# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - February 23, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 23, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5769 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5769?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-02-23 - **Last revised**: February 23, 2023 - **Length**: 52,245 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on February 23, 2023, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding. The commission addressed seven agenda items during the session, covering a range of planning and zoning matters including development plans, zoning items, and proposed text amendments to the zoning ordinance. The commission conducted 10 motions and votes throughout the meeting, with outcomes varying by agenda item. Development plans and commission items received approval, while zoning items had varied results. Public hearings on zoning ordinance text amendments were also approved. The approval of minutes from the previous meeting was tabled for future consideration. Four members of the public provided comments during the meeting, contributing to the commission's deliberations on the various planning matters under consideration. The session also included informational items covering postponements and withdrawals as well as staff updates, ensuring commissioners were informed of current planning activities and procedural matters affecting upcoming cases. ## Attendance The following members were present at the February 23, 2023 meeting: • Larry Forester • Ivy Barksdale (arrived late) • Zach Davis • Anthony de Movellan • Janice Meyer • Robin Michler • Judy Worth • Bruce Nicol • Headley Bell **Absent:** • Frank Penn • Graham Pohl **Late Arrival:** • Ivy Barksdale Nine members were present for the meeting, with two members absent. One member arrived after the meeting had begun. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on ten items during the February 23, 2023 meeting, with most passing unanimously. **Postponements and Deferrals** [timestamp: 00:00] Anthony de Movellan motioned to indefinitely postpone PLN-MAR-22-00016 for REALTY UNLIMITED BLUE GRASS, LLC, seconded by Headley Bell. The motion passed unanimously 8-0. **Development Plans** [timestamp: 02:00] The commission unanimously approved PLN-MJDP-22-000085 for SOUTH END PARK, UNIT 2 (DAVIS PARK) development plan 9-0, with Judy Worth making the motion and Bruce Nicol seconding. The approval included 12 revised conditions. [timestamp: 04:00] PLN-MJDP-22-00084 for BURKE, HOCKENSMITH, & MAGGARD, LOT 1 (AMD) development plan was unanimously approved 9-0 on a motion by Headley Bell, seconded by Bruce Nicol, with revised conditions presented by staff. [timestamp: 07:00] EASTLAND SHOPPING CENTER development plan (PLN-MJDP-22-00076) passed unanimously 9-0 with 14 revised conditions, on a motion by Zach Davis and second by Anthony de Movellan. **Zoning Map Amendments** [timestamp: 03:00] PLN-MAR-22-00029 for GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF KENTUCKY, INC zoning map amendment was unanimously approved 9-0. [timestamp: 05:00] The commission unanimously voted 9-0 to disapprove PLN-MAR-22-00015 for DUTCH BROS, LLC zoning map amendment, with reasons provided by staff. [timestamp: 06:00] PLN-MAR-22-00024 for EASTLAND LEGACY CENTER, INC zoning map amendment passed unanimously 9-0, excluding restriction on outdoor storage. **Split Votes** [timestamp: 08:00] PLN-ZOTA-22-00019, an amendment to Article 8-2(D) regarding Athletic Fields and Structures, passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Larry Forester, Ivy Barksdale, Zach Davis, Anthony de Movellan, Janice Meyer, and Headley Bell. Voting against: Robin Michler, Judy Worth, and Bruce Nicol. [timestamp: 09:00] PLN-CELL-23-00001 for a 120-foot monopole cellular tower application also passed 6-3 with the same voting alignment, including additional screening requirements. [timestamp: 10:00] The Imagine Lexington 2045 Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives was unanimously approved 9-0 as amended, on a motion by Janice Meyer and second by Headley Bell. ## Public Comment Four community members addressed the meeting during the public comment period, raising concerns about various development proposals. **Mary Davis** [timestamp: 00:00] was allocated six minutes to speak at the beginning of the meeting for general comments, though the specific content of her remarks was not detailed in the meeting record. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 05:00] spoke in opposition to the Dutch Bros zoning map amendment. Clark expressed concerns about traffic impacts and pedestrian safety issues that could result from the proposed Dutch Bros coffee shop location. **Brittany Rothmire** [timestamp: 08:00] voiced opposition to a zoning ordinance text amendment (ZOTA). Rothmire raised concerns about potential negative impacts the proposed amendment could have on the rural service area. **Joyce Arvin** [timestamp: 09:00] addressed geological concerns related to a proposed cell tower project. Arvin specifically cited worries about the geological stability of the proposed site, mentioning potential issues with sinkholes that could affect the tower's foundation and safety. The public comments reflected community concerns about multiple development projects, with speakers focusing on traffic safety, zoning impacts on rural areas, and geological stability issues. All four speakers raised opposition or concerns about various proposals being considered by the governing body. ## Contested Items The February 23, 2023 meeting featured several contentious issues that drew significant community input and debate among board members. **Dutch Bros Zoning Map Amendment** Community members voiced strong opposition to the proposed Dutch Bros coffee shop development, raising concerns about increased traffic congestion and pedestrian safety in the area. The nature of the community opposition centered on potential impacts to local traffic patterns and the safety of pedestrians navigating the proposed location. **Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment** The proposed amendment to Article 8-2(D) of the zoning ordinance proved divisive among board members, resulting in a split vote. The primary concern focused on how the amendment would affect the rural service area, with disagreement over the potential implications for rural development and land use regulations. The contentious nature of this item reflected broader tensions about balancing development needs with rural character preservation. **Cell Tower Application** Local residents organized opposition to a proposed cell tower installation, expressing concerns about negative impacts on property values and the visual aesthetics of the surrounding area. The community opposition highlighted typical tensions between telecommunications infrastructure needs and neighborhood preservation concerns. These contested items demonstrate the ongoing challenges faced by the planning body in balancing development proposals with community concerns about traffic, safety, rural character, and neighborhood aesthetics. Each item required careful consideration of competing interests between applicants seeking approvals and residents concerned about potential negative impacts on their communities. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, vote tallies, and detailed outcomes were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The first agenda item addressed the approval of minutes from the previous meeting. However, the minutes were not available for review and approval at this time. **Outcome:** • The approval of minutes was tabled until the documents become available No discussion took place regarding this agenda item, as there were no materials to review. The item will need to be addressed at a future meeting once the previous meeting's minutes are prepared and distributed to members. ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:00] The commission addressed agenda item 2 regarding requests for postponement and withdrawal of certain applications before the body. Anthony de Movellan served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The commission considered various requests from applicants seeking to either postpone their scheduled hearings or withdraw their applications entirely from consideration. This administrative item allows the commission to manage its docket and accommodate applicants who may need additional time to prepare their cases or who have decided not to proceed with their requests. The discussion was informational in nature, with the commission reviewing the specific applications that had requested postponements or withdrawals. This type of agenda item is typically routine administrative business that helps streamline the commission's workflow and ensures that only ready cases proceed to full consideration. The outcome was recorded as informational, indicating that the commission acknowledged and processed the postponement and withdrawal requests without requiring formal votes or extended deliberation on the merits of the underlying applications. ## Development Plans [timestamp: 02:00] The commission reviewed various development plans during agenda item 3, with Tom Martin serving as the key speaker for the discussion. The primary focus of the review centered on two specific development projects: • **South End Park** - Details of this development plan were presented and discussed by the commission • **Unit 2 (Davis Park)** - This project was also included in the development plans under consideration Tom Martin presented the development proposals to the commission for their review and consideration. The discussion covered the various aspects and requirements of these development projects. Following the presentation and discussion of the development plans, the commission proceeded to vote on the proposals. The outcome of the deliberation resulted in **approval** of the development plans that were presented. The commission's review process allowed for examination of the proposed developments before reaching their decision to approve the plans for South End Park and Unit 2 (Davis Park). ## Zoning Items [timestamp: 03:00] The commission reviewed several zoning matters during agenda item 4, with Hal Baillie serving as the primary speaker for this section. The discussion covered both zoning map amendments and zoning ordinance text amendments. Two specific businesses were highlighted during the zoning review: Dutch Bros and Goodwill Industries. The commission examined proposed changes that would affect these establishments, though the specific nature of the amendments was not detailed in the available materials. The zoning items encompassed both map amendments, which typically involve changing the zoning designation of specific properties, and text amendments, which involve modifications to the language and requirements within the zoning ordinance itself. The outcomes for the various zoning items were mixed, with different results for different proposals under consideration. The commission's review process addressed multiple aspects of local zoning regulations and their application to specific properties and businesses within the jurisdiction. ## Public Hearings on Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments [timestamp: 08:00] The commission conducted public hearings on proposed zoning ordinance text amendments during agenda item 5. The hearings focused on amendments to Article 8-2(D) of the zoning ordinance. Nick Nicholson served as a key speaker during the proceedings, presenting information related to the proposed text amendments. The hearings provided an opportunity for public input and commission discussion on the proposed changes to the zoning regulations. Following the public hearing process and commission deliberation, the zoning ordinance text amendments were approved. The specific details of the amendments to Article 8-2(D) and any public comments received were not detailed in the available materials, but the commission moved forward with approval of the proposed changes. The approval of these text amendments represents modifications to the municipality's zoning regulations that will affect future development and land use decisions within the jurisdiction. ## Commission Items [timestamp: 09:00] The commission addressed various items during this discussion period, with Jim Duncan serving as a key speaker for the proceedings. The primary focus of the commission items was a cell tower application submitted by Municipal Communications III, LLC and Dish Network. The application was presented to the commission for their consideration and review. During the discussion, the commission evaluated the merits and requirements of the proposed cell tower project. The application underwent the standard review process, with commissioners examining the technical specifications, location considerations, and regulatory compliance aspects of the proposal. Following their deliberation, the commission voted to approve the cell tower application from Municipal Communications III, LLC and Dish Network. The approval indicates that the application met the necessary criteria and standards required by the commission for such telecommunications infrastructure projects. The commission items discussion concluded with the successful approval of the cell tower application, allowing the project to move forward to the next phase of development and implementation. ## Staff Items [timestamp: 10:00] Staff presented updates on long-range planning activities and the comprehensive plan process during this informational agenda item. Chris Taylor delivered the Long Range Planning Activity Report, providing updates on the Imagine Lexington 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The presentation covered ongoing planning initiatives and progress on the city's long-term development strategy. This was an informational presentation with no action required from the commission. The staff report served to keep commissioners informed of current planning activities and the status of comprehensive plan development efforts. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (8-0): Indefinite postponement of PLN-MAR-22-00016: REALTY UNLIMITED BLUE GRASS, LLC - **PLN-MJDP-22-000085** — passed (9-0): Approval of SOUTH END PARK, UNIT 2 (DAVIS PARK) development plan - **PLN-MAR-22-00029** — passed (9-0): Approval of GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF KENTUCKY, INC zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-22-00084** — passed (9-0): Approval of BURKE, HOCKENSMITH, & MAGGARD, LOT 1 (AMD) development plan - **PLN-MAR-22-00015** — passed (9-0): Disapproval of DUTCH BROS, LLC zoning map amendment - **PLN-MAR-22-00024** — passed (9-0): Approval of EASTLAND LEGACY CENTER, INC zoning map amendment - **PLN-MJDP-22-00076** — passed (9-0): Approval of EASTLAND SHOPPING CENTER development plan - **PLN-ZOTA-22-00019** — passed (6-3): Approval of amendment to Article 8-2(D): Athletic Fields and Structures - **PLN-CELL-23-00001** — passed (6-3): Approval of 120-foot monopole cellular tower application - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of Imagine Lexington 2045 Comprehensive Plan Goals & Objectives --- ## Full transcript yard and your space and what you were looking for and then it would tell you what species of tree were going to be the best for your yard. So I liked that. And that is part of it. Picking the right tree is actually important as well. And so you can also look at our Live Green Lexington social media platforms and the At Your Service newsletter that comes out I believe quarterly. also have a lot of information on volunteer work and efforts. And so there are a lot of ways and if they're not sure then they can always reach out to us. Thank you. Okay, good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to get this meeting started. We do have a special guest today, Mary Benton Davis. You want to get up, Mary, and say your name? She requested three minutes. You want three minutes? You want three minutes? Okay, okay. I'm going to give you six. Okay, thanks. Don't do that. Oh, man, she's cute. Well, thanks, everyone, for coming. We'd like to get started. First on the agenda, we have the approval of minutes, but we do not have any minutes to approve at this moment. So, Commission, we're skipping through Agenda Item 2 and moving forward to Agenda Item 3, postponements and withdrawals. Yes, ma'am, I can do that. Oh, okay. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, thank you. the applicant for the Higbee Mill Road application, which is on page four of your agenda, PLN MAR 22-00016 Realty Unlimited Bluegrass LLC, and the associated development, PLN MJDP 2259 Higbee Mill Court Lot 11, would like to indefinitely postpone their application. They are seeking to work through some issues with the right-of-way for that property. Okay, time. Commission, do we have any questions or concerns? Okay, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir, Mr. DeMovlin. Indefinitely postponed PLN MAR 2216. We have a motion, do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Bell. Any further discussion to that motion? Hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Okay, I don't think there's anything else. So first up, development plan, PLNMJDP 22-85. Thank you. Thank you. or Thank you. Mr. Chair, we're pulling up the development plan for that application just now. It'll just be a second. All right. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we worked through the technical difficulties. And we now have on the second page of your agenda, Major Development Plan 22-85, South End Park, Unit 2, also known as Davis Park. And at your seat, you should have a handout in pink of revised conditions on this particular plan. So we are in Davis Bottoms, which is Oliver Lewis Way, the new down pike extension area. Oh, there's more. We're going to try to make it bigger. I'll try to make it bigger. Okay. Look at there. Okay. All right. Thank you. So here we are on DeRudy Street, Scott Street, there is Oliver Lewis Way. This is an affordable housing development, as you can see, apartments here and here. This is zoned R4 for residential. This area is mixed use, MU2. And here we have a mixed use building located here on the corner again of DeRudy and Scott Street. One of the aspects of their postponement was to bring this particular building into compliance with the mixed use zone, which they've added a dwelling unit. And here we have a training center. It's going to be leased to the government. They're going to do job training and that sort of thing and those types of activities. So it is in that essence, it makes the requirement of a mixed use building. Again, you can see the parking in this area on this particular plan. They postponed this in order to meet that particular condition on this revised plan, as well as Article 15-7 infill requirements. And your mixed use and your infill requirements have some architectural details that they have to address when they build a building in those particular zones. has to do with articulation, pedestrian entrance. In addition, the mixed use has a zero setback for a portion of the building, which puts it right up behind the sidewalk in this location. And again, this is what that plan, why it was postponed, so they could turn this revision in that meets that particular requirement. There's a total of 3.14 acres on the sites. 88,000 square feet. The buildings, the apartment buildings, are three stories, 40 feet in height. They're going to have two and three bedroom units. There'll be a total of 132 bedrooms in the 72 units. So it's a mix of affordable housing units, again, two and three. And they're proposing a one-for-one unit parking count. So there's 72 parking spaces on the site. And with that, your staff is recommending approval of the plan and be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Not seeing any. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Applicant? Anything applicant? Thank you, Tom. I'm Steve Garland with Prime AE, representing AU and Associates, who's here with me today. And we're in agreement with the conditions and the staff recommendation. And it was a pleasure working with him on this project. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thanks, everyone. Mr. Nickel. I just wanted to say we commend your efforts. We've got 72 new affordable housing units here. So, good work. If there's anything we can do as a planning commission to help you create more affordable housing, let us know. We're going to hear a lot about it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? You can do so by stepping up to the podium. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission for a vote. You want a motion first? Mm-hmm. You want a motion first? I'm sorry for the motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2285 South End Park Unit 2 with the 12 conditions recommended by staff. Okay, we have a motion and a second by Mr. Nickel. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, are we in these zoning items? Hal? Oh, Tracy? Chairman Forrester, I believe we have one item today that qualifies for a public hearing. Actually, we have two that qualify, but I understand one does not want to proceed with an abbreviated hearing, and so that leaves us with one. Let me find it on our agenda. It appears on page seven of the agenda. Item number four, the Goodwill Industries of Kentucky Incorporated Zone Map Amendment, PLN MAR22-29. Is there anyone in the audience today that wishes to have this item heard in a full manner? This is for property located at 1793 Atoma Drive. Seeing none, Chairman Forster, this item can proceed in an abbreviated manner. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much members of the Planning Commission. We are on PLN MAR 2229 Goodwill Industries of Kentucky Inc. This application is an application for rezoning of the property located at 1793 Atoma Drive for .823 net acres for a zone change from a highway service business zone or a B3 zone to a light industrial zone. The applicant is seeking this zone change to create a donation center for their company while also having distribution out of that location. Whereas many of Goodwill's operations have a retail element and would be appropriate for a B3 or a B1 zone. This does not include that retail component. This is meant to take in donations and then distribute them to other areas. Just looking at the location of the property, we are out Georgetown Road here. Atoma is a roadway that extends between Sandersville Road and Georgetown Road. Jumping into the site, you can see that the western portion of Georgetown Road is of an industrial or commercial nature. Everything on the east side of Georgetown Road is more of a residential character. Looking at the aerial photography, we get an idea of just the land use associated with this area, with some warehousing, distribution, and then moving into more of our highway service businesses here, And then jumping across the road, you can see that we are looking at single-family detached housing. Looking into the property itself on the top photo, that's looking into the property that is proposed for rezoning and development. Looking to the west in what is a knuckle kind of intersection of Atoma Drive. Down Atoma as we are heading towards Georgetown Road. And then down Atoma as we are heading towards Sandersville Road. Next photo, we get a little bit of a view of what Georgetown Road is like along the frontage of this property, heading out towards Scott County, heading towards downtown. And then again, looking into the property, you can see that right up on top, you see that self-storage warehousing area. And then on the bottom photo, we have the opposite development, which is that single-family detached residential area. With all of our zone changes, we look at specific place types, development types, and then zone for agreement with the comprehensive plan. The applicant is indicating that this is an industry and production place type and an industrial and non-residential development type. This is a zone that is meant for production, for distribution. It is really focused in a little bit more on jobs production. Much of the development criteria are focused on making sure that we are not impacting or adversely impacting the surrounding environment. Within the recommended zones, we have the light industrial zone, which the applicant is applying for at this location. Staff reviewed their application and found that they were in agreement with the comprehensive plan as they were seeking to provide services in a facility that is focused on providing needs, the needs for many members of our community. They are also proposing this as more of a development and warehouse distribution, which can promote some job production at this location. And again, they are providing services that will help some of our least advantaged people in our community. Just looking at their development criteria for this site, they are proposing a site design building form that fits into the area and promotes a little bit better pedestrian connectivity. As you saw in some of the photos there, there were not sidewalks. There weren't any connections into this site from either Georgetown or connecting into Atoma. They are providing those sidewalks and they are providing a screened element to some of those sidewalks. The proposed rezoning meets the criteria for transportation and pedestrian infrastructure as it will have those pedestrian connections. And then the staff is recommending some greater tree canopy coverage associated with some of their paved area. This will help offset the heat island effect. And then making sure that we are ensuring that the Royal Springs Aquifer in this area is protected. Staff is recommending conditional zoning restrictions. These conditional zoning restrictions are applied on many of our industrial properties that have come in since the establishment of the Royal Springs Committee, which is a joint committee between the Fayette County and Scott County to make sure that we are ensuring that that aquifer is not negatively impacted. With all zone changes, it is incumbent upon the approval and certification of the development plan, PLN, MJDP 2284, Burke, Hawkinsmith, and Maggard, lot 1, which Mr. Martin will describe here just in a second. If you have any questions about the zone change, I'd be happy to answer. Any questions from the commission? Thank you very much. Thank you. Tom? Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this particular development plan is located on page 9 of your agenda, but we have distributed to you revised handouts. This is a revised plan on this lovely paper. This is a preliminary development plan, so we will see a final development plan prior to any development of the site. And as Mr. Bailey described to you, here we have Atoma Drive, Georgetown Road, Sandersville Road. This is the Houchins, the IGA shell station, and this location, a McDonald's. And here we have the site for the proposed goodwill. This is a slightly revised footprint than what you saw at committee. What you saw at committee was almost a perfect little rectangle with a loading dock area. This is a slightly different corporate footprint that they have submitted now. The square footage is small. It's 3,450 square feet. This is the loading dock area where products can be loaded onto trucks and shipped out once they're dropped off, clothing, those types of items. Here's a detention area that's being proposed. Parking has been revised from what you saw at committee. It's located here and here. It was along the front, a lot of parking. That's gone. You can see that all that has been removed. There's not a lot of parking being proposed here. They don't have a large staff, and they don't, again, need a lot of parking. There's no, as Hal stated, this is more of a drop-off and out-shipment area for Goodwill. It doesn't have the retail component, per se, that the other stores have. The revised conditions, they addressed some of the cleanup items that you can see, which was to mention this area, denote the canopy height in the front. They did add a pedestrian access to the front of the building from a sidewalk system that connects out to Atoma. And we will resolve access to Atoma at the time of the final development plan. There's a little bit of concern with this access and its proximity to Georgetown. It's a pretty standard concern. We don't want large trucks or a large amount of traffic to impact this intersection and then impact obviously the public right of way. We believe that's something that can be resolved at the final development plan through management of the site and how they bring in traffic and how their traffic will exit. With that, staff is recommending approval of the development plan and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Not seeing any. Thank you. Mr. Murphy? Let me see those revised conditions real quick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy. I'm pleased today to be representing Goodwill Industries of Kentucky, which I stole his. Thank you. Sorry about that. I've just taken a quick look at these revised conditions. Industries is a non-profit 501c3 corporation. We thank you for your consideration of this facility. Matt Carter is with me today from Vision Engineering, the designer, and we are in agreement with the staff recommendations of approval and the conditional zoning restrictions and the conditions they have proposed on the development plan. We'd be happy to answer any questions you all have. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Not seeing any Mr. Murphy. Thank you sir. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Okay, bring it back to the commission. The floor is open for a motion. Yes, Mr. Bill. move for approval of PLN MJDP 2284 with the revised eight conditions okay we're going to hit the zone change first yes sir do the zone change first it's the PLN MAR 22-29 page 7 Thank you. So move for approval of the zone change PLN MAR 2229, Goodwill Industries of Kentucky. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Mr. DeMoviland. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. And now? Yes, sir. We will be on the revised staff recommendations there. Yes, sir. The orange, I guess I'm saying it's orange. Yes, sir. Move for approval of the PLN MJDB 2284, Burke-Hockensmith-Maggard, Lot 1, with eight revised conditions. All right. Thank you. And we have a second by Mr. DeMovillen. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Okay. So that'll put us back on page three, Dutch Brothers, PLNMAR 22-15. We have a zone change and preliminary development plan with this application. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The next item on our agenda is PLN MAR 2215. This is a request by Dutch Bros LLC, and it's to rezone .2916 net acres of the property at 507 South Limestone from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone. The intent behind this rezoning is in order to establish drive-thru facilities for anticipated coffee shop use. The applicant has identified both a place type and development type for this application. They have identified this as a corridor place type and a medium-density non-residential mixed-use development type. Staff agrees that the place type can be appropriate to this location. However, do not agree that the development type as represented meets the requirements for medium-density non-residential mixed-use. We'll be going into that a little bit later on the presentation. But just to orient yourself on the property here, this is a split zone parcel shown in the center of your screen, this red and white piece here. It is a corner lot located primarily on South Limestone, an arterial roadway, five lanes in this vicinity. It is also located on Colfax Street, which is this residential local road that runs adjacent to it. The South Limestone Corridor is one of our most significant roadways in Lexington. This serves as the arterial that brings in traffic from Nicholasville to downtown, as well as serves the University of Kentucky as well. This area is somewhat unique, as this is where South Limestone Splits becomes one lane heading north and south upper coming south, where they connect in this triangle here along with Scott Street. This results in a somewhat unique traffic pattern that lends itself to being less than conducive for the applicant's anticipated use. From a zoning standpoint, there's a mix of zoning that's present in the area. Much of the development along the west side of South Limestone here consists of commercial B1 zoning that directly abuts the roadway and then transitions residential as you go further west. So you've got R3 zoning kind of to the rear of the properties, and then that transitions into this yellow single-family residential zoning shown here. There's also some B4 and R4 zoning present in the area, but this really isn't reflective of the actual use of the property, as this is land being operated by the University of Kentucky, which does not have to comply with the zoning requirements. But here you can see the subject property as it exists today and the kind of development that exists around it. So once again, we've got the subject property here, the portion of it to the rear that is currently being rezoned with this request, and the existing residential development, single family to the west. To the north of the subject property immediately adjoining, we have a fire station, University of Kentucky uses, and then the mixed use and commercial uses that kind of define the western portion of South Limestone in this area. In the center of the subject property, you can see the outline of the Arby's building. So this was constructed in 1974. It's been a host of restaurant uses over the years. Most recently was this Arby's use, which was discontinued around 2018-2019. This is the subject property as it exists today. So we have the 3,000 square foot Arby's structure here. The subject property currently has three access points, one on the south limestone here and two on the Colfax Street. The subject property did have a drive-through component previously. In 1980, they received conditional approval in order to expand the drive-through facilities and parking into the residential zone that they are current, the portion of the property that is zoned residential, they are seeking to get rid of today. But the way that the property functioned previously was the drive-through window is located at this portion of the structure with stacking happening to the west of the site in order point here, and it's coming basically from Colfax and then filtering out onto South Limestone as well as Colfax Street. Here we have the proposed development as the development plan that is being proposed by the applicant. As always, staff will go into this in a little bit greater detail a little later on in the presentation. However, just going to hit some of the major points. Here, and shown in red, is the proposed structure. So the applicants are proposing a 950 square foot single story coffee shop use. This is approximately one-third of the size of the Arby's use that previously occupied this location. Part of the reason for the decrease in size is that the applicant has indicated that this will not have a dining component. So this is primarily oriented towards the traveling public, towards the drive-through use that occupies much of the site. The applicant is providing some pedestrian kind of interaction here. They will be accepting walk-up customers along with a canopy on the south limestone frontage. However, as I stated, this site is primarily oriented towards serving that traveling public. There were a couple of changes that have been made with the site. The applicant is removing an access point onto South Limestone, so all of the traffic accessing this site is going to be funneled through Colfax Street, that residential local road. The reason for this rezoning is this expansion of the drive-thru facilities that is occurring in this rear portion of the property. So they are wanting to use a double drive-through lane, so they will funnel in through Colfax up to a double drive-through lane. The orders will be taken near the center of the site where the cars then rejoin into a singular lane and are served at this point here. At which point they exit the site. The only egress point for this entire site is this closest access point to the South Limestone intersection. So both users wanting to park and utilize the pedestrian access or going through the drive-through are both forced to go through the same access point. So staff in review of this application had several issues with the way that this site is currently laid out. First of which being the increased proximity of this drive-through portion to the residentially zoned property to the west. This property is currently vacant, but this is bringing this portion of the drive-through with increased emissions, increased noise, increased nuisance in general closer to the residential uses to the west. The other portion is the impact of this access point and the use itself on the intersection of South Limestone and Colfax. So with this intersection currently and the intersection that exists previously, it does not meet current access standards for an egress point relative to the roadway on South Limestone. So there's approximately room for two to three cars to line up and stack while waiting to exit either direction onto South Limestone. However, anything past that is going to begin to cause backups as the only way to access or egress from this site, the primary egress point is going to be on South Limestone. So this can create issues with stacking up both inside the site on Colfax Street as well as on the pedestrian facilities and sidewalks there. So to illustrate this a little bit better, here's a view of that intersection at Colfax and South Limestone. You'll notice that this is a very narrow road that leads into this arterial roadway. five lanes of total traffic that exist on there. So users wanting to access the site, for instance, in the morning, going with the flow of traffic headed downtown, they would be making a left across traffic to access the site, exiting back onto Colfax Street, and then would have to make a left turn movement to join the majority of traffic headed downtown. This is problematic for several reasons. So this is a Google Street view of that particular intersection and kind of the visibility you would be looking at as you were trying to make that left turn out. One thing to notice, or one thing to note with this, is that these Google Street Views are done from a large van with a camera on top of this. So this is actually better visibility than would normally be present. They'd be much lower to the ground. Here, we've got upper at a sort of awkward angle. So visibility is limited seeing the traffic that is coming from downtown that you're going to have to navigate when trying to make a left turn movement out of this site. In addition, you've got pedestrians with this proximity to U.K.'s campus. It can be somewhat unpredictable as well as incoming traffic. So the combination of the traffic patterns of the intersection of the inability for the site to handle any extended stacking beyond one or two cars before it begins to block up in the site itself does create problems for health, safety, and welfare reasons. So moving forward, addressing the applicant's identified place type and development type. The applicant in their letter of justification have identified this as a corridor place type. Staff is in agreement. This is one of our major corridors. The corridor place type calls for higher density to support these kind of uses and basically offering a decrease as you move away from the corridor in intensity and density. But along these major corridors, along these major areas, calling for a higher increased density in order to serve both as a buffer and reinforce the viability of the entire corridor. This is reflected in the recommended development types as well as the recommended zones that go with this application. For the corridors, the lowest density that is recommended is medium, and they often recommend high density as well with corresponding zones to match. B1, in certain circumstances, can be an appropriate zone if coupled with an appropriate development type. Here, the applicant has indicated that this is a medium density, non-residential slash mixed-use development type. The applicant's claim just doesn't hold any merit. This is a 950 square foot structure on a lot with a resulting floor area ratio of .04. This is an incredibly low density, single store use, and a development type that encourages multi-use, a mixing of uses, higher densities in order to kind of get that critical mass of commercial, residential, and office use to support these major corridors. To offer some context, this is what the rest of the South Limestone commercial context looks like. We've got multiple-story uses. We've got commercial on the ground floor, residential, and offices above it. This would be the lone single-story use for a considerable portion of the South Limestone corridor. This is, in fact, less dense than the adjoining residential context. This property immediately adjoins single-family neighborhood with a comparative floor area ratio that is six times higher than what they are choosing to do directly on the corridor itself. So the single-family homes are more effectively and more efficiently utilizing their land than this corner parcel here. Now, this parcel is also along the imagined Nicholasville Road corridor. So as a part of the 2018 comprehensive plan, the plan called out for a series of corridor studies and other targeted studies to help implement the goals, objectives, and policies that were established in the 2018 comprehensive plan. Out of this came Imagine Nicholasville Road, which in 2019 and 2020 looked to apply some of these principles and practices in order to increase connectivity, safety, and efficiency along Nicholasville Road. And so this manifested itself in several ways. What came out of this document, which had substantial public input, which was bound in principle by the comprehensive plan, were numerous improvements to the Nicholasville Road and South Limestone Corridor, most notably increasing the creation of bus rapid transit. So this, what arose out of this plan was changes to the roadway, not only a reduction in access in places, a reconfiguration of access, but a central line of bus rapid transit, mass transit that would serve the entirety of this corridor with dedicated lanes and other improvements to go alongside it. Included with this was not only improvements to the roadways, but recommendations for land use around the corridor, recommendations for development standards. Essentially, this plan and this study found that what is needed along these corridors is an increase in density. If we are trying to make this bus rapid transit and make this city more accessible, more affordable, part of that needs to be an increase in density along these corridors in order to create not only a base of individuals that are living in this area, but also an increase in the number of destinations. And so the applicant's proposal for an extremely low-density, auto-centric use that does not, in fact, detracts from the mass transit by being oriented towards single-use automobiles is not in keeping with the premises and the goals, objectives, and the implementation of the Imagine-Nicholasville Road Plan. So here, just to have an idea of where we are located, this star here is the subject property. And so the access point that they are now wanting to use is basically going to be in direct conflict with this established line of bus rapid transit, as well as some other improvements being made in the area. So included with this was some recommendations for development improvements or development standards that could be implemented. This plan calls for, in the vicinity of bus rapid transit stations, for a marked increase in the height of the structures and the density of the structures and the activation by pedestrians. And this plan, quite frankly, does not meet any of them as a single-story, auto-centric use that is not including any of the criteria that are included within the imagined Nicholasville Road plan. Staff reviewed this plan with regards to the goals, objectives of the larger comprehensive plan, and staff found that this was not in agreement with a large number of the goals and objectives. As it was out of context with the density or the intensity, it was reflective of the major corridor. This property is a single-story, 950-square-foot structure with a floor area ratio that is less than one-sixth of even the single-family residential that's in the area isn't reflected of the context there and is not reflective of even the established character of commercial development within this area. This low-density and single-user vehicle focus also detracts from this mass transit, both in conflicts with this planned bus rapid transit line, but also by encouraging the use of single-use automobiles versus mass transit or connecting with the pedestrians in an effective manner. It also may decrease the effectiveness of the overall transportation system by introducing conflicts, introducing more users using more cars at an intersection that was already unsafe introduces the possibility of additional conflicts, making the overall system less effective, less safe. Furthermore, the application also encourages the use of single occupancy vehicles, exposes the adjoining residential users in the residential neighborhood to increased emissions, and results in increases in emissions as a whole. In review, staff also examined the criteria for site design, building form, or location, these development standards that are specific to the development type and the place type that is recommended within the comprehensive plan, and once again found that not only are they not a medium density non-residential development, but they are not meeting the criteria that would make a development like this appropriate at this location. They are missing marks regarding to scale. They are not matching what is existing on the corridor with regards to intensity, mixing of uses, or creating a meaningful kind of buffer to this residential. This is essentially a drive-through directly adjoining residential zoning with the only buffer being proposed at this time being a single wooden fence. Development also should intensify these underutilized properties, but instead we're taking the structure that was there and putting a structure that is one-third of its size in its place. This is really reorienting the site and totally towards automobiles rather than intensifying and increasing the density and creating sort of a permanent fixture on one of our most important corridors. Once again, it should be creating context sensitive transitions. This does not do that. This is a stand-alone use that would be more appropriate in a suburban type location rather than within our urban core at the density that is being proposed. Once again, it should be creating mixed use neighborhoods. This is a single use and it is not offering a safe access to community facilities and other amenities due to the potential for the stacking up of vehicles on this lot. can create interference with the pedestrian system, can create potentially an unsafe environment. The transportation development criteria speaks to much of the same kind of concerns. We believe as a community that development on these corridors needs to be transit oriented. This conflicts with plans for future transit. This conflicts with the density needed to support that transit and is focused on drive-through and the traveling public. Once again, the development criteria calls for providing safe facilities for not only pedestrians but also vehicular users, and staff does not feel that this is being met with this request. And so staff is recommending disapproval for the following reasons. We believe that it's not in line with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plans for the reasons we stated earlier. It is not in agreement with the Imagine-Nicholasville Road plan, nor does the proposed development meet the intent of the medium-density non-residential mixed-use development type within the comprehensive plan. Furthermore, the applicant has not shown that they meet and is not in agreement with the development criteria that have been associated with this. In addition, there have not been any changes in the area that would necessitate a changing of the zone and have not