff on the recommendations and we will make the necessary changes for our preliminary development plan. So if there are any further questions, I'm happy to answer. Okay, do we have any questions for the applicant? Not seeing any. Thank you, sir. All right, thank you guys. Thank you. Just one more round, just to make sure we caught everyone. Is there anyone in the audience? I'd like to speak on this particular agenda item. Okay, not seeing any, so we'll bring it back to the commission for a motion. Mr. Mickler. Help. I move to approve PLN MAR 22-26. With the, where did our conditions go? That's on the development plan. Okay, from neighborhood B1 to R3. Okay, so we have a motion and a second by Ms. Barstale. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Now the preliminary. Okay. And then I move to approve the preliminary subdivision plan PLN, MJDP 22-81 with the 11 conditions. Based on the revised. The 11 revised conditions. Thank you, sir. And we have a second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously, thank you. So that would put us on page 13, Liberty Park Development, PILN MAR 22-27. We do have revised staff recommendations for this as well. All right. Daniel Crum, planning staff again. The next item is a request by Liberty Park Development, LLC. It is a request to rezone approximately an acre of land located at 2819 Liberty Road from single-family residential to planned neighborhood residential R3 zone. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to construct an attached single-family townhouse residential development. The applicant, in their discussion of the request, has identified this as an enhanced neighborhood place type and a low-density residential development type. Staff, in their review of the application, agrees that both the chosen place type and development type can be appropriate at this location. So to just orient you where the site is located, the subject property is this small parcel here shown in white. It is located on Liberty Road as you head out towards Man of War. And zooming in a little bit closer, you can get an idea of the surrounding land uses and zoning. So the subject property here is this sort of irregular triangular shape. It shares the same single-family residential zoning as the properties across Liberty Road and further down Liberty Road that are also zoned for single-family residential. The adjoining parcel, zoned B4, is not currently developed, and there is some industrial located across the road, across from Liberty Road there. One of the more important aspects of the site is this green band that runs to the rear of the site that is zoned AU. That is actually the Liberty Trail. So this is not actually an agricultural use, but this is rather the location of the trail that serves as the backbone of the property. Across the road from the trail, we have the Liberty Park as well as existing professional office uses. So zooming in, you get to see kind of how the site sits today. So once again, slightly irregular shape. At one point in time, this did have a single-family residence on it. However, when Liberty Road was widened, that home was demolished and the site was allowed to just sort of overgrow. The trees that you see on the property now and the other growth and foliage associated with that has since been removed. But the important thing to note is the relationship with this Liberty Trail. It has more frontage along the trail than it does along Liberty Road itself, and the developer and the applicant in this instance is looking to really activate that trail in order to connect this development to the surrounding neighborhoods. So this is the site as it looks today. So this is from Liberty Road here. From the rear of the property, as it's clear-cut, you can see Liberty Trail running in the rear portion there. So the entirety of this site is flattened and has been cleared, and with the aim of constructing the development you see here. So the last time you looked at this during the committees had a slightly different design, and the rest of the staff will be on to kind of go into a deeper detail. But several things, including orientation of structures, changed with this request. So previously, the applicant was requesting 13 townhome units. By reorienting some of the units, they were able to increase the density to 14. So you're looking at a density of approximately 14 units per acre. Some other changes that occurred with this was the original design had the parking sort of as the centerpiece along Liberty Road. It was the first thing you encountered. It has now been shifted internally to be provided in the middle of the site where it's screened from view by the proposed development. This allowed them to kind of reinforce the Liberty Road corridor a little bit more effectively by shifting these townhome units a little close to the road. They will be providing street trees and other landscaping to kind of help reinforce and give that pedestrian feel along Liberty Road a little bit of a better feel. Another one of the large fundamental shifts in the site was that the rear units, which make up the bulk of the development, will now front on the Liberty Trail itself. So they will be oriented towards the trail instead of the internal portions of the site. As a result, the variance that was originally requested by the applicant is no longer necessary, as this is now their front yard rather than their rear yard. It is our understanding that the applicant will be withdrawing his request, the portion of the request that deals with the variance momentarily. Included with this was an expansion of the proposed pedestrian connectivity. Previously, staff had identified some concerns with all of the units being able to access not only Liberty Trail, but the existing pedestrian network along Liberty Road itself. This proposed design allows all of those units to do it safely, and the sidewalk also connects through the front of the units here. With the change in the relationship to the Liberty Trail, staff did feel that it was appropriate to recommend as a condition for the waiver that street trees be provided along the trail itself. This is now serving as the front of the property, but because it's not a public road, That street tree requirement or that landscape requirement doesn't exist there. So providing that landscaping would sort of delineate the public versus private spaces while giving a little bit more privacy to the trail users with still allowing for visual permeability. So sort of the blend of delineating those spaces, but also maintaining and providing for public safety and welfare. Staff is recommending approval of this request. It meets goals relating to providing this infill housing, increasing density, and activating these corridors. Staff finds that it meets the criteria for site design, transportation, and environmental health. And as always, this is subject to approval of the corresponding development plan that planning staff will present momentarily. But at this time, staff is recommending approval, and we'd be happy to entertain any questions you have as staff at this time. Okay, any questions for staff at this time? Not seeing any. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. The preliminary development plan that you have associated here today is a revised plan, and you have revised conditions on the green handout. And again, as you're aware, this is a preliminary development plan, so you will see a final development plan on this, and that will be a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan. As you can see, the intent is to subdivide. You can see the lotting lines, and they have stated it is their intent to subdivide the property. Now, in reviewing this revised plan, as Daniel stated, they shifted the plan and shifted their parking to the rear. They gained a unit by doing that, so a little extra density on a 14-unit development. You can see the rear access, the driveways. This allows them to meet the new requirements, Article 16, remove that issue. They are proposing an access easement. Right through here, large turnaround here, dumpsters, guest parking. And you can see the pedestrian system. They're proposing along what is now the proposed front of the units. Now, you have an associated waiver and a finding with this particular development. And that goes to their ability now to withdraw that variance and go with the waiver. And that is generally, when you develop property, you have to have access and lot frontage. And the normal orientation is your lot frontage is with the access. It's how you get to your property. It's how you're allowed to access your property. So you designate that front yard. And then those are the standards you have to follow. In this case, by choosing to orient to the rear and to the trail, well, it adds, you know, an aesthetic to it. Nice front of the townhouses oriented to the trail should benefit both the residents and the people that are enjoying the trail. It does allow for rear access again into the units through the driveway for these 10 units here. These, of course, will front on the access easement. Now, they've requested a waiver to 6-4C of your land subdivision regulations, and that's the frontage requirement. And that's what will allow them to designate this as their front yard and then adhere to those front yard requirements in the R1T. Again, this is R3 development, but when you do R1T townhouses in the R3, it defaults to the R1T standards in the ordinance. Along with that, staff has added an additional waiver to the same section, 6-4E, however, and that, again, addresses when they choose their front yard. That's what you go by because your front yard will establish that relationship. You have to meet the ordinance. So it's just an additional requirement that ties your zoning and your land subdivision regulations together. When they, again, to establish a front yard, a side yard, a rear yard, all those relationships come from that initial selection. Here's our front yard. Here's our access, that relationship. So that's what they're doing here. It does allow, in staff's estimation, a good utilization of the property. They picked up another unit. Again, we believe that that orientation to the trail is beneficial to the development and, again, to the trail as well. So staff is recommending approval of the preliminary development plan as well as the waiver and the associated access easement finding because you all have to make a finding that the access easement is appropriate in this case and not a public street or a private street. Happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Mr. Martin, is it safe for me to assume that these are going to be sold as individual units? Yes, sir. They are, by what we've seen today in conversations with the applicant, they are going to subdivide these and sell them fee simple. Fee simple. That's what I want to know. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Mickler. Mr. Martin, was there discussion on lot four's rear yard adjacency to Liberty Road there? This one? All the way to, yeah, the one closest to Liberty Road. Here? No, no, no. Oh, down here? Yeah. I'm asking regarding sort of the typical orientation would be to face the house towards Liberty Road being the street there. And the other ones are sort of the lots don't directly come into contact with Liberty Road, but that one does. Yeah, they may have to explain their rationale. Now, a lot of it has to do with moving closer to Liberty and getting rid of that parking and having that open space and trying to accommodate that. But I'm sure they'll be happy to elaborate on their thought process. Do we have design sort of regulations related to that or no? Well, they will have to meet the R1T requirements when they come in, front, side, rear, which are not very difficult to meet. But we don't have a requirement that if it's adjoining a public street that it face the street. No. Again, they can select part of their waiver. Generally, your front yard is related to your access, hence the waiver request for these others. So in this case, they're fronting on an access easement. When you make the finding, you're substituting that access easement in effect for a public street. Thank you. Yeah, that's. Okay, not seeing any further questions. Thank you, sir. Applicant. I'm Dick Murphy, I'm representing Liberty Park Development and Jeff Morgan, the principal is with me today, along with Matt Carter of Vision Engineering, our designer. We agree with all the staff findings they've presented to you on the zone change and the development plan and the conditions they've set forward. And yes, I am withdrawing the variance request because we don't need that anymore because we're fronting on the trail instead of backing up to it. But we still do need the waiver and the finding on the access easement. And Lot 4, your waiver will allow Lot 4 to face the access easement along to be consistent with 1, 2, and 3, which are right next to it on there. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. All right, I'm seeing any questions for you. Okay. Is there any citizens that would like to speak at this particular time? Nope. All right, we'll bring it back to the commission for a motion. Mr. Penn. Mr. Chairman. Could I ask one question first? Yes, ma'am. On item number 13 on the recommendations, we've got the waiver for 6-4-C. Do you want to include 6-4-E on that as well? Yes, ma'am. And that is in your waiver report, does reference both C and, yes ma'am. I bet it's all in. It's been here. Okay. All right. Okay, the floor is yours. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2280 with the 15 reasons, additions, I guess I should say, on a revised sheet. Okay, so we want to do the development plan first or the zoning first? We need to do the zoning first, please. We need to do the zoning first, we'll do that. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MAR 2227 for the reasons provided by staff. Okay, thank you, sir. And a second by Mr. DeMovillin. Please vote via Granicus. All right, that motion passes unanimously. Now we can do the- Now you want to do the development plan? Yes, sir. for approval of pln mjdp 2280 with 15 conditions on the revised plan okay we have a motion second by mr demovlin please vote via granicus okay that motion passes unanimously that will do the findings all right and waiver mr chairman i move for approval of pln mjdp 2280 petition for waiver and the findings for the waiver as presented by staff. Okay. And we have a second by Mr. DeMovillen again. Please vote via Granicus. All right. Thank you. So with my understanding, that'll put us on page 15 now. We will have an abbreviated hearing for AU and Associates. The staff has the reasonings behind that. Thank you, Mr. Forster. Ms. Clark asked to speak with me between when we did the reading of the agenda and now, and she does not object to the zone change is what she told me, but she does want her comment just entered into the record. So under those circumstances, this would qualify as an abbreviated hearing. Okay. And the staff would suggest that we take it in that manner. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bailey. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen of the Planning Commission. This is PLN MAR22-28 AU Associates, Inc. The applicant is seeking a zone change from the professional office P1 zone to the planned neighborhood residential zone for two net and 2.5 gross acres. The applicant is seeking to situate this within the regional center place type and the medium density residential development type. They are doing this to develop a three-story multifamily residential complex seeking to provide affordable housing for our aging population within Lexington. They are seeking to provide 30 units within this development for a total density of 15 units per net acre. We are located off of Sporting Court, which is a cul-de-sac that extends from Maruchio Way, a small local and local industrial road that connects with Reynolds Road and then transitions into Wellington Way. As the development plan will show, the applicant is seeking to provide access into the property off of Wellington Way with an access easement that was established previously. Just jumping into the property itself, you can see there is a host of different zoning associated with this. Across New Circle Road, which borders the northern portion of this site, is a significant amount of single-family residential, whereas on the southern portion of the roadway is a blend of commercial and residential zoning with some agricultural urban zoning. That agricultural urban zoning is the Wellington Park. So the applicant is seeking to associate their building with the park to provide an amenity for their residents in the future. This doesn't give you a great view of what's in the area just because it's zoomed in and we have a little bit of empty development in this area. But as you can see in this picture, the applicant is situating this just north of one church and east of another church or west of another church. And then we have this large-scale development here, which includes the Meyer Shopping Center. We have a host of professional offices located at this area, which range in the services they provide. And then we do have that New Circle Road right here. Just looking into the property itself, this top photo is the location of the proposed rezoning. It is a portion of the property. This carries our view down across some empty land that is currently zoned R4 and owned by the church to the south. This was rezoned for the purpose of providing affordable housing for our aging population. It has yet to develop. We are hoping to see further development following this. And then here we have the church that is situated on Sporting Court and some of our signage that was placed on the property. with any zone change within the urban service area we are looking at the place builder element of the comprehensive plan the applicant is seeking to situate this as a regional center perspective this fits into this area because we do have a host of different zoning in this area especially the area north of reynolds road and wellington way in which there is professional office v6p zoning which has the shopping center and then a little some other amenities in this area. Staff agreed with the applicant's supposition of regional center. They are also seeking to apply the medium density residential development type in this area, which matches their development type that they're displaying on the development plan. They are not utilizing a recommended zone, but with all zone changes, an applicant with a proper justification can make a case for a different zoning type. In this case, they are applying that R3, or planned neighborhood residential zone. incorporating residential into an area that does allow for some residential to occur but has not in the past, and incorporating residential that is focused on providing residents to our aging population at an affordable level with access to some of these services in that area is appropriate, and staff believes that the R3 zone is appropriate for this area. The applicant did provide one rendering of the property, and they will be providing more as the final development plan goes on. And then a staff is recommending approval of this zone change. They are seeking to provide housing at an affordable level and increasing the intensity of housing in the area. There are several areas, open properties surrounding this. This would start that infill process and meet the theme A, goal 1, or goal 1, D, or B, and theme A, goal 2. They are also providing a well-designed neighborhood, providing connections with pedestrian services and incorporating many of those connections into the adjacent park. They are meeting the development criteria for site design, building form, and location, as well as transportation and pedestrian services. And they are adding a fair amount of trees on this site, especially with the newly added parking ordinance that has been adopted. With all zone changes, this is incumbent upon the certification of approval and certification of PLN MJDP 22-82 NDC property unit 1 as amended. With that, if you have any questions on the zone change, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions for staff? No, sir. I don't see any. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, members of the planning commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this particular zone change starts on the bottom of page 15 and continues with the conditions on the top of page 16 of your agenda. Here's the overall picture to place the site, which is right here in context with the existing development and existing development plans for the area. This is an insert to give you a good close-up so you can see exactly what's being proposed on the site. There is an access easement. It is platted. It's been created. It's 60 feet wide. It runs from Wellington up through the property to serve this property in question. can see it at this location. They will extend it across the frontage and stub it into this adjoining property. Here you can see the building with the 30 units, three stories, the canopy, the entrance you just saw on the rendering. As they will enter here, they can circulate through here with the canopy and entrance. And of course, parking distributed along this border of it. We've got dumpsters proposed here. And again, as you can see in the overall New Circle Road is up here and Wellington down here. This is somewhat modified and revised from the initial plan that was presented to technical. It did go to subdivision committee as you see it today. And again, that was just to reflect some concerns with this area. Oops, there we go again. And with the dumpsters primarily. The park is right here. and we have talked to the applicant, you will see a final development plan and renderings, which will then, of course, be how they actually develop the property. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And we have a few cleanup items you can see on your agenda, but again, in the interest of an abbreviated hearing, I won't enumerate those. Pretty straightforward. Any questions for staff? I see any, thank you sir. Applicant? Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Johan Graham, I'm the owner and president of AU Associates. I just want to thank everybody for the support and staff support for this R3 rezoning project in Council District 9, which would be the first deed restricted affordable housing project in that project in almost decades, and especially one targeted for seniors in an area that is an infill and redevelopment. So please let me know if you have any questions. Any questions for the applicant? No. Thank you, Mr. Yeohan. All right, any citizens would like to speak on this particular application? Not seeing any, we'll bring it back to the commission. Floor is open for a motion. And we have two motions, the zone change and development plan. Ms. Meyer? Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLN AMER 2228 AU Associates for the zone change and for the reasons recommended by staff. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Ms. Sparksdale. Please vote via Granicus. All right, motion passes unanimously. I'd also like to move for approval of PLN, MJDP 2282, NDC Property, Unit 1A, Lot 11, Unit 3, Wellington Park. With the 13 conditions, we can delete 14 with the place builder criteria? Yes. Okay. Thank you. And we have a second by Mr. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you, AU. Look forward to seeing you again. All right, so staff, will that put us on page six now? Under PLN MAR 22-22, call your properties. We have a zone change, variance, and development plan. Correct. Yes, sir. And this will be a full hearing on this as there are individuals that are interested in discussing this application. Thank you. For commission we have revised staff recommendations for this as well. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. This is the caller properties LLC as amended. This is PLN MAR22-22. The applicant is seeking to change the conditional zoning restrictions for the property located at 2400 for sales road. This property is .92 net and 1.15 gross acres in size. The applicant is seeking to develop a coffee shop with a double drive-through facility at this location. This is a different type of process for you all. They are seeking to remove a conditional zoning restriction that limited or prohibited the use of drive-through facilities at this location. This was established in 2016 when it went through the process of the Planning Commission and then was adopted by ordinance by the Urban County Council. With all conditional zoning restrictions that are removed, it must go through a very similar process as a zone change. This is laid out in Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance. The findings required indicate that one must find that there has been a major economic, physical, or social change that has occurred on the subject property or within the area in which the subject property is located, which was not anticipated at the time the binding restriction or condition was imposed, and which subsequently altered the basic character of the area making the restriction or condition inappropriate or improper. And in this case, it is incumbent upon the applicant to go ahead and provide such findings or such evidence evidence to show that the applied restriction was either applied inappropriately or that there has been that change in the area. We are looking at the property located off of Versailles Road as we are leaving town. We have Parker's Mill Road that's coming up right here. Jumping into the zoning of the property, the subject property is currently zoned restricted neighborhood business. It is neighbored by a highway service business zone on the eastern side, and then on all other sides, residential. We have R1B zoning located down in this area, R1A here, and then R1C north of the subject property. It's important to note that this is along Versailles Road, which is an arterial roadway within our community. The subject property was rezoned in that 2016 zone change from an R1A zone to the B1 zone with restrictions. Those restrictions were specifically applied to the subject property because of some concerns with the adjacency to the neighboring residential properties, but also, as found within the minutes of that hearing, concerns about impact of a drive-through facility along Versailles Road. Just jumping into the aerial photography of the site, you can see how the land use has developed, and you can also see a quite large floodplain that is located along the rear of the property, as well as many of the other properties on the south side of Versailles Road. The subject property has submitted documentation for permits to allow them to go ahead and modify that landscape, to allow for some development to occur on site. Jumping into the property itself, you can see on this top photo, this is looking into the property itself. It is relatively flat from this location, but drops off into the back and sides. This is where it is dropping off from that modified flood plane area into the flood plane itself. On our left photo, we have a picture of Versailles Road heading into town. On the right, heading out of town towards the airport. On this bottom photo, you can see the opposing development. That is the residential R1C development that is occurring across the street. It is significantly buffered from Versailles Road. Just looking at the property again, as I mentioned previously, the major concerns for staff during the 2016 zone change was the proximity of the proposed use, which at the time was just going to be a standalone shopping area, some sort of retail or restaurant business. And there was considerable concern about adjacency to the neighbors, as well as the impact on Versailles Road. In the time since that application and with the submission of the applicant's new justification, They provided greater information about the impact on the roadway and greater information as to how they were going to buffer the subject property from the neighboring residential land uses. The applicant submitted a development plan, which I will jump to because it does get into some of our conversation, submitted this application to show how they are seeking to buffer against