demonstrated that another zone would be more appropriate at this location. So staff is once again recommending disapproval. Mr. Martin will be on momentarily to – Oh, sorry. Autumn. Yeah. Apologies. Staff member will be on momentarily to discuss the site development plan. but if you have any questions over the zoning component, I'd be happy to answer them at this time. Yes, Mr. Nickel. Yes, thank you. I do have some questions about the zoning component. Sure. As we're talking about a complicated site that's trying to get mixed uses, with a B1 zone, you can do housing if it's not on the first floor by right. So a B-1 would allow for housing if that were what the applicant wanted, correct? Yes, it would allow for housing. So that kind of solves, in my mind, the zone change issue if I'm coming from an equity or affordable housing perspective. One thing that seems complicated is for the applicant, I would say, and I'm interested to hear from him or them, is that more density is requested, but more density is going to generate continued parking issues. We then also have a transit divide on one side. One day, hopefully, we've got mass transit going all the way up and down, and then we've got more conventional automobile traffic from behind, so they're pinched there as well. I think what I'm saying is this is going to be a decision based upon, at least from the zoning side, based upon how much density is practical. So I just wanted to confirm that if we do go from R3 to a neighborhood business, a B1, housing is available by right in a mixed-use context with B1, correct? Yes, that is correct, but it is worth noting that the site is constricted when you're using the majority of the site for a drive-through. I mean, there is potential at this site at the size that it is to accommodate mixed use at a higher level, higher density, while also accommodating for parking and other kind of demands with that. So a lot of this site, and the reason for this request is the double drive-through component of this for that portion of the rear. But if they had a business component on the first floor, they could do residential above that or behind. I was just pointing that out for the practicality as a component we should be addressing as well. Thank you. Mr. DeMovlin. Yeah, thank you. I've got a quick question. With regard to the Nicholasville Road, Imagine-Nicholasville Road study, and how does the requested zone change differ from the current zone in terms of what the impact would be on the Nicholsville Road corridor due to the study? So as we were reviewing this, not only as a zone change, but a zone change with that conditional use component, So that drive-through is also being kind of considered in conjunction with that. So this is not just a B1 zoning in general. This is a B zone with this specific drive-through component with that. That drive-through component is really the source of a lot of the dysfunction between what they are proposing here versus what is recommended within the imagined Nicholsville Road plan. Okay. Thank you. I see any other questions for the zoning. Thank you. This is Mrs. Gardewis. Autumn Gardewis, not Tom Martin. The development plan on this one is a little bit more clear cut I think than the zone change question because we as always review the development plan as if the zoning were already in place and from that standpoint this is a fairly standard redevelopment of an existing commercial use. So again, just to reorient you quickly, we've got Limestone here, Colfax here. They're proposing a 950 square foot structure here with two drive-through lanes, eight parking spaces. They are removing the access point that currently exists on South Limestone to utilize the two existing access points onto Colfax Street. The subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan should the zone change be approved. That recommendation is subject to your typical sign-offs, engineering, traffic engineering, the urban forester, addressing, green space planner, and the postal service. They will need to depict the required property perimeter screening at the rear of the property, and that would be where the B1 would adjoin the single-family R1C zone here. There are also just a couple of cleanup items on the plan. The zoning labels on the adjoining properties are not correct on this edition of the plan, and they need to denote that the canopy along south limestone that needs to be shown as a solid line as it's part of the structure so that's you can barely see it here this portion is the canopy that they're proposing associated with the restaurant use and that's how they're meeting their front yard set back there so with that staff does recommend approval of this plan should the zone change be approved. Thank you. Do the Commission have any questions? Yes. The one thing that came up was the size of the vehicular use area relative to the building. How much of that is being driven by our own regulations on what is required for a drive-through facility? That's an interesting question. This application was submitted prior to the new parking regulations taking effect. So there was a required number of parking spaces. They were required to provide five. They're providing eight. And then as far as the drive-through aspect, that's something that did not change with the parking Zota. For a drive-through facility, you're required to have five vehicles of stacking, and that starts at the order point which i believe is shown let's see i'm all over the place here we go at this point here so you have to have five cars back from there one two three four five so they are showing significantly larger area than they would be required to accommodate their double drive-through. Thank you. Okay I'm not seeing any more questions. Thank you. Applicant, Mr. Simpson. Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here with Wes Harned, and we're pleased to represent Dutch Bros. It's not Dutch Brothers. It's Dutch Bros. Just so everybody understands that it's a new business that's in Lexington. They have a store underway on New Circle Road, and they hope to have other locations around Lexington. And the current site is one that they would hope to locate in. A couple observations about this case. Mr. Nickel raised an interesting point about practicality. And while I applaud the 2018 Comprehensive Plan with respect to its focus as a general policy matter of guiding development, which is under the law the principal purpose, The comprehensive plan is not adopted by this body or the goals and objectives by the council to, in effect, micromanage every single parcel of property. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any zone change. And so what I'm going to ask you to do today is that this, like any other land use application, has to be considered in terms of the context of the size of the property, the location of the property, its historic use, and the likelihood that there will be any other commercial development in the area of this particular property that would result in intensification of commercial uses. I ask that you keep those particular factors in mind because they do have a principal influence in arriving at a decision for a piece of property that, as your staff has pointed out, has been a restaurant site since 1974. And a drive-thru site for a number of years thereafter in which traffic has been generated for drive-thru. You will hear shortly from the engineer for this project, Brad Boaz, with CMW Engineering, that in fact the traffic that will be generated from our proposed use as a coffee shop is much less than what we could put if we wanted to restart Arby's, put another restaurant there with a drive-thru, which Arby's had. A drive-through with a restaurant for this site at this location under the current building that's there. Not changing the building, just building within the existing footprint. Generates almost three times the traffic that the coffee shop that we're proposing will generate. Almost three times as much traffic. As the staff pointed out, it's about a third as small as the existing building. So the traffic impact on this site will be much less than what it would be if we just continued the existing use that's been going on for five decades. That's important when you're addressing pedestrian conflicts and motor vehicle conflicts. If you're going to have nearly three times the use, three times the traffic under what could be done if we built within the confines of the building and continued the conditional use, we believe it's more compatible for the existing neighbors, the students that live primarily on Colfax, to have less traffic on this site. And while I understand the application of the comp plan on corridors is to increase density, I have never encountered a neighborhood either representing the neighborhood or representing a developer in which the neighborhood had opposition where the existing residential neighborhood that's been there since the early 1900s ever supported increase in commercial density next to their residential neighborhood. it. The staff and I are basically in agreement on most of the justification, except for they don't like car-centric uses, which is a laudable goal for the future. But for the here and now, for the next foreseeable horizon, people aren't going to give up their cars. We don't have mass transit that's like New York City or some of the other major high-density areas where people will use it more, people will not give up their cars. They will keep their cars and continue to drive downtown. Very few people will ride the bus. That's not likely to change. You know this for the foreseeable future. So we're talking about, in practical terms, rezoning less than a third of an acre of property. The total property is about a half acre. We're talking about rezoning less than a third of an acre because the other part is already zoned commercial. And what we're seeking to rezone is zoned R3, but it's been used for commercial purposes since 1974. So we're not changing any of the context of the use. We are decreasing the impact to the existing residential neighborhood, decreasing the conflict of pedestrians that will walk by this site, use this site. There will be outdoor facilities for students to gather and have their coffee. and it's close by to existing UK businesses. UK dominates the corridor. I will show you under the first tab of your handout. It doesn't show up well on the screen, but that's why I wanted the handout. Everything that you see in the kind of off color, the light blue, if you will, So all of that property is owned by the University of Kentucky or the Urban County Government. If you look at the context of this neighborhood, it's dominated by the University of Kentucky. The Urban County Government has a fire station north of the subject property, which is outlined in yellow. Where's the little pointer? It's on the laser. It's on the right there. Here we go. Now, if I don't blow it up, we'll be in good shape. Yeah, there's the subject property right there. All of this land in here is owned by the University of Kentucky. The urban county government owns a fire station. UK owns all this. This is a huge parking lot for students and people that work at the university over here. And there is a lot of pedestrian, a need for a pedestrian connection. It's not shown on the development plan, but in talking with the Dutch Bros folks, the people taking the path of lease resistance have simply cut across a path behind the Arby's and this vacant lot that's to the west of Arby's. We're proposing to make a direct connection, pedestrian connection to this parking lot So these people don't have to walk in the mud when it's raining. It'll be a safer option. Assuming the urban county government will give us an easement to put this sidewalk, this pedestrian connection. We'll have a pedestrian connection that goes from this large parking lot that serves all the university over here as well as these buildings over here. And this building right here to get to all these buildings in a safer route. They won't have to come down here and try to cross over. It'll be a more direct connection. So we're going to have less traffic. The University of Kentucky is not going to be redeveloping its property. The history has demonstrated that the University of Kentucky has, in fact, expanded its use over the years. Having grown up in Lexington, I've witnessed that. And if there's any likelihood of change, it may be coming across the South Limestone to take other property like they have up further on Limestone with Lexington Theological Seminary and other properties. The properties that are commercial now have been at their location in the same context for years and years and years. There hadn't been hardly any new redevelopment of this particular area, mainly because UK owns most of the land. And they're not likely to change it. Historically, they've been not likely to give up their land. They have, in fact, if any tendency, increased the land that they want by getting other property, either through purchase or condemnation. So in the context of this neighborhood, UK is a dominant neighbor. It is employees there, students there, students live on Colfax. We are proposing a use that is entirely consistent with the history of this property since 1974, almost 50 years. We're continuing the use, but at a much less impact on traffic than what could be there if we went back and opened up a restaurant under the conditional use that's been approved for the property. So we believe that we are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. And as I've set forth in my justification, that we are addressing the needs to have context-sensitive design. design. We're not going to have a two or three story building looming over a vacant lot that's zoned residential immediately behind us. I've never found any neighborhood or any homeowner that welcomed having a multi-story retail building right next to their home. I know it's referenced in the comprehensive plan along a corridor and perhaps if this was a larger site other than three-tenths of an acre, perhaps something could be done with setbacks and that kind of thing where it would be more suitable. But for a third of an acre, there is just simply not enough land, there's not enough demand. You've heard me talk about this previously. Developers historically have embraced density because if they can make more profit, more return on their investment. And so they're willing to take advantage of it if it makes sense, if it's marketable. But in all the cases that I've had and the testimony that you've heard before from experts that I've brought before you on similar issues, for a small site like this, three-tenths of an acre, there is not a marketable product that will sell. You could build it and they won't come and it will fail. The tenant mix is not satisfactory. There's not enough density, not enough area for parking. And what's ironic is the staff wants increased density, but they don't want to increase traffic. People are going to be driving their cars for the foreseeable future. We know this. Ideally, you want to walk? That's fine, but people aren't going to give up their cars. And if this property isn't approved for this kind of continued use, it's going to sit there vacant, continue to sit there vacant, unused as an eyesore for this neighborhood. It's been vacant now for four years. They've been trying to sell it. Now they have a company that wants to come in and have less traffic impact, less conflict with pedestrians, less conflict with other motor vehicles in the area, with a new building that will have a presence there. that will deter vandalism, vagrancy, loitering, etc. That buildings that aren't occupied are attractive nuisances. This creates, we'll eliminate that. And also, you can ask any appraiser that will tell you that vacant or unused buildings have a diminution in value impact on residential property. Because people want to know what's coming. They don't want to be living next to a vacant store that's unoccupied where people might congregate and do things they shouldn't be doing next to this neighborhood. With this proposal, we're going to eliminate that and have a low-intensity use because it fits this site, this small site. And so when you apply the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan with respect to any parcel, particularly such a small parcel, three-tenths of an acre, you have to do it with practicality, reason, judgment. What will this property, will it ever be developed high intensity to meet the goals that the staff has talked about to encourage on this three-tenths of an acre? I submit to you, not likely. It will sit there in the present form and continue to be a nuisance to this residential neighborhood, continue to be a diminution factor in valuation of the houses in that neighborhood. And if worse comes to worse and Arby's or some other restaurant wants to come in and be within the same footprint and restart the restaurant, you'll have more traffic and the same use. So what we're proposing is set forth in my justification letter. is a compatible use that fits in the context of the broader application of the plan to this specific site. You'll have a new user, a fresh face. It will be pedestrian-oriented in terms of the traffic that is going to be in the area. Our development plan has been approved by your staff. There's no recommendations for disapproval on our site plan. So we believe this is a worthy zone change for approval. And if you consider the context of what we're talking about, three-tenths of an acre, and a use that's been going on now for almost 50 years, 49 years, we believe that the practical, reasonable application of the plan is to approve the zone change. You will see in my handout materials, there's no need to go through it. I have just identified all of the surrounding uses, and it's University of Kentucky. And it's primarily parking. You see parking cars everywhere. We're going to provide connectivity to the largest parking lot in the area that's not required. We're going to do it because, number one, it provides safe access for people that will be coming from that parking lot over to Colfax Street who work at the University of Kentucky. and it'll also, for the people that want to stop and get a cup of coffee, provide a safe opportunity for them to do that as well. So we believe safety has been impacted greatly for this neighborhood. It's a better fit for the neighborhood. We haven't had a single objection. I've had one person call me and voice approval. I had a neighborhood meeting in which no one showed up to voice any concerns whatsoever. So typically in my experience in doing these cases, if neighbors are upset with a given proposal, they come down here to be heard. And I've not heard that. Now maybe they're here today. I don't know. I'd be surprised if they were. Typically I find out about it. But the facts are undisputed. We're going to generate less traffic than the existing site used as a restaurant with a drive-thru. You're going to have almost three times the traffic under the current use if it were to operate again than what we're proposing. So we believe it's safer. We're eliminating an access on South Lyme, which will improve safety. I don't believe there's any dispute about that. The bus line, to the extent there has to be land taken, the government will condemn your property. The bus line that's being discussed along the Nicholasville Road corridor for mass transit use in the future is a practical matter. You know that's going to be years away. The bus system struggles now to stay afloat. That's not to say we should give up the aspirations. Certainly not. But it is to recognize with this small site, we're not going to impact any design of a bus route. The University of Kentucky owns most of the land on both sides of the road in this area, except for the small retail portion that the staff pointed out. So there's not going to be any compromise significantly at all in the comprehensive plan. It's a recognition that this application of the plan is well suited for this three-tenths of an acre site to eliminate this nuisance, to reduce traffic, but yet provide a neighborhood service for the residents, as well as the people that are driving to and from downtown. We ask for your approval. I'll be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. I have findings of fact proposed for approval under tab number eight. They're pretty simple and straightforward. We believe that we have addressed the goals and objectives and the policies of having a compatible neighborhood and reducing the impact on public safety with our proposal and that merits approval. I'd be happy to respond to any questions that you may have. Okay, thank you, Mr. Simpson. Commission, do you have any questions? Yes. Mr. Mickler? I have a few questions. You mentioned a few times that your traffic impact would be a third. Is that typically a traffic impact in number of trips would be counted based on the number of square feet? That's correct. In a facility. This is a new model in which we're seeing it increasingly where there is no dining room. So the number of trips per square foot of the building would be higher than the number of trips per square foot. Actually, no. We've studied that. We had the engineers look into that with the national study. Brad, could you come up for a second? there you go stick it up behind all right uh just introduce yourself for the for the planning commission uh good afternoon i'm brad boas with cmw architects and engineers and robin you are right that uh the it trip generation manual uh is very specific uh breaking down land uses uh to determine number of trips so that when everyone does traffic studies it tries to get an accurate representation so for example fast food with a drive-through and uh and indoor seating is roughly forty four hundred and sixty seven cars uh per one thousand square foot of building and then for a coffee shop with just drive-through and no seating it's 533 cars for every one thousand so it is higher a higher ratio now when you have a three thousand square foot building versus a one thousand square foot building that's when you factor those in and as we've calculated it's fourteen hundred cars versus 500 cars. So that's when Bruce is saying it's roughly a third. That's how we came up with that. Had we done a traffic study, that's what it would have shown from the existing land use to what we are proposing, if that makes sense. So if it was a 3,000 square foot coffee shop, it would be more than what the Arby's is now. Well, assuming we maintain the perhaps outdated linear equation between square foot of a building and number of trips. Yeah, and that's a national, yeah, that's well beyond our capabilities. The reality is your drive-thru shows much, much higher capacity on the development plan than the Arby's would ever be able to accommodate. Sure, and that's part of Dutchboro's strategy, and if anyone's been to the coffee shop on South Broadway next to the Shell Station, they would understand coffee shops need queuing times so they don't back up onto arterials or into the neighborhood into the neighboring property where they have cones stuck up so having a double drive through with plenty of stacking hopefully alleviates that concern and trying to be a good neighbor and how they use colfax and get out back on onto limestone. Thank you. Yes sir. I also had a question in regards to a couple of things about the place type. In your application, you talk about second tier urban place type. In your presentation today, it almost seems like you're trying to make a case for campus place type. I'm not sure in both place types and especially in this campus area that you highlighted. I'm not sure how the drive through conditional uses fitting into those place types. Well, the comprehensive plan is broader than just the place type. Clearly, the comprehensive plan as a general policy recommendation wants to increase density. I don't dispute that. What I'm suggesting to you, and based upon my experience and every witness that I've heard testify before this body of the council, that trying to increase density to be exactly in compliance with the criteria that we seek is impractical. It won't work, there's no market for it. And so we're asking that you consider that, as I said, it's my opening comments, and you have to. It's a guide, it's not a straight jacket, the comprehensive plan. And so you look at three-tenths of an acre, and you look at the historic use. And historic use is generating a lot more traffic, but it's less dense. So there has to be an adjustment made, a reasonable adjustment based upon the limitations of the land. Three-tenths of an acre, I mean, you hardly get a zone change anymore for that small. This is a very unusual type case. no major precedential effect because of the factors that we're talking about here. A small parcel of property, unlikely development in the immediate vicinity because of an institutional government user that's exempt from zoning. They don't have to follow the comprehensive plan. They can do, and UK will, whatever they want to do. I'm not sure, did you make the case that a drive through belongs in this place type? Yes, historic use of the property, context sensitive use for the neighborhood, absolutely. Okay, thank you. Thank you Mr. Mickler, any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you Mr. Chairman. You're welcome. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? Yes, Amy. I am here. My name is Amy Clark and I live at 628 Castle Road and I'm here to wholeheartedly support the staff recommendation of denial for this proposed map amendment. This property is cited at a critical nexus of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Even bicyclists are accommodated. It's an extraordinary place where there's been very significant public and private investment in a pedestrian friendly area. You may remember under Newbury and Gray, they rebuilt the entire roadway along here at Limestone to accommodate pedestrians, to get a little quiet niches for parking along the street and bike lane, a bike lane in one direction, which is a start. I would say that the key word here is conflict and hazard. I don't think it's an issue of what the volume of traffic will be or an increase in volume. It'll be pass by traffic. We're not worried about roadway capacity here. It's a question of conflict. I would add too that I'm wondering whether the ITE numbers they're using take into account the cell phone ordering, which has just radically changed how many people can pipe through a drive-through lane since the virus, I would say. This is a neighborhood, Prawl Town, which has been neglected, disinvested, and virtually everyone is displaced. So I am not resident in this neighborhood, but I will show you where one of the last residents and a longtime neighborhood chair of Prawl Town, long serving, lives very near or lived very near. Remember that with a conditional use, as Mr. Simpson reminded us this is, a key question is are the public facilities and services adequate? And that includes accommodation for multimodal moving around, call it transportation if you will. You could almost call this a principal use drive through. It's not an accessory use really because the restaurant has no seating. for handing coffee out the window, be it a walk-up window or a drive-through. What I want to do is show you three, well, two things, and I've already mentioned that the whole limestone area is the result of a massive public investment in pedestrian accommodation. I want to point out a few things about this site as such and then show you the larger context and these are items of information that I haven't seen yet presented. If you notice the distance from the curb, there is a pointer on this. Do I just push the top end. I'm so sorry. Oh, this, okay. Okay, great. So you'll notice it has room for two cars going in, but only one car as it comes out. So there's a double drive-through lane, But as it comes out, it's one car. The exit lane concerns me very much in terms of conflict. In fact, it surprises me very much that the site plan was deemed acceptable given that the zone is granted. Because these cars, all of these cars are debouching onto a local street, what looks like barely 50 feet, maybe 55, 60. This is 10, this is 10, so here's another 20, looks like 50, 60 feet from the intersection with limestone here. So you'll have traffic coming out, turning left to return to limestone by and large. That looks like conflict to me. It looks like you could get one 20-foot car, maybe a second one, and then the guy coming out is going to be blocking the in lane as someone is trying to move forward. In essence, I believe this whole street, it is a public street, but it's going to function like a right in, a right out without the control, no signal, no light signal there. So that looks like a recipe for real conflict to me. It's lovely that they're bringing in people from the large surface parking lot back here. I guess there's a sidewalk that would have them go all the way around all this traffic to get a cup of coffee if that's what they wanted. So I think conflict is what we have to consider. Anything else about the site? I think that's what I had to say about this site. So now I want to give you a sense of the larger context, and it's something I'm sure you're very familiar with. But I want to point out to you that, oh, sorry. Oh, I need to do this. Where this road diverges here into the median strip and two lanes, you'll recognize that as Oliver Lewis Waite. That is the pipeline into the city from the highway from Newtown Pike. We used to call it Newtown Pike extension. And yes, it's going straight to the parking garage at UK. So yes, there's a lot of parking in the area. These people will park here. They're not going to wander around through a drive-through lane, I don't believe, on their way directly to comfort and safety in their parking garage, it will be more convenient to access this coffee shop on foot, I would think. So there's the major traffic coming in, vehicular traffic and parking. And here's the parking lot and here's your coffee shop here. You'll notice that it's directly at the pointy end of where limestone converges or diverges from one-way lanes to two-way lanes, right there where people are going to be making this weird little left turn right at the edge of the street. So there's a lot going on here, just watching what's coming in which direction. Right here, you see this is Administration Drive. There's a little house there that controls people as they come in to visit the university and whether they can park or what they're doing in their business. There will be people lining up to come in there. This is the law school. This is a pedestrian oriented business district. are first and only in Lexington designated, the businesses here requested to have more density because they would be relieved of furnishing parking requirement. Even the businesses that were there who faced the prospect of having more businesses crowd in beside them supported, in fact, requested this pedestrian oriented business district And it was, as I said, the first one ever in Lexington and probably now the only because what it did was waive minimum parking requirements. So these are businesses that are pedestrian oriented and they're dense and they're growing more dense because they're focusing on pedestrian traffic and they brought up the garages and the opportunity to park elsewhere and the foot traffic during the day as the reason for seeking this. That was a city instituted ordinance for the sake of protecting pedestrians but also fostering good business. Here, let me see, I probably want the next one. Yes. Down here at Prawl Street, you may see that there's a double crosswalk. It's a little faint, but you can see a double crosswalk here. There was so much conflict and hazard, and I believe there was at least one fatality along this stretch of limestone, and there weren't thought to be enough traffic signals. for people to safely cross, and there's a huge volume of people coming from all these parking areas and just walking from residential buildings. Further down is that huge hub at the corner of Virginia. It was such a bad area that traffic engineering made an extraordinary accommodation. They call it a scramble crossing and essentially at Pearl Street here, all the signals stop, all the vehicular traffic so everybody can just scramble across the road at once. It's more efficient and it's more safe. And there's no conflict with vehicles as the pedestrians are crossing and it hopefully induces them not to jump across when there are vehicles coming that put them at risk. That's where I wanted to point out on Prawl Street here, where Prawl Street at that corner meets Limestone. That's where Betty Boyd, the very long-serving chair of Prawl Town, lived. I think she was one of the last residents, and I haven't seen her for a long time, and I just don't know how she is or whether she is any longer. So it's a different area. It's a new area. I think I'm coming to the end here. I did say that was the law school there, the big building there, so there's a lot of traffic there as well. In conclusion, I would say that I am surprised that the subdivision review found no occasion to recommended approval provided the zone changes granted because in the zone change findings for disapproval, and that's 1A2 and 3, and D3 and 7, there's a lot of talk about how this site and its design do not look happy. And I would say that I am an objector to the proposed map amendment. I heartily support the staff recommendation on the map amendment for disapproval. And I communicated with planning division and they said my letter would be put in the record that was regarding the, it was December the 14th of 22, so early in the process. And you will find in that correspondence, which I was told would be furnished to you, you will find in that correspondence links to the ordinance for the pedestrian-oriented business district, which I think is exactly the model we want to foster, and I think we see it thriving already. Thank you very much. If you have questions, I'm happy to take them. I would urge you to ask the traffic engineer about this scramble crossing if you're concerned to know what sort of a record of conflict or hazard or even pedestrian fatalities occasioned its employment. and how it works. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Okay. Mr. Simpson? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hold on one second. Just to be safe. Is there any other public comment? I didn't think so. Thank you. Sorry about that. No problem. No problem. I'm just going to summarize our basis that in our justification, we've cited all of the goals and objectives that we believe apply in this case, growing successful neighborhoods. This continues the same use that this neighborhood has dealt with since 1974, except less traffic impact. It's going to be safer, less traffic than what the Arby's was. That's not in dispute. You all have a real world decision here. You can turn this down and perhaps the property will remain vacant for another 4, 10, 12, 15 years until somebody wants to come up. Maybe the markets change. Maybe they don't and it still sits there. If I were a resident of this neighborhood, I would want this property to be utilized. It's infill property. We're proposing a continuation of the same use at a lesser intensity, which would appeal to me as a neighbor. Perhaps that's why no neighbors have come down to testify here today. People that live closest to a proposed land use change typically show up if they're concerned and let their voices be heard as they should. and conspicuous by their absence is any such opposition today. We're proposing a use that is compatible, that does enhance the neighborhoods, that does provide more safety than the existing use would create if it were to continue as a drive-thru restaurant. I understand about increasing density, but I don't understand how you increase density and then have to walk to it. but you can't drive anywhere close to it under the objections that have been made. So where are they going to park? The residents, the gentrification is eating up all of the houses in the area for students, which is a consequence of land use decisions in the past and the detrimental effect that's had. But this neighborhood is still active. It is mainly students, but there are other homeowners that live in the area. And you know and I know they don't want to have more traffic. They want to have less traffic. And we're proposing that. We're not surprising them with a change in use. It's the same use. We're transitioning better for the existing neighborhood. And we're providing pedestrian connections because a lot of our customers will be students and people that work around the University of Kentucky. putting all of the stacking on site so none of its own colfax or south line. That's a safety issue that we wanted to put traffic for the drive through all on our property. It's less than three tenths of an acre. Less than three tenths of an acre. For all practical reasons and the guiding principles of planning, this project ought to be approved and i ask that you do so for the benefit of the neighbors that are there as well as eliminating a nuisance and putting in a new business for the area thank you yes sir would you mind stepping back up to the podium thank you but i don't quite understand the reference you gave with regard to the Broadway, South Broadway coffee shop. Yes, sir. Would you walk through that again, please? There's an existing coffee shop on Broadway near Red Mile Road, Starbucks. And in the morning, it's a single lane drive-through that will back up onto South Broadway as a single drive-through. And the order station just being on the east side of the building. And so that's, again, as a comparable somewhere nearby that's functioning currently where this is trying to make an improvement. And that's a Dutch Brothers model throughout the country. Good. Secondly, when I think about statistics and things like that, I think about, I guess, just obviously what they're using to form their statistics. I think about Chick-fil-A being an outlier of throwing everything off versus all others. And I think about an Arby's that has been there 50 years and no longer quite relevant. Sure. And I just don't know the kind of traffic or, obviously, Dutch Brothers has gone nationwide. They're extraordinary company, relevant today, which is really what we're speaking of. And so I just, I'm sensitive to the relevancy of a Dutch Brothers versus an Arby's. Sure. such and I'm presuming that what you're saying is with the double lane and such that's the way that they can the same way that Chick-fil-A has done remarkably well. Is that the same kind of comparison? Are they all modeling themselves after similar? Yeah, I think in terms of just fast food delivery that is that is becoming a nationwide model in multiple franchises doing one in person taking orders that's what Dutch Bros does, similar to what Chick-fil-A has done. Having not just delivery at Windows, but people bringing your food, like Burger King will do that now, Chick-fil-A will do that now. And so trying to evolve to make better traffic situations, better internal design, so it's not so much traffic, get people in and out as quick as possible. Obviously, that's a function, you know, trying to increase sales, but, and kind of user, you know, how pleased they are with their user experience. But that's, again, they've seen that. They're continuing to improve that as they dish out new prototypes to try to make that customer experience as good as possible. Do you mind giving a little history on Dutch Brothers, how long they've been doing what they've been doing? Is Terry here? Terry's here. Yeah, we have a Dutch Bros representative with us, and I'm sure he'd be happy to. Dutch Bros. Dutch Bros. I know I said brothers too. I'm sorry. Hey, listen, that's what he told me. I know it. I meant to do that. Good afternoon. Terry Owens with Dutch Brothers. I'm the construction manager for the East Coast. You told me Dutch Bros. Hold on. We've got to get this right. We've got to get this right. Come on now. What is it? All right. See you later. It's Dutch Bros. Okay. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer your question. So how long have you all been in business? My point is, thinking about Chick-fil-A and such, and thinking about a quality product that people want versus nothing against Arby's, but something that's been there forever. Have you all adapted to the demand, and how have you all adapted to demand with regard to drive through and such like that? We've adapted in three different ways. Number one, we have runners, order takers, that are literally out in the drive-thru lane taking orders like a Chick-fil-A does. We also have the apps on the cell phones where you can order the product, pull into the drive-thru, and get your product that way. And also a walk-up window, which is depicted on the site plan, which is underneath the canopy, which is facing the front row. So we have adapted very well to that. And a big concern we have is that side street. I think it's Colfax, maybe. Just being narrow and short from where you're going to be exiting and things like that. How are you all adapting to that? It's a good question. I don't think I have a very good answer for it because in the short period of time that I've been with the company, about six months, I haven't experienced where traffic is backed up into a side street or main corridor type scenario. Traffic is always flowing. And if you come off of Colfax, I believe, you can also take a right-hand turn and go back behind Colfax and then exit that way. That would be my answer. So the example that Brad gave, Brad, was here we are, Starbucks is approved to have their zoning or whatever, and now we've got a situation with demand such that traffic is now backed up onto South Broadway. And that's a huge issue for everybody kind of thing. So we're trying to anticipate this. We're advised by staff of this, you know, potential issues, and we respect what staff has to say. So those are the kind of things that we're just dealing with. I understand that. Thank you all. Hold on, I want to say another question. Just one more question about the traffic study, I should have asked this earlier. One of the things that bothers me about statistics is sampling times. And in your model, of having worked and driven in through Nicholasville over many, many years, Nicholasville Road from about 730 to 930, and Nicholasville Road coming back from about four to six are very different from Nicholasville during other parts of the day, limestone. Does your sampling model primarily focus on those, does it adjust for peak traffic or is it a sampling all the way across? Yeah, it's sampling across and the good thing about Nicholasville Road especially in the morning time is the time signalization that allows all the traffic to move, well most of the traffic to move through at one time and then stop to let both cross streets enter Nicholasville Road as well as letting pedestrians cross. So obviously the morning is going to be the rush, and getting turned in and getting turned back out will be the situation. And obviously we wish there was room on the right side because we'd have taken a lot there, but that's all owned by UK. So we're just trying to take a property that's available and underutilized and try to do the best we can with it. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Ms. Worth, if I can make a clarification, the applicant has not submitted any traffic impact study for staff's review. The applicant has only talked about traffic within their presentation today. Okay. That's correct. Thanks for clarification. All right. Any other questions? You got my, yes, Ms. Davis. On traffic, as it stands right now, if you were on Colfax, Can you turn left to go north on south line? That is correct. It's an uncontrolled median there. So that is a left across five lanes of traffic. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. Yes, you good? All right, Amy, do you want to rebuttal? Three minutes. Thank you. Regarding the design, the right turn leading into the neighborhood, if we could have that aerial back, I had an aerial, you may have one too, you will see that it dead ends at the railroad, you'd be looping back. And that neighborhood you will see is very densely, it's thick with tiny, tiny lots with maximum occupancy. So if we could zoom, maybe get one that actually shows the. Whatever you brought is what we have. Okay. Let me find it then. It's here somewhere, but I'll have to find it. So let's see. Yes. Okay. Do you see. I can do this. Here. So if you turned and decided not to be the second 20-foot car that can fit before you have to get onto limestone, whether you're going across five lanes of traffic or just heading south, if you turned onto Colfax in this direction, you'd go up to Sellers Alley. and I do mean alley, this is the railroad, see how tiny these lots are and every one of them has a maximum sized house with maximum occupancy and probably a little more than that so then they'd have to come back out Montmolen or Prahl. Montmolen being I think also uncontrolled and Prahl is the one with that scramble which was put in because it was a very hazardous place. Three-tenths of an acre, that's a quarter of an acre plus a little. It looks like way too much car for that small a property. It's what we used to call spot zoning to rezone such a tiny piece of land just all by itself. The public investment is enormous here to make a pedestrian friendly and safe area and safe for bikes as well, to shield them from hazard and conflict. Regarding the no one showing up who lives in the neighborhood, this is a neighborhood that is wholly investor owned. There might be three or four homeowner properties, maybe. And I think we always find that when it's an investor-owned area, the welfare of the existing community and neighborhood and residence isn't nearly as important to the owners of the property who might show up as the potential for a changing market value. Finally, it's threatening injury to very dense pedestrian oriented businesses who have made significant investment here. And I don't think that's fair to those businesses and it certainly doesn't help us encourage more of the same. Thank you. Thank you. Great. All right, we'll close this part of the hearing out. Oh, excuse me, no, we got staff. I'm ready to move. So staff would just like to address some of the components and statements that were made earlier into the presentation by the applicant today. I just wanted to highlight that, once again, the numbers that were given as far as the traffic impact, we were not provided with any traffic impact study. Neither was our transportation staff nor traffic engineering. And I believe after I'm done speaking, I believe that traffic engineering would also like to weigh in on some of the kind of additional components of that. But the site itself, currently a coffee shop that wanted to have a drive-through at that location could go in under its current configuration. The applicant is coming to you because they want to dramatically expand that. They want in order to – the amount of traffic that is occurring on site is – the numbers that were given today were over an entire day's period. This is not reflective of a peak time, whether or not someone coming in for coffee. If they have the stacking, it's because they need it, because we're going to have a higher volume of traffic to this site. Arby's was able to operate at this site for a significant period of time with a stacking that would accommodate two, maybe three cars. It sort of operates differently, functions differently from a traffic perspective. So when staff looks at this request, we are looking at the density, we are looking at what the comprehensive plan is calling for. In order for this zone change to be approved, the applicant has to prove conformance with that comprehensive plan. They have not done so. They've misapplied the development criteria, they've misapplied some of the goals and objectives of it, and once again, this is not a medium density use. This is about as low density of a use as you could potentially operate. This is in an area that is pedestrian focused. This is the University of Kentucky. An absolutely massive number of students are present going back and forth through the community at any given time. The fact that this is going to be during those peak hours, you know, bringing that additional traffic in, creating those conflicts potentially