the residential properties with trees, providing greater information about how the landscape is in that area, how the interaction with the properties is made, as well as some of the new technologies that are being utilized at this property. They have provided for a different type of entry point using a three-quarter turn. This allows for left-hand turns in to the property and then right-hand turns in and out of the property. It limits left-hand turns out of the property, which is some of the greatest concern for staff, especially along our arterial roadways. You've heard quite a bit of conversation that we've had over the many months about some of the issues of left-hand turns out of commercial development onto arterial roadways and creating collisions and major safety impacts. Additionally, the applicants supplied a traffic impact study with this. This development did not require a traffic impact study during the time of rezoning in 2016, and based off of what they are providing today, would not necessitate a traffic impact study. That traffic impact study was submitted to show that the proposed impact on Versailles Road was not a problem. The Division of Planning Transportation Section, or the MPO, reviewed this information and found that their assumptions within the traffic impact study were correct. The Division of Traffic Engineering also reviewed the traffic impact study and found that the assumptions made therein were correct, that this proposed drive-through facility would not have a negative impact upon the development of the site and any safety impacts on the roadway. This new evidence, as well as the enhanced screening and information on their menu board and speaker system, provided adequate information for the applicant to prove that there has been changes within the area and new evidence to show that the conditional zoning restrictions that were imposed were inappropriate for this property. The applicant also cites the 2018 comprehensive plan and utilizes many of the development criteria for the corridor place type, low density to medium density development type, to show that they are utilizing many of the transitions that were discussed within the comprehensive plan that go from a commercial development to more residential developments. They are seeking to apply that across the site, including providing road improvements along Versailles Road that match many of the improvements that are happening further down Versailles Road that have been government spending projects, including applying street trees, as well as some public art. So with all of the applicant's information that has been submitted, staff is recommending approval of the removal of the conditional zoning restriction at this location. Evidence related to the impact of traffic along Versailles Road has been properly evaluated, and the evidence provided through the traffic impact study shows that there will be no negative health, safety, or welfare impacts along Versailles Road. The proposed ingress and egress point is designed to limit those dangerous left-hand turns out of the subject property. The inclusion of the large buffers and new technology associated with the ordering point reduces the impact of the drive-through facilities on the adjacent residential land uses. And then that adoption of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan provides for greater guidance for the development and appropriate transition from more intense land uses to less intense land uses. the applicant has not requested any other modification of the the conditional zoning restrictions however staff would ask that the planning commission remove one other there is a reference to the sale of firearms other than federally licensed manufacturers importers or dealers the state has changed the regulations when it comes to what we as local government can do to deal with the sale or restrict the sale of firearms, this application of this conditional zoning restriction would be a violation of state statute. So staff would ask that the Planning Commission remove this from the conditional zoning restrictions. There are other landscaping and buffering restrictions that limit the amount of lighting and freestanding signage. Staff recommends that we keep this as the applicant has not requested or provided any new evidence that would allow for the removal of them. And this still complies with the justification that was given previously during the 2016 zone change. This is incumbent upon the approval and certification of PLN MJDP 2272 Fox property, which we'll discuss with you here just in a moment. If you have any questions on this restriction change, technically a zone change for this property, I'd be happy to answer them now. Bailey, you did say remove sale of firearms? Yes, sir. That is condition number six. Yes. Okay. Just wanted to double check. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Penn. Mr. Bailey, I heard you say in your opening remarks that this piece of property had been restricted from drive-throughs by the Planning Commission, also by the Council. So the process here, if we go forward and put a drive-through on this, then it goes back to the Council and they have to approve it? So this follows the same zone change process. you will be making a recommendation to the urban county council. The urban county council will then decide whether to approve or disapprove the removal of this restriction. If the urban county council decides that they are in agreement or disagreement, they will move forward with the application at that time. If it is approved to remove the restriction, a new ordinance will be created to restrict the land use of this property and allow for a drive-through to occur. They are doing this as a final development plan, so this is not going to be coming back. That was my next question, whether this was final or preliminary. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the development plan that you see before you for this zone change, we have revised conditions for you on a blue sheet of paper that should be at your seats. Hal touched on the issues really for this plan. And that is again, here's Roussel's Road, here's the lot, the net size of the lot is under an acre, and the impact of the floodplain is significant on this property and has been. And the adjoining property, which is also part of the original Fox property, is virtually entirely within the floodplain. They have a CLOMER that's been approved as a conditional letter of map revision, so they've done a lot of upfront work and engineering on this site already. And basically this is the area post development that they can utilize. This building is 1750 square feet. You can see the entrance that's been designed here. They can come in and the drive-throughs circulate here. There's no seating in the restaurant to come in and get it. It is a drive-through coffee place. will not be coming in sitting down and that sort of thing. There is a proposed little patio area here in a walk-up for pedestrian traffic or bicyclists to come up and pick up coffee. The original concern, as you well know, was this access onto Roussel's Road. And again, the modified design that is before you today that has been approved was reviewed And what we've learned, and you all know this, is that a lot of times we recommend right-in, right-outs. The functionality of those right-in, right-outs can be very difficult without really extensive and appropriate median controls, which don't exist in this area. And we have Parker's Mill right up here with that intersection and with the light. So it's been recommended, again, as Hal described, a modified. It restricts those left out turns and takes away that particular conflict from the property. So they have accommodated that with the design. This will help direct drivers, hopefully, and people utilize it correctly. And again, there was a slight resusion to this plan. There was some concern initially about the functionality right here with the drive-through traffic and potential conflicts. I made some adjustments, so that's cleaner. And with that, with these revisions, you can see that principally they are remaining just sign-offs from the relative agencies on this particular plan. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. Benn. Mr. Martin, I heard you say this was going to be used for a coffee shop type situation. If we grant this and the coffee shop goes out and some more intense use comes in, do they still have the drive-thru? Yes, sir. They'll have the access and drive-thru. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Bailey. And I believe Mr. Bailey is going to address the variance. That's a front yard variance from the setback. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We are looking at a variance for this property, specifically to the front yard setback. Within the neighborhood business zone, the front yard is required to have a 20-foot maximum setback. This is often referred to a build-to line. Initially, the applicant asked or requested a 40-foot setback, so a variance of 20 feet. In conversation with the applicant, staff wanted to know how they were utilizing their property. They provided greater information, and that variance request has been reduced to a 6-foot variance request or a 26-foot setback. the area that we're specifically talking right up there in the front the area that staff had concern with was the area of patio up front the staff was wondering if that had a structure upon it some sort of hard awning or canopy space the applicant indicated that that was part of their model that they were seeking to have an order point in front of the structure and have some tables under a canopied space. That canopied space is considered part of the structure itself and actually works towards the build to line, which is why they have reduced their requests to just the six feet. In review of the applicant's justification, they discussed two different real elements. The first one being operation of the site on a site that is impacted by a fair amount of floodplain. This not only plays into a part with the sanitary service for the property, so getting at the waste pickup, solid waste pickup on the site. As you know from many of your meetings, the solid waste has some concerns not only with where things are located, but how far that they need to back up to be able to turn around and get outside the property. The applicant indicated that they have placed the dumpster location at this area to allow for a solid waste truck to come in, access it, pull back a small amount, and then circulate around the building and out and take a right onto Versailles Road. Staff understands that this can be a hard thing to do on such a limited site. So staff saw that this was a unique characteristic of the site for this property. Additionally, the applicant discussed a bit about the function of the site, especially with parking and safety. The flow of the site typically will have individuals coming in here circulating around the building and then leaving out this right access. They are looking at one-way circulation around the building. This is also of particular importance when we're discussing safety on the site. For individuals that are entering the site, their options are to either go to the parking or go to the drive-thru. If there were no circulation around the front of the building, there would be conflicts of individuals entering into the site and then individuals trying to exit out the site. By having circulation around the building, we have the safest vehicular movement throughout the area to avoid any potential conflicts at the entryway with that three or three quarters entryway. Staff found that due to the location of the floodplain, the limited buildability on the site, and some of the operational concerns, the movement of the structure back six feet was appropriate. Staff is recommending approval of this variance request or this lesser variance request of six feet as it will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the community nor create a public nuisance. It will allow for safe circulation throughout the small site by passenger and commercial vehicles. The restricted area for the use is caused by that floodplain along the rear and side of the property, and the circumstances of this variance are not the result of the applicant's decisions. This is incumbent upon the approval of the modification of the conditional zoning restrictions by the Urban County Council, and that the applicant billed and received all permits in association with the final development plan, which they are proposing here. And then finally, that the action of the Planning Commission shall be noted on the development plan for the subject property. If you have any questions, staff would be happy to answer them. Any questions? Yeah, Hal, I've got a question about that. Can you go back to that plan? I'm seeing that they are pushing the building back because they need the space for the circulation around the building. That looks like pretty typical drive-through circulation. I'm not sure why that has anything to do with the floodplain. And so what I'm wondering here is we have one requirement that says we want neighborhood businesses built up on the sidewalk, up on the street, we want our neighborhoods being redeveloped in a more pedestrian orientation. And then we have the development here for what is a vehicular-focused development, and it seems like that is why this is not in compliance, not because of any floodplain or unique site characteristics. Could you address that? Yes, sir. So typically with a B1 zone in which we don't have limitations on the property, we would want to have a fuller kind of orientation to the front of the property itself. In this case, due to the floodplain, which cuts across this area, having access into the property as well as a full activation of that front wallplain onto the streetscape is near impossible because of the stormwater drainage right here as well as that location of the floodplain itself. So in this case, we are looking not just from the rear of the property, but the impacts of the side to side for the property in limiting the applicant's ability to move it up, much like you would see with the Wendy's or the Andy's frozen custard over on South Broadway. Those are two instances in which we had that ability to pull access to the rear of the building, circulate in the rear, and then go back out where there is a drive-through in a B1 zone. In terms of character of this area, staff did look at that as well. The neighboring property in the B3 zone is set back 80 feet. The residential property to the west of the subject property is set back 70 feet. So there are, there's not really the same type of context that we would be seeing for a more urbanized street facing frontage. Thank you, Hal. Okay, Hal, not seeing any more questions right now. Thank you. Applicant. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicant. I also have with me Jason Taylor with Collar Properties and Clay Johnson with Prime that did our traffic impact study. And then Tony Baird who's been doing our design work. We agree with what the staff has presented today. As many of you know, we've worked many, many months on this project and had the traffic impact study. It made lots of modifications to take a very difficult site that's compromised and make it into hopefully something that will function and will be a benefit to the city to help with mitigate some of the concerns on it being vehicular centric. We did adopt many of the recommendations of the Versailles Road corridor, even though we are not within that corridor, to bring art and the sidewalks and other things, design those very similar. So when those improvements occur on this side of Versailles Road, they'll be able to tie right into it. And then as Hal said on the building setback, we are adding the street trees, which also gives that linear site that the comprehensive plan calls for. So it does not just have to be buildings. Sometimes you can use hardscape like the art and the trees to accomplish that. So I'm here to answer any questions. I know that there are a couple people in the audience. We met with one of the gentlemen, and his concern was on traffic. in that he just objected to the site, so I'll just respond when he comes up. But as the staff has said, we've worked very diligently with the various departments to come up with a safe traffic design site. And then Ms. Clark has some comments, too, and so I'll just sit back and wait to see what those are, and then I'll explain to you unless you have any questions for me. Any questions for the applicant at this time? Yeah, one quick question. The parking spaces, when they exit those, are they going to circle through the drive-through? Also. Okay. Can you get the... All right. So here. Back, back. Here we go. Yes. So make sure I hit the right button. Don't turn it off by accident. Top right. Like here. Yeah. I'm going to point. Okay. Is that... See, I don't think that would be off. Usually I don't push red is usually how I go. I go throughout with light. That's right, yeah. So, yes, so how traffic will flow is these are pervious parking spaces, and those cars will come out and they will circulate through the site and exit here. So all traffic will be one way. We have added this here, which is a potential bump out. if this site ever gets developed to maybe have a cross access onto the other site to get onto Parker's Mill so we have built in that relief valve in the future if that ever becomes available for us to use. There's a bypass lane. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. And this is a bypass lane. Tony reminded me. This is not a drive-through lane. This will be bypassed so any cars or emergency vehicles can get around the site while cars are in the drive-through lane. Thank you. All right, thank you. Thank you very much. This is time for citizen comments. If you have any comments either for or against this particular agenda item, please do so by stepping up to the podium. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon, members of the commission. Paula Singer, I live at 110 Hamilton Park off Hercells Road. And I am objecting to the further accommodations required for the development of this property. I hope to give you a slightly broader picture of this Cardinal Valley-Versales Road neighborhood and the direction in which it is going and has been going over several years. This property sits just a few yards west of the boundary for the 2015 Cardinal Valley Versailles Road small area plan, which emphasized encouraging the strengthening of neighborhood services and pedestrian safety. I'm glad to say that the first phase of the Versailles Road project was recently completed at the end of 2021. Millions of dollars were spent on pedestrian and bicycle and vehicular safety, including wider sidewalks set back and protected from the roadway, and pedestrian-friendly benches. A new village branch library, again costing millions of dollars, is under construction at 2185 Versailles Road. Our mayor has allocated over $5 million in the current budget for the redesign of an intersection at Mason-Headley and Versailles Road for future elementary school construction at 2160 Versailles Road. Residential properties under construction or recently completed along Versailles Road include an expansion of senior housing at Christian Towers, 1511 Versailles Road, residential housing for those with health vulnerabilities at 1812 for sales road and the lfucg housing authority apartments duplexes and housing complex under construction at 1604 for sales road which is all to say that this area is continuing development as a residential area that is no longer a highway services area to serve commuters, but an area that has been developing over the past several years to accommodate pedestrians, people with needs for affordable housing, and for pedestrian and neighborhood facilities, and not for facilities which accommodate those in vehicles traveling through the neighborhood, but not staying within the neighborhood. I bring to mind properties that were recently granted upzoning from residential zoning continue to be used as residential properties. I reference the four homes at 1501 to 1509 Versailles Road, which in 2016, at the same time that this property's zoning was changed, in 2016 was granted B1 status from residential and today is still being used as a residential property, has not been developed. I also reference 1318 to 1320 Versailles Road, a once lovely 12-unit apartment building of historic significance that was granted accommodations for use as a mega speedway gas station just two years ago, only to now sit with boarded-up windows and homeless camps in the rear of the property has not been developed. And I reference this very property, a single-family home, until it was granted B1 status in 2016, still sitting undeveloped, perhaps indicating that single-family residential is what was most appropriate for this floodplain area. Lastly, late last year, Board of Adjustment Chair Harry Clark forcefully acknowledged when reviewing a drive-through request at 2312 Versailles Road that the Parker's Mill Versailles Road intersection is a traffic nightmare. And I suggest that further study of this area is needed. All this to say, and finally, that Versailles Road is no longer a highway serving communities. I suggest to you to consider that Versailles Road is a hub of community activity and services for the Cardinal Valley, for Sales Road neighborhood, and surrounding Westside neighborhoods. And it is not appropriate to take this property in the wrong direction to try to go back to make this area a commuter highway. Thank you. Commission, thank you for your time. My name is Austin Wilkerson. I would like to more or less echo some of the points made by the previous speaker. In particular, I would like to highlight what she described as the traffic nightmare at the intersection of Parker's Mill and Versailles Road. Though I'm not the property owner, I have lived as a tenant at the neighboring adjacent property 2484 Versailles Road for going on seven years now. And despite all of the adjustments and the plans proposed and mitigating factors such as the prohibited left turnout, I remain skeptical that such proposals would do anything other than just increase congestion and risk at the Versailles Road and Parker's Mill intersection. Every day I've watched out my window is traffic inbound, double lanes, backs out almost all the way from Parkersville all the way to the colony. And anyone trying to turn into town or, in particular, come out of the Columet neighborhood down Bordeaux Drive has an uphill battle. And in the seven years that I've been at the property, I've witnessed seven accidents right up my front window while I'm doing my dishes, usually during the morning school commute with parents trying to access Parker's Mill to get their kids to Dunbar High School. While the inbound traffic, of course, causes a lot of this just on its own, a big issue is the Starbucks that's on the corner now. It's right on the corner. It has an access you pull in from Versailles Road, and the traffic already trying to get to Parker's Mill is exacerbated by people now trying to fight their way over to the Starbucks. And the Starbucks saving grace on that corner lot is that there's an exit to Parker's Mill currently, so people can sneak out and either go on or turn back to Versailles Road. And again, despite a lot of the proposals made to mitigate the traffic issues, I don't see how adding another drive-through coffee shop next door. I walk this stretch of sidewalk every day, and their proposed right-turn exit is about three or four car lengths away from the entrance to Starbucks. And I don't see how that wouldn't just create a massive congestion problem and, of course, increase the risk for people who are trying to go to school and go to work or me who's trying to turn out of my driveway. So I just wanted to perhaps give a more context, a grounds-eye view from someone who lives in the area. while I don't doubt that again some of the proposals made are accurate I just think the situation already is untenable and that if I'm if I had any sort of sway I would suggest further examination into whether or not this particular location needs to be turned into a drive-through coffee shop something with a vehicular focus in what is already a congested and again fraught area So thank you all very much for your time. Thank you. Ms. Clark. I'm Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road. We talk a lot about how to grow. To me, accommodating a drive-through is not the way we want to grow and that's exactly the question you have before you in a zone change. It's not technically a zone change. It's a zone change. It was sought as a B3 zone initially months ago, and I believe it remains in intent and purpose a B3 that is sought by the conditional zoning restrictions being removed. I'm reading from the applicant's letter of December 28th. The applicant continues to propose to develop a quick service coffee business, Scooter's Coffee. And Mr. Penn is very right to remind us all that it might be that or it might be something different or it might change. Or, as neighbors have suggested, it might fail to develop and maybe they'll be back. So the property is vacant and underutilized, says the applicant. and this project would allow the property to be developed to serve the needs of the community within the urban service boundary. And then to look at the intent of the zone, which we're told is just the intent, the proposed zoning B1, this zone is intended to accommodate the neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area. It's wonderful that the plan for the roadway width is being to some extent honored and accommodated in this. I would remind you that a right in, right out kind of situation is uncontrolled. There's not a signal. It's not an intersection. It's really hard on bikes and peds. And in fact, it's something they're trying to remove in the redesign to make a more multimodal Versailles road. This is kind of like the emperor's new clothes. They made some modifications. They made some changes. He's wearing a B1 suit with some fancy embroidery, except it looks like B3 to me. It just looks like B3 to serve the needs of the whole community. It's completely auto-oriented. And I would urge that you deny the variance that relieves that short front yard. You'll notice there are three paths in and one path out. There's no room to stack up behind the stop sign. and the canopy that pretends to be building, I mean, it's enough to make a building line, actually abuts a lane of traffic, the sole exit lane for this whole business, including the garbage truck. I don't think that the garbage truck is the sole reason. I don't think that the constraints of the floodplain are the sole reason that they require a difference in setback. Because they're talking about saving room for cross-access through the neighboring property. They could save room to turn the garbage truck around if need be. I urge that you not approve the development plan because then whatever happens next is completely out of your control. it is a final development plan, and it includes that variance. It looks like B3 to me. Thank you. Thank you. I see anyone else. Applicant, step up for your rebuttal. Thank you very much. I'll just make this real short. I will say the first witness talked a lot about the different studies. And like I mentioned earlier, we reviewed those studies. We talked with the staff about those studies. And we have proposed wider sidewalks. We've moved the sidewalk back from the roadway. The patio is an activation so that there is seating along the Versailles Road. We've proposed bike parking. We proposed public art. We essentially proposed most things that that study said you should do along the corridor. We've adopted those in this plan. A lot of what was talked about also was anecdotal evidence about the traffic. As I mentioned, we have a traffic impact study. That impact study shows that we expect to have five new cars added to Versailles Road to come to this project. Most of the traffic is going to be passed by traffic, which means they're already on Versailles Road and they're just pulling off at this location rather than a different location. So we're not going to add additional traffic to this area. And then on the possibility of a new use in the future, that's always a possibility with any development. In this instance, we have a letter of intent from scooters. That's who we plan to move forward with. I will say that the size of the building is only 1,750 feet, which, as you know, will limit most of the quick service restaurants that you're concerned about. Chick-fil-A, McDonald's, those high volume, larger establishments do not have sites that are that small for their building. And so we have purposely made the building smaller to give you comfort that even if the coffee shop would fail, that there would not be a large backfill user coming in in the future. I'm here to answer any questions if you have any. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Mickler. I do have one related to the comment you sort of made earlier. In that variance request, you said that that can be met in hardscaping and other aspects as well. Well, no, and I didn't mean that we can use hardscaping to comply with the maximum bill 2 line. What I was getting to is the linear discussions within the comp plan. you can use buildings but other things trees, other items will still have that same linear structure and so what we have done is normally if we had the full site the full one acre on a B1 we would see something more like the Wendy's or the Andes where there could be maybe traffic flow in the rear but if you look at the pull that back If you look here, if it is, let me see here, there we go. So essentially the post-development floodplain is everything in the green here. So there's not really an opportunity to flip the building to give it that linear effect that you see with some of those other developments. unless we were to flip it and make the building about a quarter of the size that we're proposing. Just because... of wanting to make sure we've got the appropriate circulation and wanting that bypass lane and then given the limitations of the floodplain. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yes, okay, this is a question for staff. Ms. Worth? Yeah, are you done? Okay, thank you. for staff i think the applicant has done everything they can do for that particular property my question which i haven't heard us discuss in our committee meetings is the cardinal valley versus sales road small area plan and whether this is in in that context rather than a specific property in that context. Is this appropriate to that plan? This is actually located outside of that small area plan, but it has taken into account some of the recommendations of that small area plan and some of the state-funded modifications of Versailles Road, including shifting the sidewalk back, providing trees along the frontage of the property essentially in the vegetation strip or what some people refer to as the utility strip. So that is in kind to some of the development that has occurred down the way in Versailles Road. They are also required to increase the sidewalk width at this location because of the newer standards since they are redeveloping this area to meet an arterial roadway. Versailles Road is an arterial roadway into the city and we have specific sizing requirements that are larger than what you would see on a local roadway. So you're saying it's planned to transition into that area? Yes. Okay, thank you. I would also just like to point out that there was a comment that this is a zone change. It is a zone change in the process in which it is reviewed. It has vastly different findings that are required to be made. These are outlined in Article 6-7. We highlighted that earlier. This is not a review of the comprehensive plan in the same way. So within the initial application, staff had differing opinions based off of the information that was provided. Within this, we have different restrictions on what we are to be reviewing and what the findings are to be made. Thank you. Thank you. If you have anything new to add, please step up to the podium. Ms. Clark, I saw you had your hand raised. I didn't want to. Yes, I'd like to remind you that a traffic impact study, and this one in particular, is based on a presumed use. So it would be a little foolhardy to change a zone based on a presumed use that may or may not continue and endure or thrive. No FAR to speak of, no seating even in the area. One thing that hasn't changed, apparently the argument of the petitioner is that the virus means that now we need drive-thrus everywhere and always. We need affordable housing. another area, a very narrow lot on a floodplain you saw lately with Stonewall development. They made it a wonderful opportunity for yards for the housing. The land that is the subject of this petition hasn't changed a bit. That too, I think, is important in the findings. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Senor. If I may, thank you. While this property is not within the small area plan, it is at the entrance to the Cardinal Valley, Versailles Road neighborhood. And as such, it sets the tone for the area. And the tone needs to be pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-accommodating. And even when you have a wider sidewalk, which we do appreciate it was giving thought to, even when you do have a wider sidewalk, when that wider sidewalk is cut through by a driveway for vehicles in a 45 mile per hour speed limit zone, it almost creates more of a pedestrian hazard by, on the one hand, accommodating pedestrians with a wider sidewalk, and on the other hand, having cars come in to turn into a driveway off a 45 mile per hour speed limit. So again, I think we're trying to fit something into an area where it does not belong and certainly doesn't belong as we look at the future of this area. Thank you. Thank you. Does any commission members have any continual questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. All right, well we'll close this part out and bring it back to the commission for further questions amongst each other or the floor is open for a motion if there is none. Don't look at me, I can't vote. I can't make a motion. How, Mr. Mickler. I want to take a minute and hear other people's thoughts here, is that what. Yeah, that was part of the statement I said. Mm-hm. My thought is half of this lot is a natural area that's in a floodplain. And I'm sorry to see that they're not engaging that space, which I think a coffee shop or a cafe certainly can engage outdoor space. I think as we try to redevelop and bring new businesses into our corridors and our streets, that trying to fit drive-thrus where they don't really fit doesn't justify moving our building lines, to me on the variance request here in particular. I thought they did make the case, and I think it is true, that this business would be drawing in people that are on the Versailles Road corridor. They likely would be coming into work on that side of the street. I think that makes a compelling argument as far as the traffic justifications that they bring, but I don't see this site plan or this development plan being in keeping with our regulations. And I don't see why bringing a drive through coffee shop to this location justifies us contorting them and granting the variance. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Mr. Penn. I like Mr. Mickler. If we had the whole lot, we didn't have the floodplain, it would be a whole different idea. It wouldn't even be a coffee shop. As the applicants said, it would be a Wendy's or something like that. My concern here is we don't have the back door that Starbucks has. If you look at the Starbucks, the only reason that works is that a big percentage of those people choose to go out to Parker's Mill, either go left or right. They don't try to go back on Versailles Road. So therefore, I just think this is seven pounds of flour and a five-pound sack. I think it's way too much when you don't have the use of the whole lot, and therefore I'm inclined to not support this. All right, thank you Mr. Penn. Any further comments, questions? What is the plan for the property going toward New Circle Road on that same side? Are we envisioning additional residential or, I mean, I'm having a little trouble seeing the impact of crossing the sidewalk on that area, because there's not a lot of residential right there that I could see walking. Staff? So ma'am, the neighboring property is currently zoned R1A. It has a significant amount of floodplain that would limit any type of development. It is also directly adjacent to the colony neighborhood design character overlay and residential complex. The current availability of change in that area would have to be applied for with the zone change application and meet the comprehensive plan. That is possibly the difference between what this application is discussing with the removal of conditional zoning restrictions and not going forward with a full-scale zone change to a B3 zone, because of the need to meet the comprehensive plan. Thank you. All right. There's no other questions. The floor is open still. Someone to take a stab at it. I'd just like to say I appreciate what the applicant has done and trying to work this all out. I just really question this location and the fact that the drive-through stays if this coffee shop doesn't is concerning to me because I wonder if the building could be increased in size at a later time? That would require a development plan amendment. Currently, there is a approved but out of date now development plan that showed a larger size structure but no drive-through facility. Any modification of the size of the structure would need to come back to this planning commission and at that point, you would also be reviewing whether or not the drive-through facilities had adequate space to function in that area in a b1 zone is worth this is just to get us on the record okay um i'm going to move for for disapproval of PLN MAR 2222 Collar Properties Zone Ramp Amendment. We have a motion on the table for disapproval. The commission needs findings. You need findings. That was my next question. We're going to have, yes. Do you need me to restate that? Well, you don't. You can make that motion, but you need to have findings in support of your motion. Per Article 6-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, to modify conditional zoning restrictions, the Planning Commission has to find that the restriction, that there has been a substantially, sorry. That there hasn't been a substantial change, right? No, the request may be granted by the Council only, or Planning Commission only, found that there's been a major change of an economic, physical, or social nature on the subject property within the area that was not anticipated at the time the binding restriction or condition was imposed and which has substantially altered the basic character of the area, making the restriction or condition inappropriate or improper. Okay, Ms. Wade, I'm going to go the opposite way because it's easier and we'll get on the record. I'm going to move for approval with the variance and request for a vote if we get a second. Let me ask, Mr. Mayor, we would need to do each approval separately, correct? It's like we would do any other approval, right? Right. So we would need to do the zone change first, then the development plan, then the variance. So we would have to do them all on an individual basis. All right. So I can do the zone change first? Yes. All right. And I think Tracy can write a finding if you want to propose it the other way. If, well, you have a finding for the motion you just made on the approval. If you are going to go the other way, you're going to have to have different findings than what you already have. But remember, and they're slightly different because this isn't a zone change. It's just removing a conditional or not removing a conditional zoning restriction that right now currently prohibits a drive-through. They're asking you to remove that so it would allow a drive-through. But it doesn't change the zone, if that makes sense. The current motion you just put on the floor was to approve the removal of the conditional zoning restriction allowing the drive-through, which you have findings for. I don't believe there is a second as of yet. So I would like to state it that way and get us on the record in terms of what the commission says about that. Okay. It's a deficiency move, not a position. So on the record right now, we have a motion for PLN MAR 22-22 currently. And we have a motion by Ms. Wirth, so we're looking for a second. Second. Seconded by Mr. DeMovilland. And now we can take a vote via Granicus. Okay, so the nays have it. So now we need findings for that. But we're going to carry it. Might I recommend taking a moment to meet with your law? Yes, I was going to suggest that. We get about a five minute recess and that'll be fine. If anyone needs to take a bathroom break, please do so, because the next item is going to be pretty long. Thank you. Okay, staff, I think we are ready for these three separate motions. Ms. Worth? All right, Mr. Chairman, I move for disapproval of PLN MAR 2222, call your properties for the conditional zoning request because there's been no major change of an economic, physical, or social nature on the property that was in existence at the time of the conditional zoning restriction prohibiting a drive-through is imposed. Okay, turning the page on option B, Mr. Chair, I move to indefinitely postpone the variance request. The zone development plan first? Okay, sorry. Okay. Okay, PLN MJDP 2272 Fox property at 2400 First Sales Road. Motion for disapproval because the removal of the conditional zoning restriction has been recommended for disapproval. And the conditional zoning restriction prohibits drive throughs. No, I think we're a little bit mixed up. I think the motion right now is on the development plan and it's just to indefinitely postpone it. I'm sorry. then you'll do the then you'll do the variance yeah okay on the development plan move to indefinitely postpone now I'm going to try this one again on the variance move for disapproval because the Removal of the conditional zoning restriction has been recommended for disapproval, and the conditional zoning restrictions prohibit drive-thrues. Okay. We've got a motion and a second. Second, Mr. Meyer, please vote via Grantis. All righty, that motion passes. Thank you. Okay, so that staff, put this on page 8. And before we get started, we have granted some speaking times, some additional times to Judge Goodman for 12 minutes and Tom Miller for 15 minutes. Everyone else, there will be a limit, a maximum of three minutes per person. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Members of the Planning Commission, this is PLN MAR 22-00023. IBCP 8th and South LLC. Before staff begins their presentation, we have received eight letters of opposition and one letter of support for this project, which I'll hand to you now. Ladies and gentlemen, slightly abnormal from what we typically do. We typically shut off acceptance of letters. Since we have letters of both support and opposition, I will hand you these now. Three? Yes, three letters of opposition and letter of support. by three individuals all right the subject zone change is uh a the applicant is seeking a zone change from the interchange service business zone or the b5p zone to the highway service business zone or B3 zone for approximately 30.24 or net and 37.36 gross acres for properties located at 5380 Athens Boonesboro Road and 5354 Athens Boonesboro Road, a portion of. Typically, when we talk about place type and development type, we are looking at specific place types and development types within the urban service area. As this is located outside of the urban service area in the rural service area, we look at the place type as designated by the Rural Land Management Plan. In this case, it is within the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center as designated by the Rural Land Management Plan. The petitioner is seeking this zone change to the B3 zone to allow for the construction of a soccer stadium, including 6,500 seats, a training facility, a medical treatment facility and commercial outlots. To allow for the construction of the stadium, the applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit for the stadium, which staff will review following the review of the development plan. The proposed access into the site is located along Doe Run Trail, and the applicant is proposing a new access, which had been previously approved, a thousand feet west of the current access point. Jumping into the property itself, we are able to see the zoning that surrounds the subject property, which includes primarily B5P zoning, which is located on the north, east, and west boundaries of the area of rezoning. To the south, the property is, on 5354 is split zoned. It is within the B5P zone and the agricultural rural or the AR zone. For 5380 Athens-Boonesboro Road, 15.98 acres are being rezoned. And for 5354 Athens-Boonesboro Road, 14.26 acres are being rezoned. This leaves a remainder of 36.28 acres of B5P zoning and 86.91 acres of AR zoning. The AR zoning is inappropriate to be rezoned as it is located outside of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. Just looking at the aerial photography of the parcel of property seeking to be rezoned, we can see that there has been no development on this portion of the property. The vast majority of development that has occurred in the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center has occurred east of I-75. This area was rezoned in the 1960s to allow for a resort and golf course to develop that never came to fruition as the topography in this area is quite challenging. Looking into the property itself on the top left photo, you can see the topography of leading into 5380 Athens Boonesboro Road. There's quite a large outcrop at that area. And then the photo to the right part of the screen, you're not looking specifically along the frontage of Athens Boonesboro at the area that is being rezoned, but in the area behind that. The lower photo gives you a better view of the property that is proposed to be rezoned. On the leftmost portion of the property, the applicant is seeking to apply for the stadium. Looking forward into the property, we're getting more into the outlaw development as well as the medical facility or medical clinic offices. This next set of photos gives you a bit of a view of the street itself. The top left photo shows Athens Boonesboro leading into town before the transition to Richmond Road. Center photo is the photo of the opposing development, a fast casual drive-through restaurant and a gas station. And then the rightmost photo is the entryway onto I-75, as well as the overpass that leads you towards the Athens-Boonesboro Rural Settlement. The bottom photo is a view into the subject property along Doe Run Trail, located right here, and the current development that is located along Athens-Boonesboro Road. With all zone changes, we are looking to the comprehensive plan to be the first guidance for any type of zone change for agreement with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. In this case, as the property is located outside of the urban service area and in the rural service area, we are also looking to guidance from the rural land management plan. Both documents are reviewed for agreement with the overall compliance with adopted comprehensive plans and their adopted sub-elements. within the comprehensive plan and the place builder element there is a specific location that talks about rural development in the rlmp the comprehensive plan specifically tells applicants to look to the rural land management plan for any changes within the rural service area so stewardship policy number five also leads the applicant to look at the rural activity centers for any type of urbanized development. Within Sewership Policy 5, which is a replication of some of the language within the Rural Land Management Plan, it is meant to fully realize the development potential within Lexington's rural activity centers while avoiding negative impacts to surrounding agricultural rural settlements and viewsheds. This has been a major component of staff's review of the applicant's justification letter and all of the supplemental information that has been applied. Rural activity centers were established with the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, and there are four within our community spread into the northeast, west, and south portions of town, or of the county. The four rural activity centers, which I might refer to as a RAC, because it's a little less of a tongue twister, are the Blue Sky Industrial Park, Avon or the Bluegrass Station, Spindletop Research Park, and the Bluegrass Airport. These were hubs of existing employment outside of the urban service area, really before the urban service area was applied. These have received specific public facilities and services to support them, and specifically for the non-residential land uses. This is a significant aspect of the zoning that staff can look at within our rural activity centers, specifically looking at non-residential zones like the highway service business B3 zone, the interchange service business zone or the B5P zone, the warehousing business zone, warehousing and wholesale business zone, the B4 zone, light industrial zone, the I1, and the heavy industrial zone, the I2. We have asterisks at the B4, I1, and I2 because each of those do allow for residential to occur. They allow it in two different cases. The first case being watchmen for any type of industrial development. The second case being with our adaptive reuse or industrial reuse projects, which allow residential by right. the specific rural activity center that we are discussing today is the blue sky rural activity center located in the southeastern portion of town the blue sky rural activity center is located at the intersection of i-75 and athans boonesboro road it includes 406 acres the zoning currently in the area is AR, P1, B3, B5P, and I1. It is connected to municipal services, specifically the sanitary sewer system. It was recommended in the past for warehousing, light industrial, and interstate commercial development, specifically tying to both the growth of jobs in the area, as well as providing amenities to those along the Athens-Boonesboro corridor and the I-75 interchange. There are various I-1 parcels within this area that are very underutilized, specifically those parcels to the west of I-75. These parcels are being utilized currently as surface parking lots for sales of vehicles. Within the Rural Land Management Plan, there is both a policy emphasis and then recommendations associated with the rural activity centers. The policy emphasis for our rural activity centers are to maximize the potential jobs while maintaining the boundaries and minimizing impacts on the rural area. The recommendations really fall into a few different ways. It is really focused on maintaining the current boundaries and also limiting the impact of the potential use within the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center on adjacent agricultural land uses. This subject property is surrounded by both residential land uses and agricultural uses to the southwest. There is a call for a small area plan to be done on this with the specific intent of evaluating its potential to maximize jobs and economic development. Again, there is a true focus within all of the recommendations on not modifying the boundaries of the rural activity centers without in-depth review. The applicant is not seeking to modify the boundaries of this rural activity center with this application. It is also important to look at the two zones that we are discussing today. The B5P zone has an intent of providing services and establishments to provide commercial facilities at a limited access highway or interchange area. These are meant to provide amenities to the transient public. There are 11 principal uses within the B5P zone, including hotels, motels, restaurants, cocktail lounges, and gas stations. There are five accessory uses, and those accessory uses are primarily associated with what you would see with a motel or a hotel. There are four conditional uses, also primarily focused in on providing amenities to the traveling public. The Highway Service Business Zone, or B3 Zone, is intended to provide retail and other uses which are necessary to the economic vitality of our community, but may be inappropriate for other areas. As with both zones, the Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document for the appropriate locations of the zone. Within the B3 Zone, the special consideration must be given to the relationship to the roadway systems that are in place to ensure that there are no health, safety, or welfare impacts that can be caused by a development along the traffic system. There are currently 31 principal uses within the B3 zone, which include restaurants, offices, banks, medical clinics, and indoor amusement. There are 11 accessory uses, which support each of those uses. And then there are 13 conditional uses, which may be appropriate based off of the conditions surrounding the proposed development. The B3 zone does include all of the B5P zone uses and allow for greater flexibility of those uses. It also does include the adult uses, which are not appropriate for other areas. With this application, the applicant is seeking to develop the soccer stadium in the southeast portion of the site, include outlot provisions buffering the parking from the proposed roadway system, and include a medical office. Of all of those uses, the restaurants would be the only use that is allowable within the B5P zone. With all applications focused in the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, staff is very concerned with the economic impact that those developments should have, as guided by the Rural Land Management Plan. The applicant has provided significant information regarding what the economic impact would be on both the uses within their proposed development, but also the total economic impact for the development. The applicant sees that a total of approximately 300 jobs would be created by this development, with greater than $16 million of annual salary projected. The overall impact, both direct and indirect, for the proposed development would be annually $30 million. The applicant has also described the short-term impact during construction, including the cost of the project of approximately $40 million, as well as the jobs created in construction and design. The location of the subject rezoning is also important to discuss with the approved Board of Adjustment soccer fields located south of 5380 on 5354 agricultural portion of the property. The location of the approved soccer field south of the proposed rezoning would complement those fields and allow for a greater viability of local, state, and regional tournaments in the area. This is specifically associated with the sports tourism industry. We have been discussing this for some time within our community with various different amendments and various different changes. When we reviewed the justification of the applicant against the comprehensive plan, specifically tying it to the economic side of their justification, staff found that there were two goals and two objectives that specifically called out some of the economic viability of the proposed project and agreement with both the Rural Land Management Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. Theme C, Goal 1 states that any change should support and showcase local assets to further the creation of a variety of jobs. The applicant is proposing a variety of jobs that range in economic incomes that could provide vertical mobility. Objective 1C indicates that we would like to encourage development that promotes and enhances tourism within the community. The applicant provided information about sports tourism, and staff has done significant research to show that sports tourism can add to a healthy economy within Lexington. Theme C goal two, attract the world's finest jobs, encouraging entrepreneurial spirit, and enhance our ability to recruit talented creative workforce to establish opportunities that embrace diversity with inclusion into our community. The applicant is providing a broad swath of potential jobs at this location, ranging from service industry facilities all the way up to medical facilities and then professional sports teams facilities and training. And then objective 2D, provide entertainment and other quality of life amenities that attract young and culturally diverse professionals and a workforce of all ages and talents. Going back to the idea that the applicant is seeking to provide an amenity that can attract individuals to our community and provide various different levels of jobs. Theme C, Livability Policy 3, is particularly important with this application as well, as it would help create and enhance a regional athletic field complex for economic development. This ties to the approved BOA fields that are located south of the proposed rezoning along 5354, 8th and Spoonsboro Road. With the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan, the applicant's justification did show that they are seeking to maximize the potential for jobs while maintaining the boundaries and minimizing the impacts of the rural service area. To discuss a little bit more on the impacts of the rural service area, staff did look at Athens Boonesboro Road as being a gateway into our city. It is identified within the rural land management plan as being that gateway coming off of the interstate and coming into the community as a whole. As provided by the applicant, they have given renderings which show that both the topography in this area as well as the amount of tree buffering along the frontage of 5380 Athens Boonesboro Road would shield a lot of the development from the roadway and view shed of Athens Boonesboro Road. This is a significant portion as one of the recommendations within the Rural Land Management Plan is to have trees and landscaping so that the impacts that are there are not as drastic. Buffering from adjacent agricultural land uses and transitioning of land uses is also important. As we discussed at the beginning, there is a significant portion of land that is not being rezoned. The applicant is seeking to rezone the area that is centrally located to the two properties and to the east along I-75. This is typically the loudest and brightest portion of our community in the fact that we have very tall lights associated with highways or our inner states. And then we also have a heck of a lot of noise that is being generated from those spaces as well. The proposed land uses also lessen in intensity as we move away from the proposed area of rezoning through the B5P and towards the residential land uses located here and here, and then the agricultural land use located down in this area, which is only abutting the corner of the B5P zoning. The applicant also discusses some of the topographic changes that are within this area. Those topographic changes do provide some limitations for development, but also provide for some changes in elevation to buffer against new development that would occur on the B5P portion of the properties, and then into the B3 portion if it should be approved. There are also large treed areas along the boundary with the residential area here. Any modification of that would really need to come back to you all with a final development plan showing how this area would develop over time. The applicant is not seeking to modify that portion of the B5P land at this point in time. Even with the buffering and the transitioning of the zoning, staff did find that the B3 zone did have some uses that would be inappropriate for the subject property. These include lots for the display rental sales service and minor repair of various different vehicles. Staff sees that these are located in the heavily paved areas over in this portion of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, which has been identified as a lesser used portion or an underutilized portion of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. Minor or major automobile and truck repair, tying into what is going across the way. Pawn shops, staff does not believe that it would be appropriate at this location due to the view shed along Athens-Boonesboro Road from the other portions, as well as the impact on the surrounding agricultural and residential landscape. Adult uses in totality, this covers all adult uses identified in the zoning ordinance. And then the retail sales of automotive parts with storage and distribution of inventory, tying back to what we have seen in the other portions of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center and that have not been utilized to gain the greatest or maximize the greatest amount of jobs and productivity that we can have in the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. Staff is recommending approval of this zone change to a restricted highway service business zone. The proposed development will create, as it is in agreement with the 2018 Comprehensive Plans, Goals, Objectives, and Policies, the proposed development will create jobs and prosperity by showcasing local assets, which will be specifically focused on the promotion and enhancement of sports, tourism, entertainment, and other quality of life opportunities that attract young and culturally diverse professionals and a workforce of all ages and talents. The proposed development will encourage Lexington's ability to host regional athletic tournaments through the inclusion of the soccer stadium and training facility. These are in theme C, goal 1, theme C, goal 1C, theme C, goal 2, and theme C, goal 2D, as well as theme C, livability policy number 3 of the comprehensive plan. In addition, the Justification and Corollary Development Plan are in agreement with the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan for the following reasons. The proposed rezoning will allow for greater utilization of the property within the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center that support highway and interstate service commerce, while also including greater flexibility for job production, which would target the production of employment at higher wages. Additionally, the proposed development is situated along the portion of the property that is most heavily impacted by light, air, and sound impacts that are caused by Interstate 75 and is adequately buffered from the westmost agricultural AR zoning that abuts 5354 Athens-Boonesboro Road and that are both the agricultural land uses that are west of the property and the residential land uses that are west of the property. The proposed development does not negatively impact the viewshed along Athens-Boonesboro Road as the area is buffered by topographic variations and the established development along the roadway. Staff is recommending the inclusion of the conditional zoning restrictions as these are appropriate and necessary in order to restrict those land uses that could have a negative impact on the surrounding agricultural and residential, the agricultural zones and Athens-Boonesboro Road, which is a major gateway into Lexington-Fade Urban County. These restrictions will protect the aesthetic character of Athens-Boonesboro Road Gateway as recommended within the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan. With all zone changes, this is incumbent on the approval and certification of PLM MJDP 22-00073, Boonesboro Manor Interstate Park property as amended. Ms. Goddard-Weiss will be presenting that here very shortly. Following that, I will be coming back up and presenting on the conditional use permit for the stadium. If you have any questions on the zone change, I'd be happy to answer them. Any questions for Hal at this moment for the zone change? I'm not seeing any, Hal. Thank you. Good afternoon, Autumn Goddardwiss Planning Services. We are looking at PLNMJDP 22-73. This is a combined preliminary subdivision plan and preliminary development plan to depict the development on the rezoned portion of the, or on the area of the rezoning. So just to orient you again, we've got 8th and Spoonsboro Road to the north here, I-75 running along the east here. The on-ramp for southbound I-75 runs along this edge of the property here. The property is currently accessed at Doe Run Trail at this location. The applicant is also proposing a new access point to the west here in a public street. We'll zoom in a little bit here to the area of rezoning and the proposed development. that stadium is located in the southeastern portion of the property here. This is a 60,000 square foot, 6,500 seat soccer stadium with associated parking here and here. Directly south we have a training facility. This will be a two-story, 45,000 square foot training facility with associated parking to support the soccer stadium. Tracks 3, C, D, E, and F are those outlocks that Hal mentioned with commercial development to support the soccer stadium. These include offices, a bank, and restaurants. And then across the run trail, they're proposing a two-story medical office building here. They also have a regional detention basin located here. The idea is that the uses proposed for these outlets will support the soccer stadium as patrons of the stadium will likely utilize the restaurants and things like that. And offices and medical offices and a bank would have sort of opposing hours to the soccer stadium and its events, which would allow for shared parking throughout the site. So the applicant did submit some plan revisions earlier this week, and you do have a revised stack recommendation in your packet. That's the yellow one. So because this plan is now a combined preliminary development plan and preliminary subdivision plan, some of the conditions have been added or revised from what were there the last time you saw this at the subdivision committee. So approval of this is of course contingent upon the approval of the requested zone change to the B3 zone. There are standard conditions related to sign-offs by engineering, traffic engineering, the urban forester, green space planner, environmental quality, and the postal service. There are some environmentally sensitive areas on the property. In this vicinity here, there are ephemeral and intermittent streams. So those will be subject to review and approval by environmental quality and engineering. Let's see. There are a few cleanup items on this plan. Since it is now a preliminary subdivision plan as well as a preliminary development plan, they need to depict the contours at two-foot intervals instead of ten-foot, which is what's currently shown. They need to denote the proposed street names and depict the existing tree stands on the property. Several of the conditions that were previously marked as to be resolved at the time of final development plan It do need to be addressed a little bit, at least in a certain capacity, sooner now that this is also a preliminary subdivision plan, which has to be certified in the next two weeks. So the language on those conditions has been changed to denote design and timing, and that is including denote the design and timing of stormwater management, sanitary sewer and pump station upgrades, and then of particular importance is the access points, particularly the new access point, but also the access at Doe Run Trail. So the applicant has been working pretty closely with the Division of Traffic Engineering and with KYTC to work on some options for creating safe and functional intersections at both of these locations. Let's see. So the timing and the design of those will need to be worked out and denoted on the plan prior to certification, including pedestrian and bike access at the access points and along the new public street. So with those conditions, staff is recommending approval of the plan, and we're happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Autumn at the moment? thank you thank you Mr. Chair we will now review the stadium request which is a conditional use within the b3 zone it can be reviewed by this body during the time of a zone change as autumn reviewed with the proposed development they are looking at their stadium being placed at the southeastern portion of the subject property. The applicant has supplied various renderings of the overall development, looking at the property from I-75 down in, looking into the properties from opposing the northern portion of Athens-Boonesboro Road, looking into the property from the residential development located to the west of the 53-54 Athens Boonesboro, looking into the proposed stadium itself towards the area that is proposed to have an illuminated scoreboard, and then looking at field level towards that same area. Within any conditional use within the B3 zone, there are three elements that need to be reviewed for the three threshold elements that the applicant must address with their application. The first is that it must be in relation to an arterial roadway system. As this site is in correlation with Athens-Boonesboro Road, an arterial road within our community, they are meeting this certain conditional use requirement. The second two, any outdoor theater or illuminated scoreboard or similar type surface shall not be visible from any street for a distance of a thousand feet. And then also entrances and ingresses or egresses, acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes shall be provided in accordance with the requirements established by the urban county traffic engineer. First, just looking at the ingress, egress, acceleration lanes and deceleration lanes. The division of traffic engineering has been working with the applicant and other elements of the urban county government, including division of engineering and division of planning, as well as Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to come to the best solution for these areas. The applicant has provided different information within their traffic impact study and has been working closely with the traffic engineer. They are here to answer any of your questions on this as we go along and has provided options, two options for the frontage or access ingress to this area. The traffic engineer has indicated that he feels comfortable to sign off on both access points but would like to work with KYTC on the final determination. This is due to the fact that KYTC will not review changes to the area without a permit. The applicant cannot seek a permit without understanding what the land uses are there. The zone change must come first and then the applicant can move forward with potential changes to any state road and arterial road with the traffic engineering from the urban county and KYTC's review. The final determination of the access layout would be made at the time of the final development plan and the submission of a permit to KYTC. The visibility of the sign. The applicant provided an image that showed that there was one potential area of impact that any passerby would be able to see a scoreboard from the public right-of-way. This is along the overpass over I-75, looking into the property. The applicant has supplied some information about how they would buffer this, and staff is recommending a condition of any approval state that any outdoor theater screened or illuminated scoreboard shall be screened from view so that it cannot be seen from Athens-Boonesboro Road. Additionally, when looking at the impacts of a conditional use, and this is specifically tying to some of the recommendations of the Rural Land Management Plan, as well as our typical review of a conditional use, staff is concerned about light and noise that might be emanating from a conditional use in different sites. In this case, the applicant has provided a lighting study, both showing how the lighting would be conducted into the property itself, looking down onto the field, and then the impact of lighting of the lights from the stadium out onto the broader area. The impact of the lighting would only cut across into the parking until it hits at zero foot candles extending beyond that. So it zeroes out. This does not take into account any lighting that is emanating from the interstate. It is only from their project. Any lighting done within the parking lot area is now held to the standards of Article 16 of the Zoning Ordinance and Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires lighting no taller than 12 feet and directed downward into the site. The treed areas also provide significant buffers. and on our lower portion of that you can see from the edge of the stadium it is approximately 1600 feet to the closest residential land use near the stadium itself. Staff is though requiring a condition or recommending that a condition be placed on the conditional use if should the conditional use be approved that states any outdoor lighting shall be directed downward and toward the interior of the site in order to minimize any light overflow onto adjoining or nearby properties. In terms of noise, the applicant has sought to situate the proposed development along I-75, which is the higher noise producer in this area. The orientation of the speaker system is meant to be directed northward and into the site, so focusing north towards the industrial and B5P zoning rather than into the areas surrounding. And then the applicant indicated that the increased tree canopy in the parking areas and the surrounding areas provide a buffer from noise to the adjacent properties. Staff is still recommending the inclusion of two conditions that would limit noise impacts on surrounding properties. The first, that there be no fireworks utilized on the site. There has been significant conversation about the impact of fireworks and the horse industry. As there is a farm, a working agricultural farm to the southwest of the subject property, staff wanted to ensure that there was no impact on that from any fireworks that could spook the horses. Staff is also recommending that it be added in the conditions that the hours of events be held at the stadium limited to a time frame of 7 a.m. and no later than 11 p.m. Staff is recommending approval for the following reasons, that granting the requested conditional use permit should not adversely affect the subject property or surrounding properties since noise and lighting issues will be addressed to the extent possible in order to minimize any negative effect they may have on the surrounding property owners. Access will be available and adequate to allow traffic to flow into and out of or away from the stadium without causing a significant negative impact on peak hour travel or levels of service. And the location is accessible to that arterial roadway. The illuminated sign will be screened from public view, and this gets into some of the conditions of this approval. Furthermore, staff states that there is adequate public infrastructure or facilities that will be available to the area to support the proposed stadium. This will be possibly increased by the applicant depending on final build-out. Parking will be provided in accordance with the submitted parking demand mitigation study. Autumn talked about a little bit of how they would be sharing with the off-peak hours of the other businesses or outlots associated with this development. This approval is recommended on several conditions. The first, that the zone change be approved by the Urban County Council. That the theater screen or illuminated scoreboard be screened from view from Athens-Boonesboro Road. that there be no fireworks utilized on the site, that the development be constructed in accordance with the approved final development plan or as amended by this planning commission. All necessary permits and approvals be obtained by Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Divisions of Planning, Transportation, Engineering, Engineering, and Building Inspection prior to construction, that the action of the planning commission be noted on the development plan, The conditional use should be operated in accordance with the submitted justification letters that have been submitted with this application for rezoning. Any outdoor lighting be directed downward and onto the interior of the site. And then that the hours be operated between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m. Timing of the access for the roadway improvements will be determined at the time of the final development plan prior to the establishment of the conditional use as well. If you have any questions on the conditional use of the stadium at this time, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Hal. Yes, Ms. Robbin. Those operational hours, they would not only apply to the public, they wouldn't apply to training, the training use, or would they? So it's based off of events. Events. Staff is concerned with large-scale events that would cause a fair amount of noise or a greater amount of individuals coming into the site. But it would apply only to the events on the site. Correct. Thanks. Yes, Mr. Davis. Mr. Bailey. Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Meyer. Does this conditional use allow the applicant to lease this land to another user, site to another user? So it would allow. If somebody else had another sale across group wanted to play there. So the specific application was for a stadium. In this case, staff is not limiting or suggesting that the Planning Commission limit this to any singular sport. The size field for a soccer field can be utilized for lacrosse, rugby, or in some cases, football. Mr. Davis. Mr. Bailey, were there any restrictions considered on live music or festivals like that that may want to rent the venue? So the live events that would occur on site, the condition that staff applied was really the outrage, not seeking to limit the amount of events that could occur on site. If they were to do some sort of event in the parking lot or something like that, they would need to get a special permit for some of those events. It would not be covered within this. So within this stadium, they are allowed to have events that would be associated with that, like special events, concerts, things as such. Okay. Any other questions? Let me see. Mr. Penn, you got anything? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bailey. Thank you. All right. Applicant? Oh, we have some. I'm sorry. We almost forgot about him again. We do have a review of the traffic impact study done by Mr. Stewart Currents. I know, I know. I feel like an end note. Thank you. Stuart Currens with Transportation Planning. There was a traffic impact study that was required and submitted with the study. I just want to take just a few minutes to kind of summarize the findings. Basically, the study looks at the conditions and the impact along Athens-Brunsboro Road in the area, specifically at the proposed new intersection, also at the existing intersection of Doe Run, and also at the ramps along I-75. So it's kind of looking at the existing conditions out there. You've got, you know, six-lane interstate. The average daily traffic on the ramps are all right around 9,000 on the northbound and around 3,500 on the southbound. Athens-Boonesboro Road, it's a four-lane principal arterial. It's got a speed limit of 55 out here. As you can see, the average daily traffic out here, actually the last count they did was in 2020, and it was 20,000. That's actually the lowest it's been since 1994, probably related to COVID. But as you can see, the traffic out there has been relatively stable over the last 30 years. It's kind of at a high of around 25,000 in 2017, but not a whole lot of traffic growth in there over the years. Just talking about the trip generation for the proposed land uses, This is a number of proposed land uses that have been discussed with the development plan, and these are going to generate a number of peak hour trips. Basically, what we're looking at here is just the new trips. You know, this is, you take out the pass-by trips. The pass-by trips would be like people that are on the way to another destination, but they stop at a restaurant or stop at a gas station, but that's not their destination. The trips we're looking at here are all new trips. These are people that are going to the site, visiting the site, and then leaving the site. As you can see, a little bit lower in the mornings, but the real peaks are in the Saturday and the p.m. peaks. And one thing that's significant about these new trips is that a lot of these trips are going to be coming from Lexington proper down Athens-Brunsboro Road coming into the development, and then they're going to go back the same way. So you're going to have a significant number of left turns, people going back into town, especially from the southern portion of the development. So with that, I just kind of wanted to talk about some of the recommendations that came out of this. For the proposed intersection of Athens-Boonesboro at the proposed entrance, this is going to be basically the primary access point to the site. As was mentioned earlier, the KYTC, District 7, and the Division of Traffic Engineering, they've been looking at a couple different options at this intersection, either a signalized intersection or an RCUT intersection with a signal. And you've probably heard about RCUTs recently because they're planning a number of them further up Athens-Boonsboro Road. But basically, this is where you have restricted left turns and restricted through movements. So you have to turn, basically make a U-turn, and then continue on. So they're looking at one or the other of those. Either of these options are going to provide safe movement at this access point to get in and out of the site. And as was mentioned, the final determination is going to be made when they submit their permits and they put a final development plan in. The other access that they looked at was Athens-Spoonsboro at Doe Run. This is currently an unsignalized intersection. It would be a secondary access point. Signalization at this intersection is not recommended and really not possible because it's so close to the interstate ramps. So it's going to continue to operate as an unsignalized intersection. The left turns from this site will experience a lot of delays. and which will be considerable during the peak hours and because of this the Division of Traffic Engineering is recommending prohibiting left turns and also through movements from the side streets once the primary access points went open so you want to move all those left turning movements are people that need to get across the site to the main access point and that of course that wouldn't happen until the other access point was open and then finally the the level of service at the ramps on the interstate, all of these are going to operate at a level of service D or better during the peak periods. And as I've mentioned before, with a level of service and grade of a D, not great for your comparative lit final, but level of service D during the peak periods is basically what you're looking for. That means that you're using your capacity effectively in those areas. So with that, that kind of sums up the findings of the study. Like I said, the proposed entrance and what happens there is kind of the hinge of how this is going to operate. So that's the important part. If you have any questions, we'd be glad to answer. Do we have any questions about the traffic study? Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Applicant? Good afternoon, my name is Steve Rochelle and I and Charlotte McCoy represent the applicant here. It's been a long afternoon so far and I know there are a lot of people who want to speak behind me in opposition to this zone change condition use permit. So I will as best I can as an attorney try to be brief. My team involves not only Charlotte But Josh Lewis, who is the owner's representative, Brad Boaz, who is a partner at CMW Engineers, to answer any questions you have on the design or technical questions, Steven Sewell of Palmer Engineers, who has acted as our traffic consultant for the applicant and is prepared to discuss anything about traffic, and then Vince Gabbard, who is the president of Lexington Sporting Club, that is, we'll be using this, primarily using this stadium if we get to that point, if we rezone the property. I want to thank the staff for all the hard work. I've been observing presentations over the decades, and this was very thorough, very accurate, and to the point. Instead of rehashing everything that the staff has said, we are going to accept their recommendations, we're going to accept their conditions, we're going to accept their testimony today, because for me to try to rehash it might mean that I might controvert it, so I'm not going to rehash it. concerning the project project itself the proposed zone change is approximately 30 net acres and it's approximately half of the B5P zoning that we my client currently owns this property it's important for for everyone to understand this property is commercial. It's set to be developed, has been set to be developed since it was rezoned I think in 1969 or so. It hasn't redeveloped and why hasn't it developed? There's A, there's too much of it and two, sewers were not available to this site. This site is going to be developed. Sewer is now available to the site and we can develop it as B5P and have all the hotels and everything available in the B5P, which by and large have low paying jobs and are not intense jobs. Excuse me, low paying jobs and there's not as many of them to maintain a hotel versus a medical office building as we are suggesting. Now why is that important? Land in our urban county is valuable. And this land has been designated and zoned for commercial development since 1969. But it hasn't developed. So, and because the uses are limited, and our request for a B3 zone change, as restricted by the staff, will give the opportunity to have a practice facility for our soccer fields, a medical office building, certain retail establishments to support other activities that might be there. And many of these are high paying jobs. This is what the urban county wants. We don't want, we have plenty of entry level jobs. Buy large hotels and restaurants are entry level jobs. But we will not have entry level jobs. And Hal has pointed out the type jobs and the income and there's no need of me going through that again. This will have a tremendous economic impact on our community and in particular the Blue Sky Parkway. That is all borne out and those objectives to have high paying jobs are borne out in the comprehensive plan. And he has cited those beautifully where they are in the comprehensive plan and I will not go over those again. This land is totally underutilized. It's not productive land, and that's why we need the B3 zone change. Regardless if you approve the stadium, we need the B3 zone change in order to make this an economically viable area, which is mandated in our comprehensive plan. I'm trying to cut through my notes so I won't be duplicative of how and his team. And we'll get to the conditional use permit in just a moment. But as, could you put back up the view from the urban, from the interstate towards the soccer fields? I think Hal had it up previously. Why is this zone change so important to us? Yeah, I think it was his first. Okay. I apologize. There's a picture of from the interstate looking across towards the soccer fields. Yeah, right there. Why is it important? Where did you go? He wants it back. And how do we make the pointer work how? The button. Why is it important? Why is it critically important? These 10 fields are currently under construction. They are zoned agricultural rural. They've been approved by the Board of Adjustment, and they will come online hopefully this spring, early summer. But in order to have a complete safe situation for these 10 soccer fields, which will include professional training here, we need a training building there in order to have massage therapists, doctors, and so forth and so on that you would typically have in a training facility. So to allow, if we go to the B3 zoning, then this will allow this use, which is a permitted use of the B3 zoning. In addition to that, we have a medical office user here and various retail uses here. It is critically important. This area, to my knowledge, does not have a medical facility. So the Rural Land Management Plan tells us to maximize the potential of a particular piece of land for employment and economic development. It's pointed out by how we are not asking for an increase in the rural service area, and we shall follow the law and the comprehensive plan in that regard. We have agreed to the conditional zoning because we want to fit in this area, And that will lessen any impact that we might have on our neighbors. So enough of me rehashing what Hal has already said. But I would, in our presentation, I would like to now introduce Vince Gabbard, who's going to speak. He's the president of the Lexington Sporting Club. that is our only tenant at this point for the 10 soccer fields and will be a primary tenant for the soccer stadium and also the training facility. Vince, are you still here? Can you get rid of me that easy, Mr. Rochelle? Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, my name is Vince Gabbert. I'm president of the Lexington Sporting Club. I want to echo what Steve said about staff. We've worked closely with staff working through this, making sure that everything was in place, and we feel like we've gotten to a really good spot for the uses of the layout of the facility. I wanted to just give you a quick overview of Lexington Sporting Club so that you all understand, as the anchor tenant of the stadium and of the fields on the adjacent AR land, we are now the state's largest youth club with over 1,300 families that exist as part of our youth club after the merger of the two local clubs here in Lexington. We've been in operation at the youth club level now for about nine months and moving forward. So we've had some great success in the fall, this past fall, and teams are already practicing and gearing up. We're also a men's professional team that starts practice next week with a roster of 21 young men, anywhere from South Africa to Louisville. We've got a varied roster with seven international folks that will begin practicing next week, will begin play in the USL League One in March, a 16 home game season, 32 game total season that will go through October. So we're very excited about bringing professional soccer to this market. I think that anybody that's familiar with the growth and the movement in Louisville and Cincinnati, Cincinnati is a current MLS team, which is a Division I, considered Division I soccer, actually started in our same league. They were a division higher, but started in the USL and moved up to MLS. We know Cincinnati is a bigger market, but I think it speaks to the level of support and fervor for the sport and what it means and how it's impacted the community. I think many of you have probably seen the stadium that's built in Louisville also competing in a division higher than us. But again, I think it speaks to the level of support that those communities have shown the sport and what it means to those youth clubs and to just the overall quality of life in those areas. definitely something that doesn't currently exist within our market and we feel like that given where we stand and where we're headed the quality and and level of facilities that we're working to build and trying to get approved we feel like it'll be a very positive impact on our community so we've got a lot more plans that are down the road with the teams and the things that we're doing and adding adding a W League team which will be a college level female team that will start this summer that will play a very limited schedule but we've got lots of plans for the team and the program itself and we look forward to being a part of the community and and i'm happy to answer any questions and anything that anybody would have thank you mr gabbert do we have any questions for the applicant commission i'll turn back over steve Thank you. Next I'd like to introduce Diego DeAngelo, who is a coach, and he'll explain which teams and so forth and so on, and why it's so important to have the training facility next to the soccer fields and also the stadium. Diego? Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you guys for a few minutes. Can you move the microphone? Sure. So I've been a coach in the Lexington community for the last 20 years at the youth level and at the competitive level. And I do it because it's my passion. It's not my full-time job, but it's where I spend a lot of my time because it's important to me. And my ultimate goal is really to impact as many young men and women, hoping to impact their lives and teach them about life through a competitive environment. So that's why I do it. But the reason why I wanted to come up is to really kind of speak to the Lexington Sporting Academy system that just got rolled out and how it differs from the typical club environment that has existed in this state and really throughout the country. and ultimately what's important to an athlete to fully develop to their potential. So the typical club environment is essentially created by coaches that in the preseason pull together teams. They place players on these teams as they best see fit. Sometimes it's an accurate reflection. Sometimes it's not. Technically, it would require an adjustment. But in the club environment, you are on that team for that year. whether you develop and really should be pushed to something more challenging or whether you're actually taking a step back, which can happen. In the academy environment, and the one that Lexington Sporting is rolling out, I will tell you it is on par with the best academies around the world. This is how the Manchester Uniteds of the world do it. In that environment, players are given the opportunity, based on their development, to move up and down throughout the course of the year. So at no point are you stuck in one team for the full year. And that is critical for the development of a player. If ultimately you want to develop an athlete to the best of their abilities, you also have to surround them with a holistic support structure and an infrastructure that allows that player to maximize them. And what do I mean by holistic? An athlete needs the weight training, the nutritional support, the physiotherapy, the recruiting, especially if you're talking about potentially playing at the college level or maybe at the professional level. That's the holistic full picture that an athlete needs. And this is going to give us the opportunity to do that. That's why, to me, it's so critical. All players of all ages, from the youth all the way to the top team, I happen to have what's called the U19 team, right? So these are the pre-professional potential players. every one of them would have access to the same sporting complex, but also to the same supporting structure that I just referred to. And that's really critical for these individuals to really have a chance. So to me, it really kind of comes down to two things. The key reason for this stadium to be right next to the training complex is for logistical reasons, right? When you're supporting 1,300-plus players and families, having the proximity not just to the training grounds but to everything else that comes with it is critical. And then really from a psychological perspective, if you think of an athlete who trains and sees the stadium that they hope one day they're going to be able to play in, is something that is always supported by the best academies. And that's why you're seeing it here. Any questions that I can answer? Any questions from the commission? No, sir. Thank you, Coach. Thank you. That wraps up our presentation. We have intentionally kept it brief because the staff is so thorough. And we would like to reserve any additional time that we have for rebuttal, additional rebuttal. we feel like the staff in our activity with the staff and through the various committees, we've met our burden of proof that this is an appropriate zone change and it is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and the rural land management plan. Thank you. Any questions at this point? Yes, we do. Mr. Penn has a question. Steve, we've been looking at this soccer thing for over a year. And the question keeps coming back and keeps coming back, and I'm going to ask it straight up front. If you don't build a soccer stadium with the B3, will you agree to go back to the B5P? Because the reason you have asked for this soccer stadium to be in the B3 is that's where it's permitted. and we're hearing all kinds of rumors about where it's going to be and where it's not going to be, and I'd like to clear the air right now and ask you the question, if for some reason the soccer stadium is not built, would this land revert back to B5P, or are the outlaws more important to you all than the stadium? Well, I'm not sure I can answer that at this point. We have to have the B3 in order to have the practice facility. It's not allowed in B5P. We have to have the B3 in order to have the medical office building. I think we have met our burden that this application for B3 is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. B5P hasn't worked. It's that they're fouled for some 50 or 60 years. It just hasn't worked. The uses are too limited. And B3 would open that up, including the training facility and including the medical office building and the other restaurants and the other retail outlets, which are, I think, allowed in both zones. But going back to B5P accomplishes nothing because we still have underutilized land. We do not have the situation where we are fulfilling the mandate of the rural the RLMP and the comprehensive plan which is to within this rural activity center foster economic development and foster jobs. And good jobs. So I can't commit that if the stadium doesn't go here, that it would go back to B3. I mean, excuse me, B5P. It's been B5P forever. If our community wants, I think it's 60 acres out there in B5P, we can develop now. Because I think the primary holdback before was there weren't sewers and the topography of the land. Well, the topography's not changed, except you have an applicant who has the money to change the topography. But the sewers are now available. And before, we were choked off. The land was virtually useless. Does our community want B5P, that many acres? I don't think so. I think the B3 zone change stands on its own. It just stands on its own, and it makes sense. But my concern is that the stadium is not as important as the other things you have named. Excuse me, Frank, I'm sorry. My concern is that I don't hear you saying that the stadium is as important as the other things you have named. And yet we have couched this on the fact that the 6,500-seat stadium will be built on this land that we're zoning to B3. Well, we have applied for conditional use, provided the Planning Commission, the council re-zones it as B3. We can't have the stadium to B5P. I know that. I think the only zone where we can have it is in the industrial zone. And there's simply no land available. The B3 zoning stands on its own. It's very important that we have the training center, which requires B3, next to the existing, or excuse me, the being built soccer fields, practice fields, and to allow the medical office use. The staff has protected the neighborhoods and the surrounding property owners by limiting and making conditions, as we've saw those five or six items that Hal described. The B3 zoning is quite important, regardless of the stadium. It is, my client has not spent months and months and untold dollars to various consultants if they weren't sincere about a stadium here. I certainly hope so. Yeah, I mean, but the B3 stands alone. If we want to fulfill the comprehensive plan and the RLMP, we need to make this productive land and not fallow land. And I hope that's answered your question. It puts it in perspective. Yeah. Thank you. Anything else? Yes, Mr. Demolvin. Yes. Could you have someone speak about the lighting and the sound and how you're all's intent to minimize the impact on the neighbors? I will. Where's my lighting? Pretty good. Oh, here he is. Brad, I knew who you brought, Brad, for some reason. All I know about it is it's downward lighting and it's pinpoint lighting because we want all of the light to be on the field so the players are safe. Good afternoon. My name is Brad Boaz with CMW Architects and Engineers. We use the services of Musco Lighting, which is a professional sports lighting company, to perform a lighting analysis of the stadium to actually do a lighting design so that they could illustrate to the staff and to us exactly how the stadium can meet the threshold of a professional soccer field to be lit to the standards that USL requires without negatively impacting any of the surrounding properties. And so as Hal talked about, where it goes from where it's lit to zero is extremely quick once you get outside the limits of the stadium to zero measurable light spill on any adjoining private property. Now, to be honest, yes, there is less than a single foot candle spillage onto Interstate 75, but that is already being lit by the large overhead streetlights. So it's factual that no light will spill onto any adjoining property. And as Hal pointed out, any additional lighting will meet the new standards, which are pretty restrictive in height and direction. Musco produces lighting that's perfectly directional. It's got shields on it so that it doesn't provide the glare that you would see at a traditional high school field, like you drive down Manowar looking at Dunbar, they've got the big spotlights. That's not what these are. These are pointed down, directional, so that not only will light spill not be an impact, but glare as well as you're driving, say, up and down 75 or 8th and Spoonsboro Road to the maximum extent that technology allows at this time. For sound, that is not something I could speak on in terms of a scientific, but as Al mentioned, And trying to take that into consideration, we have positioned the stadium so that sound would travel to the best of our ability up and down 75, align parallel with the road, as close to the road as we could possibly get it, to make it within the confines of the property as far away from the private property as we possibly can. On that, just to be clear, were the speakers over there by the training facility side? We don't depict the speakers because that hasn't been designed. but it would be factored in as we build the training facility and again, position those to be mindful of the impact they would have on any surrounding properties. Thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, Ms. Wirth. This is really for Mr. Rochelle. At the subdivision hearing, we talked about buffering a lot and we had some conversation from the attorneys from both the soccer folks and from the people who live in the area about the amount and quality of conversation that had taken place about this new development. And as that hearing ended, the two parties agreed to meet and have a conversation to try and address some of the concerns of the neighbors. Did that happen? Not that I'm aware of. We certainly were available, and council had my phone number, but we did not. We did not. To my knowledge, did the client meet with them subsequent to those meetings? The initial meetings? Yes. Okay. No, the answer is no. Kind of an agreement at the end of that initial meeting, in my recollection, that the parties would get together. So if it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Thank you. It didn't happen. And I don't know why the other side didn't contact me, and I don't know why I didn't contact them, but it just didn't happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a question for perhaps Mr. Bailey. On the neighboring practice fields that were approved, to my earlier question about live music or things like that, are there any noise restrictions on that separate AR parcel? On that separate AR parcel, there are restrictions on timing of events, which are more restrictive than this. That is also coupled with an operational plan for that, which did not include having events or anything like that. They are restricted to what they ask for, which are outdoor athletic fields. There is a 50-foot buffer that is required along the western portion of 5380 up against the agricultural use that abuts the subject property. Okay. Thank you. All right. Correct me if I'm wrong, Hal, but I don't believe loudspeakers are allowed in the condition you use to permit. That is true. Yeah, in answering your question, Mr. Davis, that is an additional safeguard that was put on us for the practice fields. Thank you so much. Because it was, you know, it budded other residential areas. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good question. Yeah, thank you. No more questions? So next up, do any citizens that have any comments? I know we mentioned earlier, I know we had two that we granted additional time for. Judge Goodman was 12 minutes and Tom Miller was 15 minutes. And then everyone else will be three. So Judge Goodman, if you would like to step up. I think Ms. Martin would like to go first. That's all right. That's your, if you. Yes, ma'am. Chairman Forrester, the director of the Rural Land Management Board is here, and we're going to hand you all some maps to have before I start, so you'll have that. I'm Gloria Martin, and I live at 7416 Grimes Mill, and I'm the current chair of the Rural Land Management Board. And I didn't ask because I didn't know that we needed to. What I'm going to do is sort of add on to what the staff has already told you. So I do want to thank the staff because they did put forth a lot of information that I wanted to make sure is in the board for the board commissioners to see. While they're passing this out, Chris was going to put up the first map like this, Chris, and we'll put it on the board just because it's hard to see these. So it's the first one that you have. I just, he's already said, told you, the staff has, that the rural land management plan, which is what I'm talking about, and the reason I am here is because some of those green farms that you see on the sheet you've just been given have asked me to come to make sure that everything is put in about the rural land management plan. and because the justification letters and the justification recommending approval for some of these has used the rural land management plan for that. I will start out by telling you all when you look at the first one that this is the circle that you usually use for your notification areas around some of this And those letters, the properties that are cross-hatched are the ones that we have rural land management board easements on right now. The conservancy that holds easements in the area, they're not here. These are just the ones the rural land management board holds. And they are numbered. And if you look closely enough on that sheet of paper, you'll see that these farms, many of these, have been in for 20 years. They're from 2002 and 2006 and 2004, so they've been in the program for a long time. The next map that I want to make sure, just quickly, Chris, if you'll run this one. This one is just straight from the Rural Land Management Plan, and it shows you the ones in the area of Blue Sky, and you see that Blue Sky is the one in the pink in the circle drawn around for the activity center boundary. And the ones in pink crosshatch are the conservancy properties. So you do see that there are a good many investments already in the agricultural economy in this immediate area. That's what I want to say to you all, to please give both the zone change and the conditional use request considerable consideration. Let me say again, give them careful consideration. Because what he's already told you in his, and I can't talk as fast as you do, Hal. What he's already told you is that there are four rural activity centers around the county. This does have a county-wide interest because of those four rural activity centers. Because there's a page, whole section actually, several pages, in the Rural Land Management Plan that tells you exactly how many B5Ps, B1s, 3-1s, industrial, are in the entire rural service area. So anywhere that you have that could potentially be considered for that. There's one thing that didn't get mentioned that I do want to bring up to you commissioners, and that is back in 2000, actually Code of Ordinances 26 for 2000, the ordinance was drafted that has to do with all of the rural land management issues. That is, it established the board, it established the plan, and it made it very clear, and he's already told you, but I will reiterate, that in the 2007 plan, it clearly stated that as an element of a comprehensive plan in its entirety was made part of the comp plan in 2001. So what Hal's told you is everything that is in that rural land management plan is important, is a very important big element to the comp plan. And it's supposed to be looked at. Everything about it, the goals, the objectives, the policies, some of which that Hal has talked about. And there was a bit, I think it's a little bit of community-wide misunderstanding that the only thing the Rural Land Management Board does is PDR. And they do PDR, but it's only a very small fraction of their responsibilities and obligations. What I showed you were the PDR farms. And if you will put this one up next, please, Chris. You all have this map. This is the current map, PBA map, that shows you the industrial, the P1, the B3, the B5P. There are a whole lot more. And every one of these lots in the rural land management plan, it tells you how many, exactly where they are, the zoning. And then the next thing you have is... I need that back. is this one, which is actually the one that was adopted in the 1980 comp plan that shows you those boundaries, and you can compare that to today. And it's important to add these on to what Hal said, because he talked about the rural activity centers and the boundaries, And this is the first time that we actually put that, adopted the boundaries in the plan. And since then, it has not changed. In the 1980 COMP plan that he's showing you, the activity center boundaries were listed. And again, in the 1980 plan and on now in the 2017 plan, it clearly states that we are to maintain the boundaries and, as he's told you, minimize the impacts to the rural area. That actually is a rural activity center policy that is on page 64. In that ordinance 26 that established everything that Hal's talked about and the board, I do want to tell you all that in case you don't know, that in that, it's very different from the planning commission and other boards. It's a 16-member board, and they have very specific designated seats that each person sitting in that 16-member group comes from a specific designated group. So we have Commerce Lexington. We have the home builders. We have... Farm Bureau, and I have all those and I can share those with you all. It is a very diversified, community-wide board. So in the zoning ordinance, in hands with much of what's in the comp plan, and this element of the comp plan, frequently refers back to the zoning ordinance because it talks about saving the landscape, preserving the viewsheds, and the zoning ordinance 762 also, since you all are hearing this, not only as a zone change but as a conditional use, which you can do when those two are combined and the Board of Adjustment doesn't hear it, is actually the exception to the rule. And because it's the exception to the rule, I'm telling you all, please take this seriously into consideration because of how that does impact the entire rural service area. And I can say that because that Ordinance 26 gave the Rural Land Management Board the power, it's written in, the power, and I have something in the packet I'll hand out to you, for us to work with the planning staff, to work with the planning commission. And actually, it says by law, make recommendations to you all when it comes to the boundaries of the urban service boundary and the rural activity centers and what goes on there. It says in that plan that from then on, from that adopted plan, somewhere here I have the exact date, that the rural activity center boundaries would be considered exactly as you do the urban service boundary when it comes to what happens. If it's expanded and what goes on there. That's only important because I wish that we could all work together. The staff has done a great job, but I will say that we had some other things we could add that make it even better. And in discussing this last night, when we said, what else? And there are some rural land management board members here. My vice chair was here somewhere. I don't know if he's still his. Okay, he's here. and Hannah was here. Anyway, some of the board members are here. Remember that the conditional zone could use some of the non-ag related uses in that B3. The staff did a great job of removing some of those. Thank you, whoever did that. But there's some others that have a negative influence on the rural service area. And I will say that there should happen, luckily enough, to have a grandchild who is really interested in these sports. His is lacrosse, but he's accustomed, and my son and the family, anybody who's here who has anything to do with these soccer tournaments, you know you travel all over the country, not just locally. And there are a lot of big festivals, and I'm happy to say that as a junior, he's already being recruited for college. So I have some insight into how these are run, the kind of moneymakers they are, and some of the things that we could do to make this request better. There are some conditions that if you don't want to have a negative influence or impact on the existing property now or in the future, or the surrounding properties and neighborhoods now or in the future, as the zoning ordinance demand that you do, which they have listed, then there's some things I think you should include. There should be no overnight parking around this stadium or any of those parking areas for camping or camping trailers or travel trailers or RVs or the like. If you've ever attended one of these where families come, and they do, I can assure you, for the weekend, there is an overflow of campers and RVs and where they're going to park. That should be something you all consider. You all should consider, and they might say in their conditions, that there be no parking of any vehicles allowed anywhere on unpaved areas. Period. Not in the medians, not on the right-of-way, either on Doe Run or Athens-Boonsboro. Because if you have a lot of people coming to this, parking is always an issue. And that no overflow of that parking should be on state or county roads. The thing that the rural community, and I know one of the things in the justification, that I would like to say it was taken out of context, is they gave you the examples of how they do this at UK and the high schools. I actually, when this came up, called all the high schools and said, how many seats do you have? How much parking do you have? I wanted to know how they handled some of that. I will say that in the rural area, how you do that is kind of apples and oranges from what Bryan Station High School is doing and what Henry Clay is doing and what you're going to be doing on Athens Boonesboro Road. Because when you have this parking, you are in the middle of a rural area. I've just given you the maps. you can see how many farms, protected farms, are within that circle. And it said on that circle, it told you exactly, you have 1,348 acres in just those 10-mark farms. So you've got a lot of land around you. And I will tell you that one of the farms who asked me to please come is the one that is the two that touches right at the corner that you can see. They are highly improved agricultural farms with horses there. So one of the things that you all need to look at, and should probably be a condition, is that all parking areas that are paved, should be paved, they've already told you you had to do that, should be planted and screened with, and I know there are people here on this commission who will understand this, with native non-invasive plant species that are not harmful or toxic to any livestock. Don't use a bush honeysuckle. Don't use taxes. Don't use a burning bush that's invasive to the farms. Make sure that when you screen those parking lots that absolutely something should be there. And permanent fencing. This came up, and we're not talking about the soccer fields today, but it came up because somebody wanted a fence. It's understandable that you want a fence. And actually, if you read the rural land management plan, it is recommended that you do this. There should be permanent fencing and plant screening. You should put the word shall be installed along the rural activity center boundaries. That's here and everywhere. Physically separate the rural activity center boundaries here and at any four that are contiguous to any of the AR zone properties. There are other places we do that. Steve, I don't know where, Steve's already told you that they're going to save, that they're going to keep all of the trees and the topography as it is along the Athens-Boonsboro Road. We all who live out the country call it Athens, so Athens-Boonsboro Road. that that buffer, as is required along the state highway, is not going to be altered, isn't going to be bulldozed or removed like we have seen happen on the interstate right now. And that the existing natural vegetation along that right-of-way, in that setback, which he's already told you, and the Rural Land Management Plan elaborates on this, is a gateway, one of the gateway entrances into Lexington and the whole county. He's talked about the signage, but it should be clear that we don't have. They talked about the signage, how did I think being 12 feet, I think, or the lighting is on 12 foot poles. Signs should not be big signs out on the interstate, lighting out on the interstate. All the screening, all of these things are extremely important. And a lot of those things are actually specific conditions and mentioned in the goals, the objectives, the policies, and the recommendation sections of the rural land management plan. If you can't do every one of those, plus more than I've done, that was overnight just those people complaining about things and talking about it. If you can't do that or more, the zoning ordinance clearly tells you that until you can ensure that the existing property or the neighboring properties or the surrounding neighborhoods will not be negatively impacted by this and you can't give it. I mean, that is the law. And the request is not totally in compliance. there have been things that were taken out of context, like the underutilized. If you look at the rural land management plan, they tell you exactly which lots are empty and how many. They're few. In the comp plan, the rural land management part of comp plan, it tells you that the majority of underutilized, it's very specific, I think it's on page 64, tells you that the underutilized part of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center is a result of those large parking lots that have to do with the auction houses. So the small area plan that Doc mentioned, the small area plan has not been done for Blue Sky Rural Activity Center or any of them, but it's specifically addressed in the comp plan, talks about, I think page 62 through 64, it recommends that, quote, in order that they need to do the Rural Activity Center Small Area Plan to ensure the protection of rural farm uses, prevent inappropriate growth pressures on farmland, and to eliminate premature and costly, incontiguous growth. That's a quote. So that is important that that small area plan should have been done. And there are things about it that you all need to consider. The design guidelines are important. I would add those in your, yes, I'm about through. And I brought, I made my husband carry this stuff in for me today. And in case this happened, I could have his three minutes. And I've already used mine and Beth's and his. I don't want to get involved in those marital problems there. But there are some things that Hal has mentioned that I would insist that you all put in there as conditions. Small area plans should be done. The design guidelines for those gateway entrances. that rural corridors protection plan that they did back in 2011. The implementation plan hasn't been done for that corridors protection plan. So there are the right-of-way besides the state and the view sheds, all of those things are specifically mentioned. And until you can guarantee that those items cannot be assured, then you've got second thoughts coming. Because I hate to tell you, but it's not just here. The B5P, and Hal can tell you, we can all tell you, those of us who work in planning all the time can tell you, they're anywhere in those rural activity centers and other places that in the rural service area, Not always. There are other zoning places out there in the rural area that are not just in those rural activity centers. So you start giving B1 to B3 or B5P to B3, you've opened a pretty big can of worms, and you need to be very careful about doing that. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Ms. Goodman? All right, I do have some exhibits and do you want to give one to each of them? There's one for the staff and also one for the record. Thank you. I'd like that to put it into the record. I would also just like to put this up front so you can see it because this is basically the law. In fact, we stand and cannot do the law. It's also in your packet. All right. And you have every right, Chairman Forrester, to cut me off at 12 minutes if I go too long. Do not hesitate. Is your husband in the audience? All right. Well, yes, he is. Hey, Drew's asking. I've got to know who I'm going up against here. All right. First, I want to thank Chairman Forster and the members of the commission for allowing me to speak today in opposition of this proposed zone change. I also want to say to you that I'm very appreciative of the extra time. Today, most of you know me as Judge Goodman, but I am not here as Judge Goodman today. I am here as Julie Muth Goodman, a four-generation individual who has lived on 8th and Spoonsboro Road. I'm the fourth generation. I also want to tell you that I have given great study to this proposal because obviously it affects my property. I am the second driveway from this piece of property that they proposed to change. I am also a very strong believer in the rule of law, which is why you have the law in front of you. As I studied this proposal, I looked at it from the standpoint of someone who understands the law and what the requirements of the law require that the Planning Commission do to be able to change this zone. What I found was that you may not under the law. You have to deny it because the elements that are required in Fritz versus Lexington Urban County Government, which is a seminal case, have not been complied with. The petitioner has not established by substantial evidence that he has met the necessary requirements. The packet I gave you will show you, and I respectfully disagree with Hal and with the staff, That packet will show you every place that this proposed zone change violates the comprehensive plan. The very first thing Hal said in his original recommendations, he didn't mention it today, was though that it met theme A, goal 2, because it was infill and we needed infill. What you must remember is this property is not within the urban service area. It is not infill. That is not the definition of infill. It has to be within the urban service area. This is indeed in the agricultural rural world and in the rural land management plan and in the rural activity center. All of those are crucial to remember. Additionally, if you look at all of the elements that he said it complied with, if you look closer and you read the whole part of the comprehensive plan, all 360 pages, which I did, as you can see from the packet, it is very clear that this does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Which is the first element? You will see all of those. All of those have been put into the record to establish where all the places it does not comply. Hal also said that it complied with a theme C, goals 1 and 2, because it creates jobs. It's already a commercial area. I believe Mr. Rochelle said so. We're just swapping commercial for commercial. That is not the case. A B3 is, according to Tracy Wade, when I asked her, what is a B3? Her response is, it is the most extensive and undesirable zone in all of Fayette County. It is everything and anything. What is a B5P? It is a very restrictive zone, a zone that is there for the traveler. It's a zone that is created for people who come off the interstate. It's limited. That's why you find it in rural areas. It's limited, but we acknowledge for travelers, they need restaurants. They need hotels. They need gasoline stations. So we create a B5P for that reason. And that is being utilized. We have gas stations. Even on this site, we have gas stations. And we could have hotels, and we could have restaurants. But what you also see is their argument is, well, we need more B3. But what does the law tell you? First, you have to find that the B5P is not appropriate. It is very appropriate here. And in fact, you all or the council allowing a conditional use permit on the agricultural rural land that is part of this property and letting soccer fields for the use go there makes the B5P even more appropriate. What do soccer moms and dads look for the minute they've got a soccer game to go to? They look for the bathrooms for the kids at the gas stations. They look for the food. They look for the hotels to stay overnight. What we have here is by them changing the AR and allowing the youth soccer fields there under conditional use, we have made this B5P zone that much more appropriate. And is the zone they want appropriate? Absolutely not. This is surrounded by farms, agricultural roads, surrounded by homes. But more importantly, this is the gateway to Lexington. It is a natural boundary on I-75, which is why everything east of I-75 is where you find blue sky, where you find the strip mall, where you find all of the adult entertainment. And that's why on our side, coming into town, we have kept it pristine because it is a gateway, it is a scenic watershed, and it is the first thing people see when they come into Fayette County from I-75. There have been no major changes that they've established that would allow this, and they have shown nothing that would say in any way that the elements that are necessary for you to allow this zone change exist. I also want to make some comments about other issues that caused this to be extremely unsettling for all of us that live out there and for our community. When you read the comprehensive plan and you look at the area about livability, and you look at the suggestion that we are doing this great thing for our community by putting this soccer stadium here, what I will say to you as I've looked at all of it is, we are doing the worst thing for our community. It would be phenomenal to have a soccer stadium where our children, the majority of our children, could walk to or bike to or take mass transit to. So that our whole community, the low income, the people of color that I see every day, that I experience what they go through every day on the bench, are left out. So what have we chosen to do? we, this community, are going to pick the furthest site from Masterson Station, which is the largest population of our community, and downtown, and we're going to say, okay, go, look, we've got a stadium for you. But guess what? You can't get there by bus. You can't get there walking. You can't get there biking. You can't get there. You can only get there by car. and you've chosen to put it in what has been deemed by the Highway Department as one of the two most dangerous streets in all of Fayette County. And I have spoken consistently with the Highway Department, and of course, as you all know, we are now dealing with the Highway Department, and in fact, I spoke to them this morning to make sure my facts were accurate, that the Highway Safety Improvement Program is very much involved in these R-cuts. And why are they? because of all of the serious collisions on 8th and Spoonsboro Road. But yet you're going to bring in a 6,500-person stadium with all the cars that come with it. You want to add all these other facilities with all the cars that come to it. I also asked them, the development plan we continually see is that there's going to be a stoplight there. They are adamant there will never be a stoplight at this location. It is too dangerous. It impedes the traffic too much. Additionally, it's an environmentally sensitive piece of property. I've talked to the Corps of Engineers, the Army Corps of Engineers, and I have also talked to our own quality engineers. There is a blue line stream here. They have not at this point figured out how they're going to be able to handle it. It is one of the main tributaries to Kentucky River, and it's in the Broome Creek watershed. They also have a pond on the property. But if you look at their development plan, they've done away with the pond. And according to both the Corps of Engineers and the 401 permit and the 404 permit, have not been granted. And you know why? Because when they got their documents, they found they were deficient. They had hidden some of the water from them. And now they have to start all over. But what's more important, and I know my time may be running out, is I want to say, and I think, Mr. Penn, I thank you for, as you would say, opening the door. We did, the neighbors out there, the Ashley Woods individuals, myself, Gloria Martin, and different people, we asked to talk to them. We were never contacted by them, but we asked, and we had a meeting. And right before the meeting, I got a call from a friend who's a mutual friend to Mr. Gabbard. And he said, you tell the judge, wink, wink, we have no intention of putting the stadium there. It's going to Jessamine County. So when we met with them, it turns out one of the other neighbors had tried to hire an attorney. And the attorney laughed and said, you don't know what you're talking about. I've already been tired to put it in Jessamine County for them. I'm representing them over there. So right now, we really don't know what they're putting there. All we know is they are looking at our community who wants a stadium, and they're using it to get the B3, which is the most extensive and the most unattractive area that anybody would want, and we're putting it at the gateway. And our concern is, you're going to go ahead and grant it because we all want this stadium, And it's going to be exactly what we all think it will be, a bait and switch. But it won't matter, because by then, you will have zoned it B3. And anything and everything can go there. So my request is that you deny it. But if you choose not, if you, my second request is, if you're going to go ahead and grant it, I would ask that you grant it, just as Mr. Penn said, on the condition that the only part of the property that will be changed to a B3 will be the acres needed for the stadium and for the stadium's facilities, but not for anything else. And then you put the condition on it under KRS 100.203, which you can, that if that stadium is not built and done, that it can indeed be voidable and go back to the B5P after a hearing. I would also ask that you put a condition on it, if you insist on going forward, that there will be no historical betting, because that's Mr. Gabbard's other client, there will be no gaming, there will be no casinos, or any type of satellite historical betting that they also have a license for, his other client to put in Fayette County. So at this point, my request, based on all of the law and the fact that they have not, by substantial evidence, proven their case, I would ask that you deny this request. And if not, as I said, I would ask that you consider putting those conditions on and follow KRS 100. Plus my conditions. Plus her conditions, because her conditions are rural land management has not been. I think she said rural land management plan has not been followed. But sometimes I can't follow Gloria because she's too smart for me. All right. Thank you all. Thank you. I don't have one. No, no, no. Hold on, Mr. Rochelle. He's getting out of the way. It wasn't. Mr. Miller, Tom Miller. He's in. I'm just giving your exhibit back. Good night. I know Mr. Hodge has taken it home several times. But that has to stay for the record. That's not it. Not anymore. Not mine. I do have those conditions I mentioned for everyone to fail. Okay. Steve? Thank you. Thank you. Forrester, are you ready for me to start? Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm Tom Miller. Much of what I have put in the handout that you have is repetitive as to what Judge Goodman has said, but I do want it in the record because I totally agree with her that the applicant has not met their burden of establishing why there should be a zone change. This property has been addressed in the rural activity center, the rural land management plan. Goals of the plan which I've set out there include, and I want to really emphasize what has not been said and identified by either the staff or Mr. Rochelle. The goals of the plan are to empower the agricultural industry and protect environmentally sensitive areas. The RLMP specifically recognizes that the equine industry produces over $150 million in income in the community, and that was just in 2017. Which button did I push? Judge Goodman spent quite a bit of time on the findings necessary to make this change. Either you have to find that it is consistent with the land use plan, or you have to find one of the exceptions exists. I'm going to explain in some detail why this is not consistent with the land use plan and that there have not been either evidence provided that the existing zone classification is inappropriate or that there have been major changes in the community. In my handout, I refer to Fritz, which the judge has just identified. in that case where the planning commission and then the council denied a zone change made it clear zone changes are allowed if they are in accordance with the comprehensive plan or if the plan is out of touch with reality and there is a compelling need for the proposed change. Judge Goodman has done a great job of explaining why the current zone is appropriate and why there has not been any change in the neighborhood which would make the plan out of touch with reality. The application fails to satisfy KRS 100.213. There's no evidence in the record that has been provided that this property is not properly zoned. And in fact, as she has said, on both sides of the road, Athens-Boonesboro, that the use of the property is exactly consistent with B5P. I thought it was very interesting that Mr. Rochelle acknowledged this property hadn't been developed not because of the zone, but because it did not have access to sewers. It now has access to sewers, and so it's going to be developed. Whether you change the zone or not, at least that's what I heard him to say. And I've also set forth that it fails to satisfy the requirements of KRS 100.213.1b, and there have not been changes in the neighborhood which would support that. The staff spent a lot of time explaining to you why this proposal is consistent with the land use plan. I'm going to tell you why it is not. In theme A, the first goal is to expand housing choices. clearly not met. A second goal is to support infill and redevelopment. One of the concerns I've had throughout this process, and I've been to four committee meetings, is that it seems as though the staff recommendations change every time we're present. And one of the main purposes and one goals that you were told this property meets the comprehensive land use plan goals is because it creates infill. And now they've corrected that because it was wrong. It has to be in the urban services area in order to be considered infill. Theme A also relates to, requires adequate green space and open space. If you look at the design of this project, and I can't tell for sure, but it looks like it's entirely impervious. All this 2,000 parking spots, walking, you've got 2,000 spots for cars. It appears that these soccer fields are going to be mats and not grass. So there will not be any green space at all. The third goal is well designed neighborhoods and communities. This doesn't help at all, a key component of which is enhancing mass transit opportunities. What we heard at the committee meetings is there are no plans by Lex Tran to have bus service to this property. There is no one in their right mind that would ride a bicycle out there or try to walk out there. The current traffic plans, as Judge Goodman has identified, will have thousands of cars up to 1,776 at peak time making U-turns after games because they can't turn left out of there to go back downtown, and they will be instead turning right and then having to find of place to U-turn. This plan absolutely does not protect the environment, which is theme B. Theme C, this seems to be the real selling point that you're hearing from the developer in the staff. And that is it's going to create jobs and prosperity. And if you don't allow this stadium, you will lose all these jobs. That's just not true. I've got the Lexington Herald from Wednesday has an article on the sporting club and the players that are playing. The players are already hired. They're already getting a salary. They don't need a stadium to create the jobs. They already have a coach. They already have support staff. The jobs have already been created. They don't need the stadium to create the jobs. And in addition, the question is where they plan. We've heard they're playing games. They have two alternative stadiums that are adequate. One is Transylvania University and the other is at the University of Kentucky. That's where they intend to play. We have also looked at, we've gone into some depth about what this economic opportunity is. These are young soccer players playing at the very lowest professional division. And if you look at the next division up, we can't even find what the average salaries are for these young people. But if you go to the next division up, the minimum compensation is $2,750 per month or $30,000 a year. That's not $75,000, which is what you've been told. Also, is this really going to create a lot of tourism or out-of-town people? Why would people from Louisville or Cincinnati, where they've got more and better soccer, higher division, better stadiums, why would they drive to Lexington to see the lowest division? It's going to be people from Lexington that will be there. It's not going to create new tourism. Also, how many people are going to be there? We've not heard any investigation by the staff. Well, what we know is from what we've researched, the USL League One, that's averaged 3,843 fans. And the least attended team averaged 500 fans per game. As I've said, the economic and tourism impact has been greatly overstated. Is this, as I've pointed out, this is going to be an absolute traffic disaster. One of the, again, a concern that I have in representing people that are interested in protecting the community is that we spend a lot of time. You ask a lot of questions about this little coffee shop, a drive-in coffee shop, and how it was so dangerous for traffic. a few cars a day on Versailles Road where the speed limit is about 35 miles an hour. And the staff said, well, we're really worried about the traffic. Well, how about the traffic that you're going to have at a stadium where their traffic study shows be about 1,776 cars at maximum per hour? They got 2,000 parking spots, and we know there's not going to be a traffic light. There is no plan that it would conceivably work in order to let people get in and out of there. They're going to have to turn right to exit. If they want to turn left, if they are allowed to, traffic will back up and be a disaster. We have a rural activity center. We have a zone. We have plenty of B3 property in the community. I've checked websites for advertised property because I wanted to see if it was necessary to have new zone B3 property. and I found listed as much as a 28-acre tract, and there are at least 11 sites. And an area that hadn't been discussed at all, which I don't understand, is the Legacy Business Park. That's near the interstate. They've got other businesses there. It's not adjacent to residents, and it's got 200 acres of developable land in that area. This relates to the conditional use of property. I will argue and have argued in my handout that you must make objective findings in order to grant the zone change. They had the burden of proving those objective findings. Now, conditional use is perhaps more subjective. I've identified the goals, the ordinance. and for a conditional use permit they have to you would have to find that it will not have an adverse influence on the surrounding neighborhood which you know that it will based on the testimony you have to find that the road system sewage disposal facilities utilities fire and police protection and other services are available. Well, we know that the closest fire station is 5.3 miles. The nearest police station is 8.5 miles. So we ask that you find that the developer, the applicant, has failed to meet their burden of proof. They do not qualify for a zone change. And even if you find that there should be a zone change, we ask that you not permit the conditional use of a 6,500-seat stadium. In the event that there is an approval of either of those, We ask that the developer not be permitted to go forward without a stoplight and that, as Judge Goodman requested, that unless the soccer stadium is built, which is the Trojan horse here, that they're trying to get you to use to adopt a zone change for other purposes. that unless they build the soccer stadium in one year, that this revoke reverts to a B5P zone. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay, do we have any other citizens that would like to speak? You can do so. Good afternoon. Actually, I guess it's good evening. Good early evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I'm Ed Hastie. I'm here with my wife, who's out there, to object to the request for the conditional use and also the zone change petition. We live at 141 Ashley Woods Road. We live in the heart of Ashley Woods. In 1978, my wife and I bought our acreage at Ashley Woods from the developer, who was Scotty Basler. Two years later in 1980, in October, we started construction of our home and have lived there. Well, we moved in in the spring of 81, and we've lived there continuously since that time, 41 years. So we've seen all the changes and the widenings of Athens-Brunsboro Road and the like. There have been essentially no changes out around the interstate services area. We lost Arby's. We got a liquor store instead. It's the same thing, even though traffic has become nightmarish and dangerous. due to time constraints, I'm going to limit my remaining, my remarks to traffic and access. There will be an adverse impact of up to 6,500 stadium, if it's ever that full, leave at one time, and they arrive at approximately the same time for the start of a match, trying to get back into Lexington. I agree with Mr. Miller. That's where most of the spectators will come from, and some from adjoining counties. And it has an adverse impact on the homes in Ashley Woods and the homes to the west towards Lexington of Ashley Woods. like Judge Goodman, who is the second driveway as you head into town on the left. The proposed IVCP entrances, and we heard this afternoon that the main one would be the existing farm entrance. It has a turn lane, which is between Doe Run and the entrance to Ashley Woods. And it's important that there is a rise in the highway as you head towards Lexington from the interstate. And from, because of that rise, and Ashley Woods is at the crest, and the other residences are beyond that crest towards the Lexington side, there is no line of sight visibility to that farm entrance. So people rushing to get to the interstate who commute for traffic, commute for work daily, will not see that farm entrance, which we've been told would be the main access point and not Doe Run. And currently, neither of those have a stoplight. It seems doubtful that there will be, and that's asking for rear-end collisions as people suddenly find stop traffic trying to turn into the farm entrance, which would be the main entrance. It also means that if there were improvements which are in the works, which Ike referred to as R-cuts, it would mean that under the current situation, if there's a queue of traffic that you can see from Ashley Woods, you can't get through that to turn left. Or if the R-cuts are put into place, you can't get to the lane that lets you do a U-turn. So I see the chairman looking at his watch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's okay, I understand. Most of the rest of what I wanted to say has been covered. And I'll conclude by saying that this reminds me of when I was a debater in high school and in college, too, on scholarship. It was time to wind up. So I think, though, that the bottom line is that the B5P designation is exactly what it should be for interstate services. And if the traffic engineers can solve how to turn left more safely, I would be for that. I'm not for the stoplights. They don't make sense. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Don Todd, and I'm happy to represent the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association. And on their behalf today, I'll take three minutes. The association, as you may or may not know, extends out Old Richmond Road to the county line across east to the county line with Clark County. He comes back to Athens Boonesboro and closes the square right in front of Jacobson Park. So this proposal sits right in the footprint of the neighborhood association. They have asked me to express to you they're entirely opposed to the proposed zone change as well as the conditional use permit. They feel obviously that you should ask yourself the three legal questions. Has there been a major change not anticipated by the comp plan? Answers, no. Number two, the existing zoning is inappropriate. The answer is no, it's appropriate. Thirdly, is there a compelling need for the proposed zone change? No. So why are we doing this? Well, they've shopped this thing all the way across the country. There's a need for it. It ought to be on public lands. It ought to be in the center of town where people can access it. This proposal is just an opportunity for economic development for a few people. It doesn't really benefit the city. Two other points real quick. The rural service areas, there are four. And they were more or less created before we got serious about zoning here. And so we decided to build a wall around the rural service area so as to not let them expand or change. There are three rural service areas that are public in nature, and there's one that was private in nature. This is the private one. The other three were public, quasi-public. This is the private one. This is the one where they're asking you to change the zone to a more intensive use in the private rural service area. That's a bad deal. That's a bad deal for the rural area. That raises the flags to us because if you change this zone to a more intensive use in a rural service area, private area, that gives the green light to other similar B3 or B5P areas that are outside either one of these rural service areas that were either grandfathered in or existed by some federal grant. So I ask you to take a look at that issue, consider the other issues that have been outlined for you, and consider the fact that this is really not the best location. It may be the best for the developers, it may be the best for their pocketbooks, it's not the best for the community. Thank you. I do want to point one more point, if I can. the youth soccer fields that are currently on this location. It's my understanding they are not part of the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. So they're not entitled to sewer. A whole lot of people on 10 soccer fields. How are we going to provide sewers to them? How are we going to find bathrooms? They're going to have to go somewhere else. Think about that for a sec. Thank you all. Thank you. I guess it's good evening now. My name is Andy Pearson. I live at 111 Ashley Woods. As a reference point, if you're coming up the hill, I've just learned I'm the first house that you see on the gateway to Lexington. I live on Ashley Woods. We were one of the few homes still remaining on an entrance into Lexington where you could actually see a horse in the horse capital of the world. we were we did host a gathering with the plan developers with our neighborhood and Judge Goodman and I will repeat that they did say at that meeting that the plans were to put the real stadium in Jessamyn County so this is a bait and switch they're planning to they're enticing people with an economic development jobs and opportunity when really it's a bait and switch and the real market is for them and the the value of the land. I was raised in New Jersey, and before you think that's the hole that everybody thinks New Jersey is, I actually grew up in dairy farms and woods. And I watched that get destroyed by development, so I encourage you to take your job seriously. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello, my name is Dennis Yalkut. I'm at 4998th and Moonsboro Road. And I have three children, and they're young but getting older. And the traffic issue is real to me. You know, if we look at Brenda Cowan Elementary that was built just across the street from me, you know, we can already see that, you know, 700 kids going in and leaving is a real problem to the point where they only let you turn one direction now because the meeting gets congested. And so we can triple that number of travelers and see that right away we're going to have a real problem with this. So that's one issue. I think also Judge Goodman's point about who are we really serving with this. I think there are many people in Lexington that could really benefit from soccer and having access to it. And as a society, I think we really have to think hard and long about that. And, you know, we need to do things that are accessible to other people and help our communities and not just profit individuals. And lastly, I'd like to say that, you know, I was at that meeting as well with us as a neighborhood. And we were quite shocked that, you know, they really hadn't reached out to us earlier. And so, you know, it hadn't been forthcoming with, you know, trying to get with us and come up with some plans that would make everybody happy. And we really did feel that we were subject to a bait and switch here because I don't know what their real plans are, but we're really concerned that if a stadium doesn't go in, we don't want to have gambling just down the road from us. So those are some things for us to all think about. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I'm Melissa Brown. I live at 7211 Grimes Mill Road. And I'm president of the Boone Creek Neighborhood Association, which does encompass the area in question because we cover the Boone Creek Watershed, which is a National Register Rural Historic District. In my almost 40 years as president, I've come before boards, commissions, and the council, but never with such little information to access, much less to determine the validity of the development plan provided by IVCP. Here are just three of my concerns, one for each minute. Why are unrelated businesses being proposed under the umbrella of a soccer stadium? The stadium seems to be the excuse for major commercial development. Though we are only asking for a small soccer stadium does not pass the smell test, as the map provided shows the majority of the areas for usage yet to be named. There are roads that dead end on the current plan to areas for future development. There's a mention of a tie-in with the Blue Sky Sewage Facility for sanitary disposal, but there's not been a detailed evaluation for use of that facility, which has had issues for years. Besides sewage, what is the plan for stormwater drainage, as Lexington is still in debt on this one? The Boone Creek Watershed has many geological issues, including sinkholes, caves, and actually being in the Clay's Ferry Earthquake Zone, which our insurance agent informed us of. An environmental impact study should be completed before any work is started, which seems to have been ignored as blasting and grading has already begun. Even the staff recognize the problems as their approval is, quote, subject to the following revised conditions, end quote. And you're seen on page 10 of the agenda, which include drainage, sewers, pump station upgrades, floodplain information, tree preservation plan, which is fun since they've already started removing trees, and stormwater management. None of the 17 items listed have been completed and made available. And we are now in Webster's Dictionary under cart before the horse. Too often I've seen no oversight or repercussions when approval is given with conditions once the construction begins and conditions are not met. To prevent adding this development to New Circle Road, Manoward Boulevard, Nicholasville Road, and other short-sighted progressive plans. Nothing should be granted until all concerns are addressed and all questions answered. Dot the I's, cross the T's, and then we can have intelligent discourse. And last, I would like to throw my support to Julie Goodman and her comments about the bait and switch and that if this stadium is not built with it, if you give the B3 designation, just give it to the stadium. And if they don't build it in a year, Remove the designation. Do not give the other, keep the other designation the same. And finally, prohibit casinos, gaming, and historic racing, because I think that will tell you a lot of what they really want with this request. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir. I think I'm last, Steve. You can help me. Spirit move me. Before you start running the clock, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Miller has yielded his remaining time to me to ask that everyone who's here that's opposed to this proposal, please stand up. That appears to be the press, too. We won't, we're not doing yielding of time, but you have your three minutes. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is James Hodge. I'm here on behalf of myself and my wife, Mary Ann Delaney. For the record, Dee Dee and I live at 6050 Old Richmond Road in Lexington. I think it's been said, but I think it's clear that the applicant simply has not met the burden of proof in this case. and to that end i submit the following findings of fact for you to adopt denying the requested zone change and conditional use permit request the subject property is located immediately adjacent to ashley woods a residential subdivision and is adjacent to i-75 the subject property is appropriate for the uses permitted in the interchange service business b5p zone the The subject property is adjacent to Athens-Boonesboro Road, a major gateway into Lexington-Fayette-Urban County. The proposed zoning will adversely affect the aesthetic character of the Athens-Boonesboro Road gateway. The noise, lighting, and traffic generated by the proposed development will adversely affect the surrounding properties, including Ashley Woods subdivision and adjacent horse farms. The proposed zone change and conditional use request violates the comprehensive plan as shown by the evidence introduced by Mrs. Julie Goodman and Mr. Tom Miller, which evidence is hereby incorporated herein by reference. policy 5 requires that the proposal avoid negatively impacting the surrounding properties not that the negative impacts are addressed quote to the extent possible close quote left turns of traffic out of the proposed development would experience considerable delays and be unsafe based on the above findings the fact the Planning Commission concludes the existing interchange service business B5P zone is appropriate and proper there have been no major changes in the area that were not anticipated by the existing comprehensive plan the proposed zoning is inappropriate and improper there's no compelling need for the proposed zoning the proposed zoning will adversely affect the surrounding properties including Ashley Wood subdivision. The proposed conditional use will adversely affect the surrounding properties including Ashley Wood subdivision. It's not permissible under the applicable regulations to address the impact of noise and lighting from the proposed development quote to the extent possible close quote. And as an aside, as I said, I live on Old Richmond Road, and I can get up on the second floor of my house in the middle of the night, and I don't need to turn on the lights to walk around because the existing lights from Blue Sky fully illuminate the second floor of my house. If you add all this, I can do virtually anything that I can do in the daytime up there. I'll submit these findings for your consideration. Thank you very much. All right. Is there anyone else? If not, Mr. Rochelle, we're up on rebuttal. No, the staff goes last. No, the staff is last. That was a good try, though. Our bylaws. I simply do not know where to start. I simply do not know where to start. You have a professional staff, and your professional staff has found and recommended to you, and I have incorporated in my presentation, finding the fact that, in fact, this zone change is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. That's all that's necessary. My learned colleagues, they have misread the statute and our ordinance. If it's in conformance to the comprehensive plan, it says or. And then it lists the other three things. They have totally missed that point. And I think the legal department can weigh in on that. And I think the staff can. Now, this is just not the wild, wild west. We've had reference today to the Blue Sky Sewer Treatment Plant still running. It's been shut down. When we have a sewer, when your staff who studied this and they're professional, we're going to sewer it to the new trunk line. We're not overburdening anything. We're doing what we're supposed to do and what the urban county government wants us to do, which is to give that sewer line, go into the sewer line. And then it's also been mentioned that we're violating our conditional use permit because we're going to have to tie that sewer line. That's not true. We're going to have a septic tank as we're required to have it in the agricultural zone. These people, your objectors have not studied all the facts and listened to your staff. All they want to do is stop it. And they're throwing stuff up against the wall that I can't even list it all. But I'll try. I'll try. And I'm sure those things that I miss, I hope staff will pick up on. First of all, traffic, there is going to be a stoplight. or there's going to be a stoplight. It may be in conjunction with an R-cut, but that will be at the new road. And you can rest assured, otherwise you can just throw out traffic design and all of a fair can. Your engineers are not going to let the developer do anything traffic-wise that would imperil anyone. Imperil anyone. You depend on them every day. I do. My daughter, my grandchildren, We have a safe road system. And the Department of Transportation, which we have been in contact with and negotiations with, and your urban county engineer are not going to let anything happen there without proper signalization to make everything safe. And for anyone to infer otherwise is disingenuous. we didn't come up with the idea of having this stadium here on our own long ago the the the blue sky activity center was established and this area is supposed to be developed it's supposed to be developed we are asking for an adjustment from b5 to b3 so as to allow increased uses and so is to allow our training facility next to our soccer fields. We're not encroaching on any PDR farms. We're staying inside the rural activity center. We're not breaking any rules. We don't need to put up fences because we own all the land around it. And the federal government owns the interstate, and the Department of Transportation owns Athens, Moons, Borboa. And to talk about that is disingenuous. And all that these people want to do is stop it. They just want to stop it. We will create tourism. It's interesting to me that our comprehensive plan, which they had every opportunity to read, and it's pointed out to them by Hal up on the screen today and at the various meetings. Our comprehensive plan, and I'm not using the right term of art, I'm not quoting, but it recommended a regional sports facility so as to attract regional activity. And so we are delivering this free of charge to the urban county government. And where are we going to put it? They say put it downtown. The only place we can put it downtown is in the I-2 zoning. And we need 20 acres or so for a stadium. There's only one place that you want to have it. And that's on the interstate. So the people from Knoxville and Louisville and Ashland and Huntington and Cincinnati can come for a regional tournament. And that's what the comprehensive plan is making reference to, to increase economic tourism. Nobody would want to have it downtown because it's not available. but that's in the comprehensive plan and that is something that we must consider the traffic is going to be safe we don't have to figure we are in conformance to the comprehensive plan you're a professional staff they're professionals they're not attorneys who are not qualified to talk about traffic I'm not qualified, nor would I ever, and that's why I had my client hire a traffic engineer, and we have him here today. They're not qualified to talk about that. Your staff is going to protect you and protect our community. Is it going to be perfect? No, it's not. But it's going to be the best. It's going to be that anyone could ask for. We have people who are on Grounds Mill Road. We have people up by Edith Hayes. And in fact, traffic is going to increase. Traffic increases every day in this community because we are a growing community. And we're going to make the traffic better in that area. And rest assured your traffic engineer is going to make sure that happens, either with the RCUT, which will involve signalization, or signalization alone. Now, concerning... We have worked with the staff, and that's why I've incorporated it as part of my testimony, their testimony. You had three experts talk about traffic, border adjustment, the conditional use permit, development plan, and zoning. this is a serious matter. This is a serious matter. And for people to come up here and say that, in essence, at the end of the day, the staff doesn't know what they're doing, they've recommended approval. They've studied this pretty hard. And we have designed this, and as you recall in the committees, It hasn't been easy to get here. Your staff recommended postponement, said they wanted A, B, and C. Frank Penn said go, the committee said go talk to them. We did. And what do we have left? We have a better product, the product being the lighting, is going to be focused on the stadium for the players. The noise? The noise is going to be focused on the stadium because when you run an athletic event, you want all the excitement and noise in that direction. And then I've talked about the traffic. And plus the open end of our stadium is towards I-75, which is a quite noisy activity. Everyone acts like there's no noise out there. There's plenty of noise. And for my 75, and we are not going to increase it in such a way as to harm any of these people. Now let's talk about Ashley Woods for a minute. Ashley Woods consists of six lots. Two are owned by a gentleman by the name of McCoy. One is owned by a gentleman by the name of Dinesh. And I believe he rents that out. He's out of state. And then there are three additional lots. This isn't a residential subdivision that we're invading. These are on 10-acre tracks, which are located the closest house, the McCoy's house, is set forth in report, I think, is some 1,600 feet. So the noise that may go there or the light that may go there is going to be de minimis, just de minimis. Charlotte, what am I leaving out? And then for people to bring up expanded housing, we can't have expanded housing out there. I don't think it's even authorized or recommended in the blue sky. That is somewhat disingenuous. and then Julie Goodman gave a handout and these are things we're required to put everything on a cellar so they can cross examine it we didn't see any of this information until today but their reference to theme C creating jobs and prosperity and what she has listed there, and I hope you haven't tainted your mind in looking at it because we hired Commonwealth Economics to come up with some numbers of what it would mean to our community and how it's giving you the correct numbers. And I just want to leave some time, I want to leave you all to ask me some questions because I hope I've covered everything because we have been ambushed. We have been ambushed. Charlotte, anything else? Excuse me? Questions? Mr. Client, anything, Brad? So we're available for questions. I feel like I've been in a 10-round fight, and I couldn't hit back until now. But I had to point these things out to you all. And their council had plenty of time to get me all this information and to put it on a cell. and to make it available instead of ambushing us today with things that are not true because we've been better equipped to cross-examine so many of these things, which have come so fast and furious that I feel like I've been in a 10-round fight. But thank you. I'm available for questions. And if this is my closing, is this my closing? Yes, sir, it is. This is an appropriate zone change. It is in conformance to the comprehensive plan for the reasons that your staff has said. B3 will allow us to have some economic activity in that area, as we pointed out, for the training facility. what is wrong with Lexington having a world class soccer facility? There's nothing wrong with it. So the zoning is appropriate. It is conformance to the comprehensive plan. And that's all we have to show. And I have not tried to be duplicitous. Staff has proven that. That's all we have to show. And we've been trying to keep in mind the neighbors with traffic studies, with sound studies, with lighting studies, to have a minimal impact, if any, on the people in Ashley Woods. And we've tried to keep that in mind at all times. I think that's one today with the staff, our willingness to do that. And not only that, but we have agreed, if I hadn't mentioned before, we have agreed to the restrictions, the conditions, these conditional zoning. And we have agreed to the restrictions on the conditional use permit. Now, I know I'm leaving something out, but I'm tired. And please forgive me. Yes, ma'am, Ms. Judy. And please don't hold it against my client that I didn't immediately go and have a meeting. It's okay. That's not where I'm going. You're not going to like where I'm going. Okay. You attempted to address virtually all the points made by the other side. The one thing I have not heard you address is the rumor mill and what we heard that attorneys working for you all were saying that the stadium was going to be built elsewhere and that really what was going to happen here was historical betting, gaming, and other things. Can you address that? I will. I will. We're remote. Okay. Ms. Worth, we want soccer in Lexington. We've tried downtown to spend, it was before I represented these clients, but they spent a lot of money to be across from Rupp Arena. And they had a good plan. They weren't chosen. And then they went out to Russell Cave slash Newtown Pike. And there was a lawsuit filed, and they said, they backed off that. I mean, they couldn't be tied up in litigation forever. And so during that process, several communities around us contacted and have solicited my client to have a stadium there and offering economic incentives because the leaders there think it'd be a good thing. And so our client has been, I think they stated this at the meeting with Ashley Woods, but everything to this point, we don't feel really welcome. And the neighbors didn't make us feel real welcome today as an ambush, just one by one. But there is our going elsewhere is hypothetical, highly hypothetical, and it's exploratory. But wouldn't you, if you had a business, if you couldn't do business, you might look elsewhere, especially when someone was recruiting you. So the deal in Jessamine County is speculative. It's certainly hypothetical. And if I stated that correct, yeah. But again, that's part of the ambush. That's part of the ambush. That's part of the ambush. We're here today asking for a zone change and a conditional use permit. Nothing more, nothing less. And we're going to make this community better. You want to step up to the podium? Well, yeah. And my colleague and well-rested Ms. McCoy pointed out that in order to keep our franchise agreement, we have to have a stadium in place by a certain time. And this, if approval, allow us to do that. And anything else, Charlotte? Thank you. And, you know, may I request respectfully that you all adopt the finding as a fact and the recommendations of your staff who's worked hard on this and that you approve this. It's the best thing for our community. it's not going to have a negative impact on those on Athens, Moonsby Road, Walden Hill Road, Old Rich Road, and so forth. It's simply not. It's just we don't want any change, and it's time for change. And the change is going to be for the better of our community, and the zoning change gives us more opportunities, more economic opportunities, and I respectfully request your approval. Thank you. Okay. Chairman? Yes, sir? As I recall, under the rules, we're entitled to serve a vote. You do? You are entitled if you're going to say something new? I can't explain. I'll be a lot shorter than Mr. Rochelle. Is it new? Are you going to be presenting any new information? Or are you going to just recant what you've already said? I'm going to present. I'm going to clarify something that was just... Okay, yes, sir. I want you to, yes, you have the right to. I need some water. I just want to make two points. And I want to say this from the standpoint that I have the utmost respect for the staff in the law department, having represented both entities years ago as commissioner of law, and my wife also has the utmost respect for the staff in the law department. having represented them in excess of 25 years as commissioner of law. But the point here is that the standard before you is not whether this proposal is good for the community. The standard is whether this proposal is appropriate for this individual site. and as everybody's admitted all the other issues other than compliance with the comprehensive plan have gone by the board. No evidence has been introduced whatsoever to justify the zone change for the other reasons that were on the exhibit, which is my exhibit by the way, I'd like to have it back someday. But let me suggest to you this. The Comprehensive Plan is a long document. It has lots of goals, lots of objectives, lots of policies, lots of language. And it seeks to protect lots of things. One is economic development. But it also seeks to protect rural land, neighborhoods, add, add, add, add. If you will look at the staff report and the evidence submitted by Mr. Miller and Ms. Goodman, the comprehensive plan has been cherry-picked to pick only the language that supports economic development. None of the other language has been used in the recommendation. They have to look at the entire comprehensive plan to make that recommendation. They did not do it, and the proposal is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Secondly, the conditional use permit application is governed by a totally different standard, and that standard is whether the proposal will adversely affect the surrounding properties, not whether they will adversely affect the surrounding properties to the extent mitigated possible. They can't adverse, you cannot approve the conditional use permit without finding it will not whatsoever adversely affect the surrounding properties. You can't do that based on the evidence presented here. So they have not met their standard of proof either to justify the zone change or to justify the conditional use permit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Bailey. Mr. Chair, thank you. Staff is here to both provide some clarity, rebut some of the information that has been provided, and then add our closing statements. There has been a fair amount of conversation about a bait and switch for a Trojan horse. That does not happen in Lexington because of this body and because of Article 21-7E of the zoning ordinance, in which this body has the ability to disapprove any major development plan that comes in that seeks to modify the essential character of the development as originally proposed. This body has the ability to hold the developer to the standard. This is also connected to the ability to withdraw conditional use permits if they are not being done in accordance with the findings that have been found, that have been provided, and that are part of the applicant's letter of justification. There has been a significant conversation about some of the development of the site. I'm happy to say the Rural Land Management Board's perspective of needed changes are already required. These are all elements of the zoning ordinance for the development of property at this site. There are no overnight camping parking trailers that are allowed within the B3 zone. There is no parking allowed in unpaved areas in the B3 zone. Parking is to be developed per the parking demand mitigation study as submitted with the application and part of the justification letter. Parking plantings and screenings must be adhering to the planting manual as adopted by the urban county government and adopted by this body with Article 16 and Article 18 of the zoning ordinance. In addition, the staff with a zone change reviews the comp plan as per what is being called for. In this case, the rural land management plan specifically calls for this area for economic development and job production. That has been the focus of staff's review both of the rural land management plan, the comprehensive plan, and the submitted information by the applicant. The comprehensive plan is not a checklist. The applicant does not need to hit every single goal, objective, policy, development criteria, and section of the comprehensive plan. Nor does the applicant need to go through the two other alternative justifications outlined in KRS. If you look at the formulation of that section of KRS, it starts with the application is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. It then moves into the other justifications if that agreement cannot be found. The jobs that are requested within the B3 are in agreement with the comprehensive plan with or without the stadium as proposed by the applicant. As you saw within staff's presentation, we did discuss the medical facility and the training facility and the jobs and the production of jobs associated with them. The focus of the small area plan itself, while it has not been completed, specifically calls for a review of maximizing the economic development within our rural activity centers. The staff in our review of the goals and objectives and the Rural Land Management Plan believe that this is being met with this application. Housing in the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center is not recommended. It was not set up for that. It is focused on job production and maximizing employment opportunities. um staff stands by our recommendations for both the zone change for the b3 zone and the conditional use at this location there are other conditional uses like racetracks as you see within your uh your b3 zone in which you have the uses that are allowed by right by accessory use and by conditional use. Any conditional use would necessitate further review. Any adjustment of the development plan would necessitate the planning commission's review. This debate and switch does not happen in Lexington because we have diligent planning commission members and a professional staff that watches out for development. staff agrees with the presentation that we provided today we believe that the findings of fact are adequate for a recommendation of approval staff also reviewed all of the elements associated with a conditional use the findings of fact are in agreement with the findings of fact for other conditional uses in these areas and do prevent nuisance impacts on neighboring properties This zone change is located on the easternmost portion of this property and is not adjacent to the Ashleywood subdivision and is not adjacent to the agricultural use located along the property to the south. The last point I want to point out and just bring up is the fact that the conditional use within the AR is not part of this discussion. It is part of a finding within staff in that it is supportive of a regional athletic center or sports complex, which is called for within the comprehensive plan. But this body cannot review that application or make any modifications to there. If there are any questions, staff would be happy to answer them. Ms. Wade would also like to make just a few points just for clarification on the record. Okay. We'll come back with questions, Athanas. Chairman Forrester, members of the commission, I just want to reiterate that the staff tonight is the same staff that serves our board of adjustment. So Ms. Godderweiss and Mr. Crum were both in attendance at the last public hearing we had with the board about the soccer fields to this house. So they obviously can answer any questions associated with that. But it's been very important for our staff to ensure that when we look at this property inside the rural activity center, that it is complementary to the uses and the existing character of that part of our community. I just want to reiterate, and I appreciate the attorneys in the room, but I want to make sure that we're clear on a few things. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide evidence about their conditional use. But when you come to a hearing, you have to propose findings and evidence if you want the commission to find in the opposite. So I appreciate Mr. Hodge's findings, but none of them have any evidence associated with them. just this is going to impact the neighbors, but there was no real evidence as to how that would be occurring. So I want to just reiterate, we need more than just restating the finding from the ordinance or from the regulations. We actually need evidence stating how that's going to happen. And I've not heard any of that tonight. In addition, I did hear some information or read some information about environmentally sensitive areas. And I want to be clear that in our ordinance, the Board of Adjustment does have the ability to further review environmentally sensitive areas within our agricultural zones. zones. That does not, that same I guess authority does not need to be transferred to the planning commission in our zones that are reviewed by the planning commission because we utilize the entire staff when the planning commission reviews plans. We utilize the engineers, the traffic engineers, environmental services department, whereas the board of adjustment doesn't always have all of those staff members reviewing their plans. So in lieu of that extra review for environmentally sensitive areas that the board might put in place for a rural zone, we utilize the rest of the staff. We utilize environmental services and they have reviewed the site and identified where there are environmentally sensitive areas and they have worked with the applicant to make sure that those areas are protected and or mitigated as necessary per federal and state guidelines. So I don't want to leave the impression that there are environmentally sensitive areas that are not being addressed on this site because they have been addressed or they will be addressed through future approvals and permits. There is an existing pond on the site. It is not anything more than a farm pond. It is not connected to the current streams on the site. So it can be filled. That's not that's not a problem. That's done all the time. So I just want to clarify that as well. And then there was a reference to infill and redevelopment, and I just want to make sure Hal mentioned in his presentation, our staff did initially refer to that in a staff report, recognizing that this is not inside the urban service boundary. We took that finding out, and Hal didn't present it this afternoon to you to consider in terms of findings for approval for the zone change. I appreciate the potential conditions, and I think I'll address most of those in terms of further regulating the conditional use. And so I just want to make sure if the commission wants to review these, we have those for you. But I believe that the conditions that the staff has proposed substantially address those, as well as the current ordinance and how we adhere to the ordinance for the urban area. So I think that's it. I appreciate everybody's input tonight, and I know the commission does in hearing the passion from our community for what's best for the community in terms of growing. Thank you. We have a few questions here from commission members. First, Mr. Davis. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Just for my own clarity, earlier today we did not approve an application or a request, and we had a five-minute recess to find our findings and evidence. How did we do that at 3 o'clock, but we can't do it now? Is it a different application or a different type? No, sir. Sir, if that was done during the deliberation following conversations with the public staff going through the full process, you are welcome to meet with your attorney, that is the representative of the Department of Law, to ask for any types of findings that you may need. I'm sorry, maybe I misheard Ms. Wade by saying we don't have any evidence. You've not heard any evidence? Well, the evidence of, for instance, the applicant provided a lighting study. that indicated that light would not spill past their property line onto the adjoining properties. And the opposite has not occurred. We have not received any evidence stating that light would spill onto their properties and therefore impact them in a negative way. Thank you. Mr. Mickler? I believe we discussed this at the zoning committee as well, but can you refresh my memory? Is it prohibited by, because it's not, I'm not sure that I'm seeing it addressed in the zone specifically, But various forms of gaming, whether they're parimutuel or these skill games that are coming up, where is that addressed? So those uses are allowable currently within our grandfathered racetracks within our community. They are not allowable within the B3 zone as outlined within the B3 zone. So it's not a condition because it's not allowed anywhere in the zone. Correct. And if there were to be, we've had discussions with the Department of Law about how to deal with certain elements of this. As this is in the purview of the state, it does get fairly complicated when we start to put restrictions on things that might violate any changes that the state may put in place. So by having it not as an allowable use right now, it is not allowable. Thank you. Mr. Demolvin? Before we end and close, I think Ms. Jones has something to add. We can finish with questions first. Could you remind me when the current zone was put on the property? And then second, after hearing everything, I think I know the answer, but were there any other recommended restrictions the staff would have? So the current zone was applied in 1968. That was really to create that resort development that had a large-scale hotel, golf course, horse riding trails, several other outlot developments. That never came to fruition. There have been several plans since that time that also did not come to fruition, but were primarily focused on providing access to resources along Athens-Boonesboro Road. And then the second question was, were there any additional restrictions staff that's interested in? So there are several aspects of the recommended conditions associated with the rural land management document that are already taken care of by the zoning ordinance. and I can go through it. The overnight parking for camping, it is not allowable. Parking any vehicles on unpaved areas, it is not allowable. I don't think we have to go through them again. I think the one that might have been that stood out to me and I don't know that Hal addressed it was the view shed along the interstate that those trees be maintained and I'm not sure if we included that as a condition to ensure that the video or sign board couldn't be seen from the interstate. So I think part of that was to maintain that physical barrier. I don't know if it was a specific condition. I thought it had merit. The conditions for the visibility, that is part of the conditional use for the scoreboard. within the supplied documentation from the applicant for their renderings. It shows the retention of that outcrop that goes up and much of that treed area. The Planning Commission could make an additional note on the development plan that says that any development would be substantially similar to the renderings that have been provided. We have done that in other cases. And you could also add a tree protection area along that outcropped area as well. So are you suggesting that we do that? Yeah, I think the protection along I-75 from the visibility, the tree part that we were talking about. We'll get to that when we bring it back to us. I want to hear from law. Well, I think at this juncture, if I'm understanding correctly, you wanted me to comment on Tracy's comment about the in-house comment about the gambling and casinos. Is that correct? I'm just trying to figure out in general what it is you want to hear from us about. There may be more than one thing we can give you information about. But I will tell you that, as Hal stated in the B3 zone, there is no provision that allows casinos, gambling, or whatever. If you all chose to put that on as a conditional zoning restriction, I'm not going to tell you that you cannot. But I don't know that it would be necessary since it is not allowed. And, you know, we don't know, for example, we don't know what the General Assembly is going to do with that. And earlier today you took a condition off. Well, it was recommended that you did, but you disapproved the whole thing, so it didn't matter. But should you have gone the other way, we were asking you to take something off about firearms because that condition was put on. and then the state came in and sent down an edict that they can do and told us y'all can't regulate that. So that's what I can tell you about that. But there is no provision, if you look under our B3 zone currently, that would allow that. And also, something like that would deviate substantially from the development plan and the conditional use, which would require coming back, depending on the location on the site, both to you and or the Board of Adjustment for either a development plan amendment or an amendment to a conditional use or a different conditional use. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you. All right, we'll bring this back to the commission. It's been a while. It's kind of questions, concerns, any additional concerns or questions. We open this up. I just have something I'd like to have clarification on. There's been concern expressed about this becoming a B3 zone, and what ramification, what effect that could have on the rest of the county. And so I would like some clarification or some discussion about that from staff. Ms. Meyer, I believe that the staff's position is that the rural land management plan and the comprehensive plan push for increased economic activity at this location. It calls for no residential zone, so that does limit you to five zones that are allowable in this area. The B3 zone in the intent does talk about being both for the traveling public, but also for the economic vitality of the community. Staff finds that with the restrictions, as well as with the development plan and associated justification, that this would allow for greater job production and economic vitality of this area. So from staff's perspective, this would provide an amenity to our community and allow for greater economic mobility. When it comes to the traffic and the impacts of this, there is the potential that this will impact traffic. It will increase traffic. However, the staff from the Division of Traffic Engineering The planning transportation staff and the KYTC are looking at all of this to make this a safer roadway, safer than it is today. So staff sees this as a benefit to the whole of the community. I guess I didn't put my question. What my question is, is that if we change this from a B5P, does it set a precedent for other B5Ps to become B3s? Does it open that up? The applicant would have to come with a justification for that property and show how they are in agreement with a comprehensive plan and then move it forward from that point. It is not setting a precedent to shift something else to a different zone or not. Much of the B5P that is utilized out in that area is already being utilized. It has a hotel on it. It does have a restaurant on it. So that is being utilized at that current use. If they wanted to redo it, they would have to come something for you. Right, but my concern is the entire county, not just the area that we're talking about. And the entire county would have to look at the comprehensive plan, look at if it was inside the urban service area, they would have to look at the recommendations therein. And if it is in the rural activity center, specifically the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, because as it was pointed out, this is the only privately owned rural activity center. They would still need to come to you, to this planning commission, to the urban county government, to be heard to see if that fits with the rural land management plan and the comprehensive plan. Good questions. Go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I haven't said anything. Well, part of the concept of tying into the sports fields that are already being built. It makes a lot of sense. I also don't know that, and I also like the idea of being more flexible with uses along our developed areas, along our interstate exchanges. So I think that justification makes sense to me as well. Regarding some of the visual elements, I do hear that in particularly with the view. I find it personally disturbing that on some, what, close to approximately 50 or more acres that we couldn't find a single tree to remain. We sow tract 1A, 0 trees remaining, tract 1B, 0 trees remaining, tract 3A, 0 remaining, tract 3B, 0 remaining. Tree protection plan seems sort of moot. we're going to go back in and plant 700 trees on a wooded lot that was there now. It is disturbing that even though this is a high-density development with a lot of grade changes, that it does seem like this was looked at on a map, and so little consideration was given to where the stream is, where the pond is, where the trees are, and how we could create a stadium or a complex that incorporated more of the natural elements that make this area of Lexington so beautiful. So I am struggling with this development plan. You sit back and hear your mother. I am struggling with the development plan for those reasons. Okay, we're not seeing any more questions. I don't know if we have any comments. In addition- You ready for a motion? The floor is open for a motion if there's no more comments or questions. I'll make a motion. I think this is important for Lexington and nothing's been done since 1968 on this property with the current zoning. So I'm in support of staff and their presentations as presented today. My motion is in favor of PLN MAR 2223, IVCP, Athens South, LLC. Okay, so we have a motion from Mr. DeMoviland. Do we have a second to that motion? Okay, Ms. Boxstead, all right, we have a motion. And yep, so we got motion in the second. Any further discussion? Mr. Penn? I've been very hesitant to say a lot about this because I've been involved with most everyone that'd be sitting out in that room on different situations. And I've been involved with this soccer thing in another location in our community. All I know is, is that this soccer stadium belongs in Fayette County. And we can debate where, we can debate how, we can debate how we protect what's around it and what's not around it. This planning commission right now is one of several I've served on and they've been fortunate enough not to hit many of these kind of cases. Where have I been on a planning commission where we very seldom had a vote that wasn't at least two one way or the other. So it's a different situation for people that have not been through this. Unfortunately, I have. And no matter what decision we make here today, somebody's going to walk out of here upset with you. But folks, you knew that when you signed up for this job. And it's not more than that. what this is about, this is about whether Lexington needs a pro, semi-pro, professional soccer situation. Will it be tourist-driven? And is this the best place in Lexington for it? And that's really what we're discussing here. We can talk about whether it meets all the plans of the Rural Land Management Board or whether it does this or whether it does that. But when you get right down to it, it's what is the best thing for Lexington, given the current situation, and knowing that youth sports have changed greatly. I have a nine-year-old grandson that practices baseball year-round. I think it's horrible. Doesn't matter what I think. It matters what his parents think. And I know they travel, and I know they go, and I know they do all those things. I'm not trying to waste time here because I got a flight to catch in the morning, but I don't have it until 530. But what I will say to you is that being as the motion is on the table to support the staff, I have a really hard time in my own mind adopting findings that overturn the staff on this one. And I've been known to do that on several occasions, but I just, all the respect I have for Mr. Hodge and for the other people that I've done this down this road with, I come down to the fact that I think this stocker stadium needs to be in Fayette County. I don't think we need to give that economic development to another county. That's why I asked the question right at the very start. And I didn't want to use the word Trojan horse because I don't believe it's that. What I do believe is that if that stadium is not built, the city election. loses and therefore I'm going to support the motion, even though I have great reservations that it might not be billed. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Penn. Okay, so we still have the motion on the table and the second by Ms. Boxdale. So if there's not any further comments, please vote via Granicus. And his motion is for the zone change. His motion for the zone change. Okay, motion passes unanimously. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. All right, I'm not bad, I thought you voted, I'm sorry. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote yes, but everything Mr. Penn just said, I absolutely agree with. And it is with great reservation that I vote yes. So please prove me wrong. Thank you for that. Okay. We got the development plan. Yeah, no, no. And it's revised the yellow sheet. You going to the other hand? I'd like to make a motion to approve PLNMJDP 2273 Boonesboro Manor with its 19 conditions. Yes, the 19. Okay, we got a motion by Mr. DeMovulin. Do we have a second to that motion? Mr. DeMovulin made the motion. Ms. Wirth? He's not trying to, I'll second it. Ms. Wirth second that, thank you. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, who's this? Okay, motion has it, that's passed, thank you. And do we need to do the conditional use as well? Yes. Okay, so we got the last request for the conditional use request? Yes. Mr. Movin. I make a motion for approval of the conditional use request. Okay, we have a motion. Property for the reasons identified by staff and the conditions on our form. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. And thank you. So next on the agenda item, we're on the commission items. we are needing to as a commission formally amend the 2023 minutes and filing schedule to add a public hearing on thursday february 16th 2023 and that's to consider adopting the goals and objectives for the comprehensive plan imagine lexington 2045 so i need a motion for that Mr. Chairman, I move to change the filing schedule to February 16th for the public hearing on the Golden Objective. Okay, thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Yes, you got it. So we can vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, you all earned your stripes tonight. We'll see you again on Groundhog Day for committee meetings. Subdivision 830, Zoning 130. Thank you all. Thank you. Hey, listen, can we cut this little, give us a break next week? Committee meeting. Hey, now come on. This is really tough when you had to do. No, you wasn't. I was on board with Justin. I had to do the stockyards. I was living the stockyards. I was on board with Justin. I was on the stockyards. Yeah, well, okay. No, that was forever. I have got a lot of people mad at me. you