on Colfax Street. It doesn't matter how much stacking is present on the rear portion of the site if once these people have received their coffee and received their goods are stuck with only two cars being able to access on Colfax Street. As far as a connection to pedestrian facilities or the existing parking lot, nothing was shown on the development plan that was submitted to staff and reviewed to staff, and so we can't really consider that with this application. What we are seeing is a site that is oriented and focused towards the traveling public, towards operating for vehicles. In addition to this, the applicant has stated that this is a small site, but there are similar sized sites in the vicinity. They are rezoning 0.3 acres, but the site as a whole is larger, approximately half an acre. There are existing commercial two-story mixed use on the same street less than 500 feet away that are able to operate and have continued to operate at the density that would be more reflective of what the comprehensive plan is calling for. And while the comprehensive plan, you know, goals and objectives do not have to be met in their entirety, the goals and objectives are soundly against this proposal today. It is not in compliance with the density, the context, the scale, the safety, the health and welfare of this community. With an addition, it was mentioned that staff was recommending approval with the associated development plan. That is with the caveat that they received approval for the zoning associated with this. Staff is vehemently against the rezoning of this property for this use because it is wildly out of context with the comprehensive plan, with the imagined Nicholasville Road corridor, and it would not be able to safely be implemented. And I believe Traffic Engineering would like to speak momentarily. Thank you. David Philly, actually, with Traffic Engineering. I just wanted to clarify, as far as the IT trip generation, the trip generation manual is an economic way for us to generalize the expected impact of a particular use. It is not fair to compare it to a specific case. So the RBS compared to the expected impact of a drive-thru coffee shop without seated dining is inappropriate. It would be fair to say the expected traffic impact from a drive-thru coffee shop without seated dining would be less than a fast food restaurant with drive-thru. So it's a generalization. It's just an economical way. And to Mr. Bell's point, I had a previous colleague that advocated that Chick-fil-A get its own designation in the trip generation manual, just because it was always so underrepresented. So, again, just wanted to clarify that. And just one thing as far as the traffic, the Arby's, when it was previously open, was not open during the AM rush, I believe. So that's just something to think about. Anyway, thank you all. Thank you. Okay. All righty, all righty. Staff completed. Great, thank you. All right, now we can bring it back to the commission. Any further questions, concerns? Yes, Ms. DeMovina. I'd like to hear from those on the zoning committee what were y'all's concerns. I saw there was no recommendation. Do you remember Robin? I don't remember hearing this at the zoning committee. I believe we didn't have a quorum that day. We didn't have a quorum. It was limited again. So that's on us, not on the applicant, that there's no recommendation on the zoning committee. So they couldn't vote? No, we couldn't. There were not enough members present for the committee to issue a recommendation to the full commission. And I don't think. We heard it, but that was it. It was heard. Yeah, the ones that were there heard it. Yeah. Well, I didn't know if Mr. Simpson presented that there, just sort of, since we didn't know quorum. I couldn't recall. I'd just like to make an observation. I think that there was an opportunity here to develop, I'm not opposed to the coffee shop, but particularly its size. It is in a pedestrian, I would wager or opine that it is in probably the busiest pedestrian area that we have in the city. um and there's an opportunity here um for there to be a coffee shop or whatever you know to be developed that would really could really appeal to the walking public to the you know the people who are around um you know visit UK who live on UK who work at UK and whoever you know may else in the area. And I'm concerned about the car-centric nature of the application before us. Thank you. Any other questions, statements? If not, I'll say one thing. I appreciate Dutch Bros and their proposal. I see a lot of difficulty in why they're looking at this property and saying, We need to be flexible on the comp plans around about two U.K. properties or three of them maybe, and they're going to do whatever they want to there in terms of what it might look like in the future. My concern is the vastness of how it conflicts currently. Thank you. We got this now. Okay, and the floor is open. All right. Well, if the floor is open, I'd like to make a motion. I would like to make a motion for approval of PLN MAR 220015 from the zone change from R3 to a neighborhood business zone of B1. The findings that I would like to submit are as follows. One, the development creates a transition between intense corridor development and existing neighborhoods as it will continue a drive-through food service that has previously existed on the site. Two, support infill and redevelopment by re-utilizing an existing site for new commercial business. Three, the proposed coffee shop will provide a neighborhood business that will provide an amenity to the adjacent residential neighborhood and the University of Kentucky neighborhood. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Well, okay. We do not have a second to that motion. That motion dies. Okay, the floor is back open. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Yes. I'd like to make a motion to disapprove PLN MAR 2215 Dutch Bros LLC for reasons recommended by staff. Okay. We have a motion by Ms. Meyer. We have a second. Ms. Worth. All in favor, please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes. Take the development plan too. Right, when the planning commission recommends disapproval, the appropriate action for the development plan is to indefinitely postpone it, pending council action on the zone change. Okay, Ms. Meyer? I'm sorry, did you say to postpone it? Indefinitely. Indefinitely postpone it. Okay, I'll move to postpone indefinitely, PLN, MJDP 2257, Willard Division, Subdivision, Dutch Bros, South Limestone. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, all right, motion passes. Okay, thank you. That will put us on page six. PLN, MAR. Part 22-24, Eastland Legacy Center, of a zone change and a preliminary development plan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is an application for a zone change from a highway service business, I apologize, to a light industrial I-1 zone. For a portion of the property, or I'm sorry, this is a neighborhood business, B-1 zone, for a portion of the property located at 1301 Winchester Road. The portion of the property that we're discussing is 1.8 net and 2.2 gross acres of land. The applicant is seeking to place this within the industrial and production place type and the industry and production non-residential development type so that they can construct two buildings with nine potential areas of operation for shops of specialty trade. This is typically associated with plumbers or contractors' offices. They have an area in which they can both have some slight manufacturing for their use while also storage and other office frontage. Just looking at the area of the rezoning, we are off Winchester Road right here. We have New Circle Road coming down this way. Eastland Drive extends out from New Circle over to Loudon. And then we have Industry Road that cuts across the portion of the subject property that we're discussing today, connecting New Circle Road and Winchester Road. Looking at the zoning in this area, we have a blend of different commercial and industrial zoning. So the subject property itself is a large neighborhood business shopping center, our oldest neighborhood business shopping center in our community. And then as we transition back off of Winchester Road, we are moving away from the highway service business zoning and the neighborhood business zoning into light industrial zoning and wholesale and warehouse business zoning. So it is that transition off of Winchester Road moving into more intense and dense development. Just looking at the aerial photography, you get a better idea of how this area has developed over time in terms of land use. We have that shopping center, very focused in on that 1950s, 1960s style in which it's incredibly auto-centric. And then as we look down the side here, we transition from those more highway service businesses down into more of the industrial warehousing business. We do also have the Catholic Action Center, which is located directly adjacent from the area of rezoning. This is a community center use, which is a conditional use within the light industrial zone. We do have one water tower located just north of the subject property. This is associated with Kentucky American Water for our community. As you can see, this area of rezoning does impact one portion of the current structure. That is being proposed to be demolished as part of this proposed application. Looking into the site itself, we get a better idea on how this is laid out. The applicant is seeking to fill in a large portion of the parking area within the shopping center. Many of the shopping centers have seen some redevelopment over time, and we are seeing a significant amount of change in which we're getting greater amounts of infill, greater amounts of use into some of those areas of parking. We've discussed this more associated with our B6P zoning, but this is an area in which the applicant is seeking to add a different type of use into an area that has really called for it. So looking down Industry Road, and this is as we would take the curve to go over towards New Circle Road, across the proposed area of rezoning and development with the Catholic Action Center, And then just looking down Industry Road as we're heading towards the Winchester Road corridor. As with all zone changes within our 2018 comprehensive plan, we're trying to put this into frame of context. In this case, the applicant is seeking to place this in an industrial and production center place type. Whenever we're looking at this, we're trying to understand what is the current land use, what is occurring around it, how is that impacting some of those surrounding land uses? So there is this transition that we've discussed or seen on some of those previous slides in which there is the B1 and then jumping to that wholesale warehousing and industry and production. Whenever looking at this type of place type, we do want to make sure that we are making adequate transitions between what is established in those areas and what is being proposed. Additionally, the applicant is seeking to apply the industrial and production non-residential development type, which is really focused in on trying to produce jobs, produce opportunities for individuals to work in a space that is usually a little bit more nuisance-based. With all those nuisance-based uses, we do want to make sure that we are avoiding impacts on the surrounding development, adjacent development, as well as the environmental impact that such development can have. With any type of development type, staff is also looking at the recommended zones within the place builder element of the comprehensive plan. In this case, the applicant is looking to apply that light industrial zoning. When looking at this, this can be appropriate for the property, given that we look at how it is transitioning from the current zoning into the adjacent zoning. There is light industrial adjacent to this property, not only across the street, just directly north of the subject property. So staff believes that these can be appropriate, given that the applicant has provided adequate justification. The staff did look at this as a potential use that would work in the area, and the applicant has provided significant information to show some agreement with the comprehensive plan, which I'll review within our findings. However, staff did find that there is a transition or a stark transition from the neighborhood business in which this is incorporated into an overall development and transitioning into some more light industrial zoning. We want to make sure that that movement from that neighborhood business and this overall shopping center, which this proposed rezoning is seeking to incorporate itself into and make sure that there isn't a stark difference between that jump. So staff is also looking at the applicant's justification for some of this. The applicant has focused in on seeking to provide a significant amount of jobs. Within our community, the contractor industry, as well as some of those shops, especially trades, has been a very good job producer within Lexington. And it can have a major impact on allowing different people of various different educational levels to achieve greater growth and economic viability. So staff is recommending the restriction of two uses and a restriction of a buffering use. Staff is recommending the prohibiting self-storage warehousing. This is typically a use that is a low employment generator. So the applicant has indicated that this is meant to produce jobs within our community. That is a real important aspect of their letter of justification. And to maintain compliance or agreement with the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that limiting this use would be important. Additionally, to make sure that we are transitioning from the neighborhood business zone and the shopping center, which this is part of, staff would like to recommend the limitation of outdoor storage. This is not only because of that transition, but also the plan that is shown by the applicant with their proposed rezoning. We'll look at that in a moment. And then the limitation on fencing. Within the I-1 zone, fencing is allowed to be quite high within the front yard, as well as incorporate a fair amount of deterrent to it. So barbed wire, as well as razor wire, is allowed within the I-1 zone. And that is really tied into some of that outdoor storage, tying into protecting some expensive or valuable materials that might be stored associated with a contractor's office or a plumber's office. So staff believes that those are important restrictions to include, and that also plays into the frontage of this property. The applicant is proposing to add sidewalks along the portion of the rezoning. This is an important factor of new development as it comes along. We want to make sure that the four-foot fence that is established there, that creates a sense of place, is continued along the full outside of this shopping center. And then also really just trying to maintain some of the connections overall with the comprehensive plan. So just a brief review of the development plan. It will be reviewed here in just a moment or so by Ms. Galt. But I do want to show some of staff's concerns with the fencing as well as some of the outdoor storage. The proposed development does have some entry points for these three proposed units from the front. There is no real area for any outdoor storage or the drop off of any outdoor storage. Much of the times when we see contractors offices, there is a larger truck, whether it be a box truck or a trailer, that drops off certain elements that a contractor would use. There's no real location that is indicated within this development plan that would allow that to occur. You are also seeing the entryways for each of the buildings in the rear. This allows for individuals to pull their trucks into the buildings themselves, and then all of the proposed parking along the outside. So staff sees that the conditional zoning restrictions as presented are important for that tying in as well as lessening the impact of the proposed I-1 zoning onto this site. Staff did find that the applicant is providing a substantial amount of information to show agreement with the comprehensive plan. They are seeking to propose an area that would eliminate some vacant and underutilized land, specifically the parking that is in the rear of this shopping center, and utilize it in a way that can be more productive within the community. The proposed building and design character would be in keeping with some of the development that has occurred at this site in the past. Specifically for the buildings that are located on the northern end of the development, it has that rear axis. It creates an active frontage. It is very similar to some of the shopping center building that has occurred elsewhere and in the past. And then this would allow for the production of a variety of job types within this area. And staff has received multiple phone calls in the past about how this area has developed as a special portion of our community focused in on providing space for developers or contractors, plumbers, members of our shops, especially trade industry. The proposed rezoning is in agreement with the building form, site design, and location. They are seeking to integrate it into this site. They're actually making that drive access throughout the area a little bit better in this context. It is not as much of a free-for-all as that parking lot is currently. The proposed rezoning also has that pedestrian access throughout the frontage of the site and is making clear pedestrian movement through the site. And then finally, with the adoption of the new parking regulations and what the applicant is proposing on site, They are adding a significant amount of tree canopy to this area to offset some of the heat island impacts that have been caused by some of the asphalt that we've added to our community over time. Staff is recommending the inclusion of the conditional zoning restrictions on this site, as we previously discussed. And with all zone changes, this is incumbent upon the approval and certification of the development plan PLN MJDP 2276 Eastland Shopping Center as amended. If you have any questions about the zone change, I'd be happy to answer them now. Yes, we have one question. I'm just looking at the conditional zoning restrictions. Yes, ma'am. In the case we heard earlier today with Goodwill Industries, you restricted all above ground and underground storage tanks. Yes, ma'am. And on-site disposal of hazardous waste materials. I'm curious, did you not, with this particular use that you anticipate, you don't, none of these things are, they're not going to be an issue or you don't anticipate that or, I'm just curious. So the other area that we discussed earlier today was located within the Royal Springs Aquifer recharge area. So that area specifically has gone through several iterations of communications between Scott County and Fayette County, and those restrictions were recommended not only by Scott County, but had been recommended on every piece of industrial property that has come through over the past five years. So we've been trying to maintain that specifically. At this location, there are a multitude of light industrial zones that are not encumbered with that same type of restriction. And we are more focused on making sure that we have an adequate transition from that B1 zone into that light industrial area. So are you saying that this is, okay, you don't want to restrict or you don't want to discourage users? Or is, I'm not quite sure. We don't have the same type of nexus for a rationale to restrict those types of uses at this location. The location in which we have stormwater and water quality concerns, we typically will get into those kind of restrictions. But since one, it's not regulated elsewhere in this light industrial area in the same way. and that we don't have a reason to say because of this, then we should restrict it, staff would be concerned about adding extra restrictions without that reason, that specific reason. Any further questions? Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. As Hal explained, the property, this is down here is Winchester Road. This is the ramp coming up from New Circle, and we're going down Industry. And this is the location behind the shopping center for this development. Here's a closer shot. You can see the access point coming into this area. which will be able to drive around and have additional parking for them, and then the structures and the trees as to increase the landscaping. With this, the staff and subdivision committee had recommended approval with the conditions, traffic, sign off from engineering traffic, Forester, Green Space, Department of Environmental Quality. This is a preliminary development plan, so therefore we want to make sure we add a note that says, denote no building permit shall be issued unless and until a final development plan is approved by the Division of Planning. We had just a few cleanup conditions, simple dimension access point, location of construction access, height the building, and denote uses of the property. We just talked about this being shops of special trade. We like to see that in the site statistics. so it's understood. Addition of record plan information. I'm going to go back. Then we had a condition that says discuss proposed one-story building at intersection of Eastland Drive and Industry Road. They show in a one-story building here, which actually this is where the water tower is. And at this time with this development plan, it would be best to show what we actually have on site. So this could be a resolve that makes sure that we show exactly what's on property. And then the last condition was discussed place bidder and I believe Hal's gone through that with you all. So that condition can be removed also. So is there any other comments and questions I can help you with? Any questions for staff? Another shot. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission. My name is Wes Harned, Rose Grash-Communish Maines, and along with Bruce Simpson, I represent the applicant, Brian Wood, and his company, who seeks the rezoning of this property to I-1 Light Industrial. Of course, we're pleased with the status recommendation that an I-1 zone is appropriate for this location, and we thank them for that recommendation. Indeed, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of dispute that an I-1 zone is appropriate for this property. We held a neighborhood meeting. No one attended, and we received no feedback one way or the other and certainly no opposition to the rezoning. With that said, we do disagree, however, with a couple of the staff's recommended restrictions on the property, notably the prohibition on outside storage and the four-foot height limitation on fencing to be installed at the property. And I'll go through the basis for the disagreement on those points, but first wanted to note the intention with respect to this development. So this is the existing structure, kind of from the face of it, from Industry Road. This building, as has been stated, is going to be demolished. It's simply in a state that it's more economical to tear it down and rebuild. And certainly we think the community, there's a demand for the flexed warehouse space that will be constructed in place of this building. And, of course, the area we're talking about is facing Industry Road. And that's an apt name for this road, particularly given the significant industrial type businesses located on the road and in general in the neighborhood. And so with respect to the restrictions that we are in disagreement with, I want to go along kind of on a virtual walk around this general area to show that, and I'll get to the standard at the end. I want to focus on the standard that our zoning ordinance sets out for conditional zoning and restrictions to be on properties. And so I think this will all lead to that standard, but I want to walk around some of the adjacent and neighboring properties. First, this is 1081 Industry Road. this and you can see here the star depicts or represents our site here about 200 feet away and it's the back of plumber supply here and we'll get to some more zoomed in photos in a minute it's a large outdoor storage area it's got fencing it's got eight feet or higher fencing screen fencing that's again that is this shot was taken from the very corner of our site and it's you know you could almost throw a baseball over there and hit it uh it's so close to the site and and that's outdoor storage and it's fencing higher than four feet um there's a couple more shots here closer up these gates i've driven over there a couple times in the last week or so these gates are always open it's not like this is screened off this is uh you know for good perk for good reason you got you got to have trucks come in and out deliveries and so forth but certainly this is the character of the of the adjacent properties i mean it's it's it strikes you as soon as you drive on to our site this is the character i thought i'd mention if you look across industry road to over near the catholic action center there's a fence right here that encloses this area of that property that's eight feet tall or six feet probably six feet tall completely closed off and and certainly then that sets again the character of the property that's it's not quite in agreement with a four foot height restriction on the fence uh continuing on down the industry road area this is uh this again is our site about 240 or so feet over across eastland parkway you've got you've got another you got under use here fencing higher than four feet probably six feet barbed wire and by the way we don't have any issues with the no barbed wire and no razor wire those those restrictions are fine with the applicant but again we have we have that type of fencing here as you can see if you look closely there's outdoor storage as things kind of stored in fact this appears to be outdoor outdoor storage of kind of junked or inoperable vehicles And so again, we've got right behind this, right to the north, immediate north of this property, an adjacent property that's being used in a way that would suggest that the restrictions for no outdoor storage and a high limitation on the fence is inappropriate. Continuing on down Industry Road, again, this is open. This is some storage. This appears to be a forklift back here. Obviously, there's active kind of moving in and out of items being stored outside. This is a little bit, this is 1141 Industry Road. There's a little site, kind of a site map here to keep your orientation with our site, the red star here. This indicates where this 1141 Industry Road is. But again, fencing higher than four feet, outdoor storage here in the neighborhood. Continuing again, 1209-inch road, outdoor storage, six-foot fencing. 111-inch industry road, same thing. I don't even know if that's outdoor storage. That just seems to be debris. But pallets would indicate there was outdoor storage at one point. But again, six-foot fencing. A little bit farther down, 1229-inch industry road. Again, six-foot fencing. And behind it, the space is being utilized for outdoor storage. This was included just to show fencing higher than four feet. Again, not much use in terms of storage back there, but certainly the capability. And it appears in the past possibly put that use. And then we get down here to the Congleton Lumber Company. And, of course, if anybody's ever been, they use outdoor storage behind a fence higher than four feet here. And, of course, there's business. And all of these, I should note, are businesses. And so the justification that these restrictions are needed to make sure that the applicants held to the justification for the rezoning of job creation, there's a disconnect there. We don't have to impose these restrictions to make sure we're creating jobs in these spaces. What we have is a development, a building that's not built yet. We have a use that we want businesses to put this property when it's built, but we don't have tenants in place yet. And we want to maintain flexibility, and we want to make these units attractive to businesses that will create jobs. And we don't want to handcuff those businesses with restrictions that might impact their businesses and their ability to function and create jobs in ways that we can't foresee today. And so we would just ask, with respect to these restrictions, that they not be adopted so that we can maintain that flexibility and provide that to commercial tenancy. We all hope we'll create jobs in these spaces. um now i told you i'd get to the standard for conditional zoning and restrictions and that's article six that's article six dash seven and i want to point out just a couple of things that the zoning ordinance says about conditional zoning number one it should be thoughtfully and sparingly used now that's probably in the eye of the beholder but i would point out thoughtfully because down here in subsection a i think the standard is pretty clearly stated that the that there has to be a potential for there to be for the use to impair the integrity and character of the area in which the subject property is located or enjoining areas that's the standard for imposing restrictions through conditional zoning i've just showed you what the neighboring areas are in the enjoining areas and there is nothing about the restrictions or there's nothing about using this property to include outdoor storage and fencing higher than four feet that would impair the integrity and character of the area. It's already there. That's the character. And so if we're looking at the standard that has to be applied to impose the conditional zoning and these restrictions, I would submit to you that we're not impairing the integrity and character the neighboring properties it's in keeping with it and in fact we're going to make a substantial facelift to the area and we're going to revitalize this section of eastland shopping center the back section as the applicant has done with the rest of the shopping center and so with with those comments we would again we thank the staff for the recommendation of approval on the zone change but we would respectfully request the commission to not adopt the restrictions prohibiting outdoor storage and limiting the height of the fence to four feet. Again, we don't have any issues with the restrictions for barbed wire and razor wire or the self-storage on the property. And if there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Any questions for the applicant from the commission? I got a question. I'm looking at the development plan, and you're talking a lot about fencing, and I don't see any fencing on the development plan. Do you all have an intent to fence it? There's a, yes. There is an intent to put some type of fence there. In fact, there's already fencing out on the face of Industry Road as it stands. I think the intention and the thought is to install some type of fence for security. You know, these, you talk about flex workspace and industrial type activities. Some of these folks are, we're going to work non-traditional hours and they may be carrying things onto and off the property that they would like and benefit from some security provided by fence. and on that is the fencing going to enclose and lock in the development? Is it going to be fully fenced? Because I can see a couple entryways down off industry on the, I think, the south side of the development where all the parking is. Tony Barrett. Yeah, I know, Tony. Barrett Partners will address the plan. Tony Barrett with Barrett Partners. This is a preliminary development plan, and what's being proposed is a zoning restriction, which would apply to whatever goes there. And we would have to, if we don't have a tenant that is proposed at this point, but we didn't want to limit ourselves to a fencing restriction or use restriction that may or may not come into play. but just so that we are not limited in our potential users we wanted to maintain as much flexibility as we could so i can't answer your question it would be user driven that that may may come into play and just didn't want the zoning restriction as as it's written so that was our intent okay thanks Mr. Mickler. Well, we at the zoning committee touched on the outdoor storage and because I brought it up because I had some of the same concerns you just presented regarding flexibility. But it was pointed out at the time to us that the proposed layout and building and sort of flow that we're seeing on this preliminary development plan is calling for really this space to be used as building space, sort of not outdoor space. It seems like changing that sort of changes the whole image of the. Well, again, it's a preliminary development plan in maintaining our flexibility. We're showing on the development plan multiple tenants, probably as many as, I don't know, 10 are shown on there. we could have one tenant or we may have three tenants and those garage doors that are proposed may go away based on the new and creating a even even on the same footprint if the footprint were to stay the same the opportunity for outdoor storage could be made available depending on the tenant mix and how the building is is divided or not divided so that's we have a we have a yard essentially in the back of the building that could become an outdoor storage area. But the rear yard wouldn't be subjected to the four feet. Is that correct? Right, but the outdoor storage would certainly be limited or restricted. Okay, thank you. Any further questions for the applicant? Not seeing any. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road. I have very little to say. I know this area very well. plumbing, people who fix things, machinists, lots of great stuff there. I would just point out that we're talking about a corner property of the shopping center, and the things that were compared are all off that corner. So you can either see it as the edge of this development, which is expanding to offer employment opportunities. great stuff, skilled trades could be. Or you can see it as just continuing the kind of industrial sprawl and ugliness, and you need some ugliness to make things that work. But I think you do have to think of the immediate context, the corner that it is, the block that it's a corner of, if you're thinking about compatibility. Thank you. thank you is there anyone else okay oh excuse me okay i understand the comment and i just wanted to address this is a corner i mean our property is kind of right next to the water tower, but the property we talked about at 1081, that is on the corner. It's the same. I would just submit again. That's the character, and we're in the immediate vicinity of this use that does not support the two restrictions. And again, I would just go back to Article 6-7 and what the standard is for conditional zoning and the restrictions. Thank you. Thank you. Al? I think there are a few things that staff would just like to clarify. Many of the photos that were shown about the ten foot fencing were actually side and rear yard fencing. They were not front yard fencing. Staff is not seeking to restrict with the conditional zoning restrictions or recommending restricting any of the fencing that would be along the rear or along the side. Staff is proposing limiting it along the frontage of the property as you transition from the B1 over into the I1 context. I think that's important to note. Many of those photos showed a side yard fence or a rear yard fence that were 10 feet in height that would be allowable even with the restriction here. I think there is a disagreement about the context of this area, and that's why staff is suggesting or recommending the use of conditional zoning restrictions. As the applicant has focused on the areas to the north and to the northwest of the subject property, they've also indicated several times within their letter of justification, as well as their comments today that this is integrated within the shopping center. The shopping center is a B1 type use, not an I1 type use. So we do need to make adequate transitions from one land use, one zone, to another one. So staff believes that the zoning restrictions that have been proposed to today are thoughtfully applied and sparingly used, as indicated by Ms. Meyer's question earlier about the application of further zoning restrictions that would limit the use of the subject property. Staff is specifically looking at zoning restrictions that would transition from the B1 use that this is integrating itself into, into the overall area. So transitioning from what's happening up here to back here. I also do want to point out that while the development plan is preliminary, the Planning Commission is making a ruling on the zone change in association with the development plan. The Planning Commission has a right to say when a new final development plan comes in that this is not what we saw before. This is a substantial change, and you can disapprove it at that time. They are representing what they are trying to do with the property, with what they are showing with their preliminary development plan today. This area up in this space is connecting with the vehicular movement of the site into the overall shopping center. The applicant indicated within their letter of justification that they are integrating into this area, making a proper transition from one space into a more modern space that allows for greater application of job production. And staff is in real support of that. But we want to make sure that with any type of development that occurs in this parking lot, we have proper integration and movement throughout. So the staff believes that the conditional zoning restrictions that have been recommended are thoughtfully and sparingly used at this location and are representative of the overall context of this area. So that is all staff has for a rebuttal at this time. You've addressed the issue of fencing. Could you address the issue of outdoor storage? The outdoor storage does come into what the applicant is proposing at this location, which is why the applicant hasn't brought up whether they want it in the front yard or the rear yard or anywhere else. The applicant has shown a development plan that would not allow the application of outdoor storage at this area. And if they were to apply it just along the rear, we have an issue of transition from an industrial zone to a neighborhood business zone. The applicant specifically has a line right there that shows the delineation or the shift from one zone to another zone. The staff would like this area to continue to be a viable neighborhood business or shopping center use. By providing outdoor storage along the rear of the property, there can be a real impact on that area. Furthermore, staff is a little concerned about how vehicular movement would occur with large trucks or any type of vehicle that is dropping off materials that would be stored outside. the applicants reference to some of the other areas in this north and west of the subject property is a development that was developed specifically for industrial users and did not have to fit into a neighborhood shopping center so staff does have some concerns with outdoor storage specifically in the front yard but how this would impact the rear of the property as well as they are surrounded by that neighborhood business thank you uh bruce had one folks we got three oh yes we are looking at a preliminary development plan from what i'm seeing i can make i understand the argument for the zone to zone transition but specifically only on industry road So you explained why outdoor storage is not allowed on industry. Then you explained why should we allow the rear of the building. But should we restrict it to the rear of the building without a final development plan or just leave the restrictions on the front of the building, which is creating that visual transition from industrial to B. There are other options. Staff is making a recommendation based off of a best practice perspective, as well as what staff sees as being a thoughtful transition between the B1 and the I1. If the planning commission would like to make a more nuanced approach, there are other ways to do that. You could apply it as a development plan note. That would give the applicant a greater ability to deal with future potential changes without having to go through the full conditional zoning restriction process. However, staff believes that the fence height is an important element to keep into this because of that industry road frontage and the connection into the property. Okay, so what would you do with the primitive uses that are referenced on 19? I, Southport, and what wanted to do about the story. Have you, if someone wanted to do any transition, that's a transition that would help. If the planning commission deemed that that was something that they would like to do, they would just strike that element of outdoor storage from the prohibited uses and then add it as a development plan note. You would just say at the end of your review of the development plan, denote that there shall be no outdoor storage. This would allow the applicant an easier process to go through should they have an applicant come through and want some sort of outdoor storage. Mr. Mickler. Well, I'm just wondering about sort of layering on the restrictions. restrictions, if we had a, I understand, I guess, if we want to restrict the entire property to outdoor storage, but if we have a restriction on the fence height of four foot along the front, would that not effectively restrict storage outside? I can't really imagine really a four foot fence being a particularly secure storage. It could be a practicality issue. The Planning Commission could also change the conditional zoning restrictions to restrict outdoor storage in the front yard. This would allow the applicant to have the taller fence that would be more protective along the rear and side yards of potential development. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Bell. Yeah Hal, I'm just, I presume this is one of the first quote redevelopment infill projects in this area? This is one of the newer redevelopments specifically for this site. This site is really an older our oldest shopping center in our community and representative of that. It has had a bit of upkeep over that time. Some changed some add-on which is kind of representative of where the building is and how it lays out. However this would be probably the first infill into the property in some time. So with that, aren't you really trying to establish some precedents for attracting and upgrading and such within? Yes, sir. We would definitely want that, which is why there isn't a bevy of conditional zoning restrictions. But we do want to make sure that we transition from what's there now into the future so that we get the best possible development. For me, it's similar to whereby you had sidewalks become mandatory with time, and you've got to start somewhere and such like that. Yes, sir. But I appreciate some leeway and language which works with what they're trying to do as well. Yes, and the applicant is providing a needed resource within this community. I know that we differ when it comes to maybe the application of what zone restrictions might be on the property, but staff is very supportive of this type of development. And applicant, I'm just curious, how old a business are you? How long have y'all been what you are? Mr. applicant. For the applicant, Mr. Woods. That'd be great. Thank you. Commissioner Bell, Brian Wood. Okay, thank you. Members of Planning Commission, thank you for your time today and all y'all's hard work in listening to our posed application. I've owned Eastland Shopping Center, it was originally developed in 1956. It was the original shopping center developed by a guy by the name of George Young, who also developed Southland Drive basically almost at the same time period. The Eastland Shopping Center has incorporated roughly 30 acres. During my ownership of which I purchased on 9-11 while the planes were hitting the towers, I was at the closing table purchasing this shopping center. This particular shopping center has had a tremendous amount of impact to our community, Lexington, Kentucky as part of Route 60 or the Winchester Road corridor, which is now one of the busiest corridors in town. Since my particular ownership of the shopping center of roughly over 30 acres, we've been able to be a great operating partner with LFUCG, with the fire department. We now have a roll call station directly next door, which was a significant seven figure implication to the shopping center. We're also able to provide another fire station for this particular community. Not to mention also to be able to generate enough water pressure for this whole side of town of doing a transaction of the corner where the water tower is. So we've been very interactive and trying to have a cohesive neighborly aspect. So to answer your question directly, I've had this shopping since 9-11. I have absolutely redone, redeveloped with the synergy of tenants here to create a meaningful shopping experience for not necessarily the higher end demographic of Lexington, Kentucky, but people who are working class individuals who care about their dollar. And that's what our focus is as a company. The application of flex warehouse space, the application of blue collar jobs is what we're trying to provide here, which is our neighbors. We want to be cohesive with our neighbors. We're in agreeance with the staff recommendation of no self storage. As far as the outdoor storage, there's been a lot of discussion about preliminary development plan and how we can assist and move further down the road with on a note and a development plan. I understand that, as was represented here, we don't have a tenant. I don't want anything figured out yet. But if I ever learned one thing about business, if I knew everything, if I always said I didn't have to figure it out and it stopped, I would be nowhere. We're going to figure this project out. What you see here on this particular square footage is roughly as on your plans in front of you, it's a little over 30,000 feet. Imagine maybe we build 15,000 feet with a credit tenant and they need outdoor storage where part of that building envelope is. To connect to their particular shop space. So we're just trying not to handcuff ourselves with availability. We want to be a good neighbor as we have been for over many years. And that's the game plan there. Well, we thank you for being you and being where you are and working with us. We're trying to work with y'all. We hear what staff says because you are the example, you know, that is going to set the standard for this shopping center relatively, you know, and we don't want to handcuff you. So thank you for that. Hal, if I may, thank you, sir. The gentleman behind you, thank you. Yeah, that'd be great. So Hal, is there a way to work with them? Then I think everybody sets that. What do you suggest from here? Yes, sir. And after five years working for the urban county government, I'm still being schooled by Ms. Wade. In Article 8-22 under the special provisions, this goes to Mr. Mickler's comment. there is a provision that states that all industrial uses shall be conducted in a completely enclosed building, except for outdoor storage uses, which shall be enclosed on all sides by a solid wall or fence not less than six feet in height. So if you were to adopt the language that staff is recommending for the limitation on the fence height in the front yard, This would prohibit outdoor storage in the front yard, but would allow them to have outdoor storage in the rear if you wanted to just take that condition off. Thank you, Hal. Not to go back and forth too much, but just a question for the applicant. Is what Mr. Bailey just proposed, would that be acceptable? I'm sorry, I'm a little bit confused. So would outdoor storage be allowed where the building footprint is if the building is not built? So if we built half a building, are you allowed per what you just said to build, put a fence if we don't build the building next door in that footprint? I don't know. Yes. Sorry. I don't know what I'm agreeing to. That's all right. That's a good question. I'm going to clarify for you. not build this section of the building and you want to do outdoor storage if the planning commission determines that they do not want to uh have that condition on there you would be able to build a fence along here because it is not in the front yard and have outdoor storage should the planning commission take that away i just can't go to the front towards you cannot go towards the side or the rear yes okay so i just can't go to the front correct but so that would be the new line there but i'd allow it to go all the way that way and yes sir can you take a line straight off the north edge of the building on the front this is your front yard right right here right that would be the limitation anything this way or to the rear would be allowed on the northwest corner of the building correct straight up to the water tower we are not saying the required front yard we're just saying the front yard which is the area in front of the building yeah Yeah. You're proposing a building? Everything in front of your proposed building is a front yard? I can make this work. That works for me if that's okay with you all. Okay, and also, Mr. Wood, is the four-foot limit out front on the fence acceptable? We would need at least six feet. The reason for that is to be able to put a screen in the fence. I'm okay with the razor wire, the bob wire stuff. Then we have to add the restriction language on the storage back. Great. And I'm fine with the self-storage thing. But that's not in the front, though, right? You mentioned the four-foot in the front. So, sir, the four-foot front yard, this fence here would be limited to four feet. Yeah, well, that's a paddock. We just have a fence up front right now, and then we've been screening on the side there. We'll be fine. There you go. So yes, the front is limited to four foot in height. And that's a picket fence. Which is industry road. We have a white fence up front along industry road. For a security fence, I could jump a four foot. And then the water tower property does have a fence, by the way, of six feet. It could be six feet on the water property. Yes. Yes. Okay, hold on. I think we're on the same page. I think we're on the same page, but we have a question. I couldn't hear everything. I'm sorry. Yes, sir. So the applicant is concerned about this area that would be along the property and over to the water tower and to the rear. And that would be allowable should the Planning Commission take away the outdoor storage. They would be allowed to have the outdoor storage and a fence up to eight feet in height, which would meet the six feet that you would get. The part I didn't hear was along the tree line of Industry Road, it would be limited to four. And I was asking, is that? That's fine. Okay, thanks. Yes, okay. For the record, the applicant agrees, that's fine. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Okay, that sounds good. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Any further questions? Yes. Okay, Hal, thank you. Thank you. We're going to close this portion out and bring it back to the commission. Floor is open for a motion. I can get a shot. All right. I know, it's 0 for 1, we'll see what we can do now. You get three strikes in baseball. That's right, and then I get to go home. All right, I would like to recommend approval of PLN MAR22-24 Eastland Legacy Center with the staff's justifications other than- I was getting ready to talk to you. You good so far, Hal? Other than the restriction on outdoor storage. Other than the restriction on outdoor storage, 3A1. Two. Two. All right. That's good. You want to say that again or you good? I'm good. Okay. Do you have that, Tracen? You good? We're good. All right, thank you. We got a second by Mr. DeMovillin. Good. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Are we going to do a development plan? Okay, I recommend approval of PLMNJDP 22-76 Eastland Shopping Center with staffs recommendations in 14 revised conditions. Are we taking out 14, discuss to resolve and then remove? Two 14s. And remove number 15, but it says 14, but should be 15. Remove number 15, correct? Yes, remove number 15. Okay, we got a second by Mr. de Moverland. Thank you. You're welcome. Please vote Villagranicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So before we get to the next application, we're going to take a 10 minute break. Yes, thank you. No, you're good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Hal? Yes, sir. We'll come back and call this, open this meeting back up. So we're on the Zota 22-19. Yes, sir. Thank you. Before I start my presentation, we did receive letters of both support and objection, or opposition. I'll pass those out now. And just for the record, there are three letters of support with multiple names from addresses and 20 letters of opposition. This is PLN ZODA 22-19. This is an amendment to Article 8-2-D of the zoning ordinance to allow outdoor and indoor recreation facilities with lights and loudspeakers and increase the allowable structure size in the agricultural buffer or the AB zone. The applicant has submitted language that would change the conditional uses within the agricultural buffer zone to amend three aspects. First, it would increase the allowable built square footage for certain conditional uses in the AB zone from 10,000 square feet to 2% of the property size. It would allow commercial indoor and outdoor recreation facilities in properties immediately adjacent to the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. And it would allow outdoor lighting, loudspeakers, and limited concession sales for properties immediately adjacent to the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. Just to give a little bit of context of the AB zone or the Agricultural Buffer Zone, it was created in 1999. one of our more recent created zones. This was an outgrowth of the Rural Service Area Management Plan. You would know that nowadays as the Rural Land Management Plan. These are both adopted elements of the comprehensive plan and are important in the implementation of new development or changes of development within our community. The AB zone has an intent that is meant to establish and preserve the rural characteristics of the agricultural service area by establishing agricultural land that can serve as a buffer between areas of urban uses and agricultural land and between outside of Fayette County and agricultural uses. And I'll show a bit of a map that will elucidate a little bit more of this as we go along. It is the intent of the zone to provide separation between conflicting uses by requiring appropriate landscaping, fences, and compatible uses. The land use element of the comprehensive plan is utilized to identify the appropriate location of the AB zone. And specifically, while we have a policy-based plan for our comprehensive plan, the adopted element of the rural land management plan has a map indicating the specific locations of the AB zone. This is the map from the rural land management plan. There are seven areas of potential A-B zoning within our community. These are located, as you can see, in areas either adjacent to the urban service area or adjacent to urbanized zoning. In this case, there's the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center in blue here. And then adjacent to other counties, specifically counties that would allow or could allow more urbanized development. This is specifically Tates Creek Road as it runs out of our county. There are seven areas delineated within the buffer area parcels that have been identified within the rural land management plan. It's very important to look at the acreages of those parcels as well. the acreages are much lower with the established acreage than what is being allowed within our agricultural rural zone. So many of these are smaller parcels that were constructed or allotted prior to the establishment of some of our more restrictive zoning in our agricultural areas. You can see that there are two areas that have acreage greater than 15 acres in this case. One being the Canebrake Drive area, which is just adjacent to the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. And then the other one being along Tates Creek Road, that area running along south here. Just reviewing the process for any AB zone establishment. The really important part of this is that there is no AB zone that is non-conforming within our community. All AB zone that has been established within Lexington meets the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. This goes back to the fact that it was established in 1999. It allowed for properties to come in and have a little bit more use on it. And it allowed for that buffering between our prime agricultural lands and some more urbanized land uses. For any zone change to establish an AB zone, it would necessitate your review, the Planning Commission review, as well as the Urban County Council review and ultimate decision. The Planning Commission does have the ability to look at conditional uses during the zone change process and has the ability to recommend restrictions. The Urban County Council has the ability to implement those restrictions during the zone change process. Additionally, with any conditional use, there is the opportunity for an applicant to go ahead and seek Board of Adjustment approval, which can also apply certain conditions or restrictions on the property based off of the unique circumstances of the land in those areas. So just looking at the AB zone currently within our community, there are 22 parcels of land. All are 10 acres, slightly larger in a few cases by less than an acre. All are conforming, as I said before, because they had to go through the zone change process and they had to show that they could meet the requirements of the AB zone. 21 of the lots that are in the AB zone are being planned for residential development, not agricultural land uses. And one is currently being utilized as an agricultural land use. That is the Tallon Winery. It is located on one AB parcel, which you all saw relatively recently with the subdivision and rezoning of that property. And that is located right here. There are two primary uses or principal primary uses within the zone. there are 12 accessory uses. The two principal uses are those agricultural land uses and residential land uses. The accessory uses really play into those two principal primary uses. Within the zone, there are 20 conditional uses currently within the area. Of that, there is a restriction on 17 out of the 20 conditional uses within the area that limit the size of structures. So the size of the structure within this would be limited to a max of 10,000 square feet. This was established during the review of the AB zone and some of the changes to the agricultural areas with various different tax amendments and was specifically looked at as some of the max sizes of churches within our rural service area. Those tend to be our largest structures that are not agricultural in use. So barns, different training centers for the athletes that are competing in equine games, those are not restricted with the current conditional uses and the size limit. This is also the same exact language from the AR zone. The AR zone has actually more conditional uses that are allowed because of some of the tax amendments that have occurred over time. When looking at the proposed language for the outdoor and indoor facilities, we do need to look at the current AR conditional use. There is a very similar AR conditional use, but it specifically states that there would be no loudspeakers and no restaurants and food service. The applicant is seeking to allow for outdoor lighting, which is allowed in the AR zone currently with a conditional use that's adjacent to the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. But they are seeking to add that limited concession sales and the outdoor and lighting and speakers. The change with concession sales, that has actually been agreed to by the Board of Adjustment right now. They did a review of the conditional use that is currently in operation just north of Blue Sky Rural Activity Center for the Sayre School, the applicant. And they found that the limited concession sales does not, is not restricted within this restriction of restaurants or food service. It is associated with what is going on at the site. So staff looked at this and found that this is an adequate increase in an area that would be a buffer between urbanized zones or adjacent counties and our agricultural community. The other aspect of this is the size of structures. The applicant is proposing an increase from the 10,000 square feet to 2% of the property. Staff was looking at this in a couple of different ways. We looked at this from the intent that this is meant to be a buffer and a transition from these different areas into our agricultural zones or into our agricultural land uses and our prime areas for agricultural land uses as represented by the AR zone. The staff found that a proportion of the property is a good metric for looking at and maintaining certain areas that would keep properties from being subdivided. If an applicant, the one aspect of this that staff was concerned with was it would necessitate a lot size of 11.48 acres to allow an applicant to meet that 10,000 square foot size limit. So we would actually be limiting our current landowners that have a 10-acre parcel from being able to seek a conditional use from what they were able to do previously. So staff did recommend shifting that language just a bit to state that 2% of the square footage of the property or area or 10,000 square feet, whichever is greater. This allows for greater continuity between the current land use or current conditional uses that are available to those who own AB property and those who might come into it and keep a larger land size. So staff looked at this and found that it was reasonable in association with the intent of the zone in the zoning ordinance and some of the recommendations of the rural land management plan, as well as some of the established language that is currently within the zoning ordinance, specifically associated with the 2005 text amendment to the AR zone. So staff is recommending approval. The proposed amendment is reflective of that intent of the AV zone. It allows for a little bit more conformity with the allowable conditional uses in the AR zone. and the conditional uses in the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center have less of an impact because it is along that established interstate interchange. So the lighting, the sound, that is really tied to what's already there and that was the underlying findings of fact that the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council recommended for approval with the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment in 2005. Staff also found that the text amendment is very limited in scope and it will not threaten the agricultural economy of the rural service area. This is really tied to the fact that it is trying to keep property together rather than subdividing. Should someone subdivide to 10-acre lots, they would still be allowed to have the provisions of the conditional uses that are allowed in the current ordinance. Also, finally, the proposed tax amendment does promote that keeping of land together and would allow for a transition back to a more traditional agricultural production rather than having to have a 10-acre lot with larger structures on it trying to transition back to something else. There is a limitation by having that large structure on such a small lot and the impact that it could have on adjacent land uses. So staff is recommending approval of the modified text that staff has provided. If you have any questions, staff would be happy to answer them right now. Yes. I've got a question. Yes, sir. On the allowable or the calculation of it, I'm not going to say this right, sports fields, like a tennis court or a softball field, is that considered in the current 10,000 square feet? Is that considered part of it? Is that built or is it indoor facility? We are talking about structures. So the applicant is seeking to incorporate indoor facilities as part of this tax amendment. You cannot currently have indoor facilities in the agricultural buffer area. All outdoor fields, tennis courts, things like that, those are not considered structures so that they don't count into that 10,000 square feet. In this case, I believe that the applicant is seeking to provide a training center associated with some of their fields that are established. All right. Thanks. Yes, Mr. Davis. Hal, during our zoning committee meeting, it was either you or your applicant mentioned, well, this is currently and has been nonconforming. Can you refresh my memory on that? The applicant has gone through the process of obtaining a conditional use through that 2005 text amendment to allow for the outdoor fields with the lighting and the limited concession on site. I believe that the applicant has built greater than what they are allowed to on site. And I think the applicant can address that a little bit more. Okay, sure. That's fair. How large is this parcel? So this is a 50-acre parcel. So what is 2% of 50 acres? So this is, and I don't want to focus too much on the specific parcel of land, just because it is a text amendment for the whole of the AB zone. So it would allow 2% of whatever the land use or land holder would have, or 10,000 square feet, whichever is greater. within uh and again the planning commission during the zone change process can also look at certain properties and say this is not appropriate for that kind of size and the board of adjustment also can say with an application this is not appropriate for this particular parcel um so there are various different levels that that would have to go through and various review and then in the staff report the third justification about Let me find it. Returning to a farm. The proposed amendment promotes the retention of larger lots, which would allow for an easier transition back to a traditional agricultural land use. Should a conditional use no longer be active? Can you elaborate on that rationale? Yes. So whenever we're looking at conditional uses, they are reviewed annually. They are only able to be utilized so long as the Planning Commission or the Board of Adjustment approves their use. should a property be no longer applicable under a conditional use or that conditional use be taken away from them, they would be held to the principal primary uses of the zone. Staff had some concern about whether or not a property that was 10 acres with a 10,000 square foot structure would be more easily transitioned back to an agricultural property or use, But with a property that's 50 acres or a property that's 35 or somewhere closer to some of the agricultural requirements, there would be a situation in which they could maybe move back to something that deals with the equine industry or has the available space, since they are only proposing a 2% of the overall area, to go back and do some of crop production, horticultural production. Any further questions? Yes, Ms. Nicker. Hal, I got a question. This came up last week. Would this change in language allow for better usage of some of these smaller sites that are in the AB zone? Because they sometimes get counted as vacant and unutilized. They sometimes get counted in their... So I believe that none of this area out in the rural service area would be considered vacant or underutilized as an agricultural property. When we're talking about vacant and underutilized, and Mr. Woodall is not here yet, he'll be here shortly, I believe that when they are looking at that, they are specifically looking at urbanized zones and getting into our agricultural urban. That would be the only zone that would be considered as an agricultural zone that could be vacant or underutilized. When we're talking about the rural service area, if there is some sort of agricultural production going on, if there is some sort of residential activity going on on those properties, or a conditional use, which brings them into the zone, that is not vacant nor is it underutilized. Okay, so what you're saying is the larger commercial farms are 35 acres plus. Everything in between is not considered vacant and unutilized, but it's also not considered, what's the alternative? It's not considered conforming. So let's say you have a property that is two acres in size in the agricultural rural area. That would be a non-conforming property because they do not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, specifically the 40-acre lot size. In this case, if an applicant came in and they made an adequate case, they could, on a four-acre property, seek to build a structure that would be 10,000 square feet with the approval of the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Commission. Again, I want to stress that all of the AB zone right now is completely conforming because we haven't had anything that has come in to ask with a smaller lot size or anything like that. And I think that would be a point in time in which the Planning Commission would have the ability to go ahead and say, well, this is a small lot. We want to limit the size of a structure which is within your right with conditional zoning restrictions. Okay, thank you. Okay, yes. Mr. Bell? Excuse me. How much do you worry about the precedence of this? So, Mr. Bell, it is whenever we are looking at these types of changes to our zoning ordinance, we want to make sure that we're doing it into the context of the intent of the zone, as well as making sure that we are meeting the provisions or some of the recommendations of the rural land management plan. That is the guiding document that the rural land management board has provided the staff to go through and make sure that we are making adjustments that would be in context or making recommendations or changes that are in agreement. In this case, staff sees that this potential change would allow a little bit more use of the AB zone exclusively, not change anything in the AR zone, not seek to amend the AR zone, but allow for a little bit of a change in that buffer area that would allow for a transition from more urbanized zones to our agriculturally sensitive areas in our rural area. It also would allow for that buffer between other communities. Jesmond County does not have a restriction on the lot size greater than 10 acres for many of their properties. So there is a need to make those adequate transitions and staff believes that this is in agreement with those recommendations of the AB zone. In terms of precedent, it would not create a precedent in the AR zone, nor would it create a precedent to change or make major changes throughout the AB. It is relatively limited in scope, and the changes for the outdoor fields is actually representative of what is currently allowed within the AR zone. So staff sees that there is continuity there. Any further questions for staff? Oh, one more. Ms. Worth? I remember in the hearings before the Board of Adjustment when they were looking at this, I think it was the soccer stadium before it got earlier in the process. And staff had put in some restrictions on lighting in terms of hours of lighting, put in some restrictions regarding broadcasting, I don't want to say broadcasting, but loudspeakers, that sort of thing. is that something if this moves forward is that something we could put in as conditions in here? It wouldn't be in here as this is the zoning ordinance. You could add some restrictions in there, modify the language, but I think that most of the time when we're looking at adding restrictions onto certain properties during either the zone change process with you all or the BOA process, then that would be the time that a condition can be applied to the property. This does go back to the fact that there is a fair amount of oversight to any type of change that would occur or modification of the landscape that could be brought up so that we could have a conversation about specific land, placement of uses, making sure there are adequate buffers. Okay, thank you. Well. Yes, Mr. Bigger. Sir. Well, just a clarification to that point so that I understand where we're at now. Now, in the way that this zone is currently, is lighting or loudspeakers allowed? In the AR zone, yes. The lighting is allowed, not the loudspeakers. Okay. In the AB, it is not. So currently the lighting and loudspeakers are not allowed. Correct. So there would be no point in putting a condition on it. we're just reviewing whether or not to change it to allow it. Correct. Got it. Okay. Thank you, Hal. Thank you. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of SARE School. There are several members of the SARE community that are here with me today. I know Emily Coles, the chairman of the board, excuse me, is here. Fellow board member Joe Palumbo, the headmaster, Stephen Manilla, is here. Aaron Simmerman, who is actually the kind of the athletics facilities director. And also Chad Pennington, who is one of the head coaches for one of the programs that utilizes the Sarah Athletics Center, which we all kind of just call the SAC. We are here for a zoning ordinance text amendment. That is just to determine whether or not this language should be adopted in the AB zone. We, if approved, this site, which is currently zoned AR, will have to come back to you all and go through a zone change process. We'll have to get a development plan approved. We also will have to get a conditional use permit as well that specifies all of the conditions that you all would want on this site with regards to lighting, hours of operations, anything that you all would want to basically put on this site. Today, we are just trying to see if basically a use that exists today in the AR zone, which is more restrictive and more protective in the rural land management plan, should also exist in the agricultural buffer zone, which is actually slated to be slightly more intense than the AR zone. One of the kind of interesting things while going through this process has been the fact that the AR zone is actually more intense than the agricultural buffer zone when you look at the conditional uses. It's flipped with regards to the intent of the rural land management plan. We're trying to take one of those intense uses and shift it to the agricultural buffer zone in order to make sure that this is not something that can be utilized in the AR zone throughout the rural service area. Just to kind of give you all a perspective of where we are, this is where the Sarah Athletic Complex is. It is north of the Blue Sky Industrial Parkway. It is outside of the interstate, and it's off kind of cane break drive. While I know this is not a site-specific discussion today, After everything we've kind of been through for the past year, I think it's really important to kind of talk about what we're actually really asking for and what we are not. We've been working with the staff, I've been working with the staff since at least May of last year on how to make sure we bring this site into complete conformity with the zoning ordinance and the kind of rural land management plan intention for the different zoning. And Sarah was working on this long before I even got involved. And it was, we'll just say, very concerning to continue to hear the Sarah's name tied to the other facilities that were basically going through this process. I can't tell you how many times I heard, well, we just want what they want, or what they have, excuse me. That is not even close to the reality whatsoever. and so I wanted to kind of just kind of make sure that we address the elephant in the room as quickly as possible. We're trying to make sure that we bring this type of use in the most restrictive location of the most restrictive kind of zoning area in all of Fayette County. And so before we get into kind of the AB aspect of it, I do want to kind of explain what it is that we are proposing and actually show you a site plan so there's no confusion whatsoever on what we're really actually talking about and what we're not, because I personally am a big believer in sunshine, being able to see what we're talking about. Here is the actual parcel itself. You can see that we are, in fact, adjacent to the Blue Sky Parkway. I have circled kind of the main athletic building that is there today to kind of give you all some context as you kind of see some pictures moving forward. What we are wanting to do is to create a training facility that allows us to have a year-round, basically, training complex weight room for our students. Our students alone. This is not for the public. This is not to be rented out. This is not for anyone besides SARE students themselves. It does not have AC. It is an indoor-outdoor kind of facility with a lot of roll doors. There are not public facilities associated with this. There are not bathrooms associated with this. It is basically a turf course and weight room. It is not an elaborate kind of training facility that we are going to be bringing people in from kind of out of state in the area, anything kind of like this. This is where the facility will be located. That is the kind of main athletic building that I had circled previously. so it is very much internal to the site and not on the outskirts of any of the properties here is the kind of site plan uh that will have to come back to you all again we're going to have to bring a development plan in order to make sure that you all are entirely comfortable with what we are proposing on this site and while i you know have this up here i do want to reiterate what uh mr bailey had indicated before uh everything that is out here on this property as far as the lighting goes um and the concessions was entirely vetted by the board of adjustment the loudspeakers themselves were actually even discussed about when they would be installed at the board of adjustment this is not anything that was unknown to anybody it was a recognition of what we're talking about this was mom and dad selling popcorn at the games it was just calling the game it is not any type of loud commercial operation in any way, shape, or form. But basically, why are we here, essentially? When we went to bring the new plans to building inspection for this facility, we started to realize that there was an issue. That the issue comes from the language right there, of a total of 10,000 square feet shall be the maximum allowable for all structures proposed for such uses. we have several structures out there permitted through building inspection there was a confusion on the 10 000 square feet what that applies to i think sarah certainly was under this impression and i believe building inspection was as well that that was talking about lot coverage because throughout the zoning ordinance that's what we talk about when we're talking about square footage restrictions it's lot coverage it's not talking about second floor of structures and unfortunately you know that is not the case this is 10 000 square feet for all square footage in all structures and i say all structures because we have a barn on site it was predated the sack being there all it does is have a tractor in there to take care of basically all of the other acreage that's out there not the facility itself but that counts even though it's an agricultural structure it counts we kind of assumed that it didn't i think building spectral assumed that it didn't because it was all structures proposed for such uses we didn't think that the agricultural barn on site counted towards what our conditional use permit was but it does and that's a-okay and as soon as we found this out i got involved i got in touch with planning and we started working this but it was also right at the time when we were getting the Newtown Pike kind of applications, the ZOTAs that were going on there, and we just basically said, we're going to sit this out, we're going to let that controversy go, and then we're going to come back with what we think is the most kind of reasonable request that we certainly can make. And we've been working with a whole lot of people, with staff, with stakeholders, in order to try to find the least controversial, most protective way possible to achieve what we want to do while also focusing on what our community has told us. We have heard the concerns that the ag area, the AR zone, is under attack by death by a thousand Zotas. We've heard that. We've also heard what you all have told us. You're tired of site-specific text amendments. You don't want to see them anymore. That's just a way to get around a zoning ordinance for a specific site. We understand that. We also see what the comprehensive plan basically stresses with regards to the tenants of equity, talking about basically equality for all types of uses and focus on what is right to do for everyone, not just kind of one site. And so we have been talking about a whole lot of different ways with both stakeholders and staff on how to skin this cat. And it hasn't been easy. We kind of first looked at, okay, what is the easiest route possible? We're in the AR zone. We're an existing user. All we need is additional square footage. Let's make a text amendment just like the churches did. Let's just add square footage for a school. we'll tie it to athletic or athletic complexes for a school it will be very specific we'll keep the requirement north or the adjacent to blue sky and then we'll only be under the board of adjustments purview that's the easy way to sairs infamous credit when i laid out all of the issues when i laid out the controversies that were going on they chose the hard way they chose the most protective they said let's actually go to what we're supposed to be in the rural land management plan rural land management plan calls out the sarah athletic complex it calls out that it's supposed to be in the agricultural buffer zone that zone is supposed to be more intense than the ar zone so let's take our use that is more intense than what i think that the ag community wanted it to be and let's put it in the right zone let's bring it into compliance with the rural land management board they made that decision knowing that this controversy was going to occur that then we have to come back to you all for a zone change development plan and conditional use permit that you can add additional conditions that aren't on the site today they chose the hard path because quite frankly it's the right one the agricultural buffer zone is the smallest that we have in the rural service area and the smallest it is in Fayette County. 1.97 percent of the rural service area is what the agricultural buffer zone is supposed to be one day. It's not close to that. There's about 200 total acres that is zoned AB. These are the sites I give Mr. Bailey credit. He has better animation on his PowerPoint but we had the exact same idea. These are the only areas in Fayette county we are talking about there are only four areas that could be impacted by this use is also basically if you look at it the kind of the rural land management plan separates out what is the core agricultural and rural land and what is everything else it specifically calls out that the buffer area is not the core agricultural or the rural land it is designed to be different They specifically looked at it and said, where do we need buffering from existing users today in order to make sure that our farmers are protected moving forward? And these are the sites that were specifically selected to be able to handle more intensity and desire to have more intensity in order to buffer something like Blue Sky Industrial Parkway. The Rural Land Management Board back in 1999, it even called out basically in this second sentence right here, these areas could allow for more uses of slightly intensified uses than those recommended in the CARL and NAT, which is the AR and the AN zones. The policy conclusion also said this is to allow more intense and varied land use than those in the AR and the AN to create suitable buffers and transition zones. Yet, as today, this exact use is permitted in the AR zone. It's more intense than what is allowed in the AB zone. And that is why we think it is more proper to be shifting this use to the AB zone, where you are limiting the areas of town that are impacted. You're limiting the acreage that is impacted. and you're making sure the entirety of the rest of the ar zone is not impacted by what is kind of what we heard for months was slightly more intense than was necessary here's what the updated buffer the rural land management plan said it follows the exact same basically categories and it even fits in with exactly what we're saying in the recommendations it calls specifically for adding the conditional uses but i would like to kind of highlight number two this is why what i think this is the the kind of language why i think what we are doing is so important it talks about any proposed development must be rigorously reviewed to ensure its compatibility with the surrounding areas that's what we're subjecting ourselves to is that type of rigorous review in order to make sure we're doing right by the stakeholders right by the community because they're our families too so you take a step forward that's what the rural land management plan calls for in you know the future if everything goes into that way right now this is the only two areas that are actually zoned agricultural buffer they're only off tates creek road most of them are residential there are a A couple of basically parcels that are off Crowley Lane and Blacksmith Ridge. There are nine piano keys. Their average acreage is 11.89 with the largest track being 16.55. It is my understanding those are basically residentially restricted parcels. And then, of course, the Talon wines, the Talon estates that you all had just approved. Eleven of those, again, are residential restricted with the Talon winery being the exception. And this is why I think it is so important to be basically explaining why we are going this route and why we think it's the right call. All of this power remains with the Planning Commission. Any property that wants to switch over to agricultural buffer, the limited ones that are eligible to. I meant to probably mention this before. Unlike our comprehensive plan, the rural land management plan still has a zoning map. It's not one of those where I get to just justify I should be agricultural buffer even though I'm in the middle of an AR zone. The rural land management plan has a zoning map limiting the properties that could be eligible for this. Zoning map? No, there's a difference. There's a difference. I apologize. And this is why I defer to staff so much. so anytime someone wants to come into the ab zone in order to take advantage of this conditional use permit request that we're asking for they have to come to you all you will not only get your typical conditional zoning restriction power you get all of the powers of board of adjustments you get to talk about like hours of operations you get to talk about basically how far off you want things you get to talk about anything under the sun because that tends to be how the board of adjustment operates when they try to put conditions on things all of that power now rests with you all when you bring a zone change in you have to bring in the development plan that becomes a zoning development plan any major modification to that plan has to come back to you guys so it's not a situation where there could be any type of bait and switch where we get a zone change for 100 acres of basically AB zone. We just show a subdivision parcel and then we take it to the board of adjustment and try to do different type of conditional uses and skirt the planning commission's power. That probably would represent a major change to a development plan, I'm guessing, that staff would interpret. And that means it comes back to you guys. And so we think that this application is taking into respect exactly the concerns that we heard from the ag community throughout the process that just happened with the other athletic fields. It is making sure that this body retains full authority. It's not a situation where it's going to the Board of Adjustment, and then you all have to deal with the fallout of a decision that's already been made. It's being respectful of the zoning ordinance, the comprehensive plan, and the rural land management plan. It's taking a property that is basically non-conforming with what the desire of the rural land management plan is and turning it into conformity. So I'm happy to answer any kind of questions. We understand the sensitivity of this soda in the ag land. I think it's also an indication of what we are asking for that you aren't seeing kind of a litany of neighbors in the area being very concerned about the impact that it's going to have on their agricultural life and their residential kind of peace and happiness. Just the opposite, in fact. In the packet of letters that Hal passed out, you actually have our neighbors. You have our neighbors in support of this project. You have our neighbors that have been dealing with the loudspeakers, the lighting, and the concessions since around 2006. It hasn't disturbed the agricultural effect of the property. It has not disturbed their peace of mind as their residential houses. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. We do believe that this is a very restricted request because of the AB zone. I believe I did the math and it is only 0.01 acreage or percent of the acreage of all of Fayette County could one day be agricultural buffer. So if you all have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. I do believe there are some members of the SARE community that will speak in support of this as well. But if you all have questions now, happy to answer them. Thank you. Questions? Yes, Ms. Worth? Thank you. This is a question about the meaning of the text for proposed conditional use number 21. Yes, ma'am. Do you have that in front of you? I do not. The proposed text from the staff or the proposed staff language. If you could pull up Howell's presentation, I'm sure. So just to get you thinking about it. This is the part after the semicolon that says, but only when located immediately to the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center defined in the adopted comprehensive plan. Correct. Does that apply to the entire 21 or only one part of that? So that applies to the entirety of 21. So basically, so. One more. There we go. So I read that as everything. The entirety of 21 is required there. So the reason why I hesitated, correct. The reason why I hesitated is there is outdoor recreational facilities allowed in the AB zone. I wanted to make sure that any requests that we are talking about with regards to lighting loudspeakers did not apply to like the other outdoor facilities, such as the zoological garden, sportsman's club, et cetera. Number seven? Yes, and so I wanted to make sure that it was very clear that this was just for the athletic facilities and tied it to blue sky because that's the exact same language that is currently today in AR. Okay. So, Mr. Chair, following on Commissioner Wirth's question, Mr. Nicholson, That 21 applies to Blue Sky. However, the preceding language is countywide. Correct. Well, no, not countywide. Only in the agricultural buffer zone. Right. AB countywide, not Blue Sky. Correct. So 0.01% of the county. That's what it applies to. I own a quarter acre lot in town, so please tell me how much I own. And then I think it's important, even though it is a very small percentage, to the people that own it, it's their property. Absolutely. And that's why I thought it was very important to put into the record that the people that are impacted by this specific use that exists today, that we're not really asking to change in any way, shape, or form. We're asking to add 5,000 square feet to it. Yeah. And I want to be very clear. I'm very, very sympathetic to the applicant because I understand. You know, the playing field is not necessarily level. So the reason I'm having concerns is because it is countywide and 2% of 50 acres is a significant number. And I know that's not. Sorry. Well, so to address that point, what's wonderful is it does not give us the right to have that. You all get to tell us if we get that. You all get to restrict what you all think would be appropriate for that square footage. The 2%, I took that straight from the, excuse me, like I'm suddenly blanking on the PDR easements. So the 2% of the acreage came from the PDR program. That's what I thought was interesting. Was that impervious surface? It's impervious surface. And so the people that actually were willing to basically tell the city, we do not ever want to see development on our property. We're going to say 2% of the entire farm can be impervious total. And so for a development that has not given any type of basically conservation easement whatsoever, to use that same type of metric but apply it to square footage, I thought was a no-brainer. Well, I was on the Rural Land Management Board, I think, for six years. And my understanding was that the impervious surface basically came from the federal government. If you're going to take federal money, you can't have more than 2% of your property under impervious surface. And for farms, as you know, that goes into roads, barns, everything for agricultural use. Now, I understand we're in the AB, which is by its definition a buffer. My concerns really are we're changing the code countywide and a total of 2%. You're not talking about roads or buildings for agricultural. You're talking about something entirely different. So, again, I am not opposed to this intended use. I'm just concerned about the very broad implications. And that's the beautiful part. We have built in backstop after backstop after backstop to make sure that this body gets to say what your square footage exactly is. It's not a guarantee in any way, shape, or form. You all get to say, because of the conditions of any given parcel that is asking for this conditional use, whatever that conditional use might be, because of what it is, I think you should only have 10,000 square feet. You can also look at a parcel and go, this thing is 80 acres, and you are talking about spreading four buildings across 80 acres to support an athletic field? Yeah, okay, I think you all can get 30,000, 20,000, 15,000. It just allows an upward deviation if you guys think it's appropriate after your rigorous review of that development as called for in the rural land management plan. Mr. Nichol, you look like you wanted to ask a question. I'm doing some work here trying to get. It's to me just not logical that the AR zone, in regards to what we're talking about, is less restrictive than the buffer. I don't get that. I'm looking through all the documents. I don't get it. It is because text amendments have come before you since 1999. And most of them were concerned about acreage that was outside of the incredibly limited area. That the rural land management plan allows to be agricultural buffer. And so they get added there, no one thinks about agricultural buffer because it's so limited. And we kind of just lucked out that our parcel is in the buffer zone, giving us that beautiful compromise of we hear the concerns about countywide impact. We hear the concerns about being too intense. But what we're doing is taking an AR use today and adding restrictions to it, bringing it into an AB zone. And in order to do that, we just have to change the language to basically allow for that uptick in intensity that really is allowed in the AR zone. Well, I mean, that is logical and that makes sense to how we ended up that way. My concern would be why would we limit this change to only those that immediately adjacent to the blue sky rural activity center that's the concern that i have and that's just for the effort to allow lighting loudspeakers concession stands for athletic fields the two percent applies to the entirety of agricultural buffer so the adjacent to the blue sky uh industrial park is exactly the language that is in the agricultural rural zone today we're just moving that into the agricultural buffer as well And so the restriction is just for this particular use in general, not all conditional uses and not the square footage. All right. Thank you. Yes, Robin. Well, I have a question in relation to, I guess, a bit of that background that you shared regarding the square footage. definition of whether it includes the agricultural buildings or not. It does. And so that includes the agricultural buildings. Is there, I mean, in our rural zone, you can get a permit for operating a nursery like we have that allows some greenhouse construction or greenhouse permit, which allows building construction. Barns are common, can be pretty extensive depending on the number of stables and that kind of thing. What is the background? Because there can be fairly extensive square footage involved with a farm operation. I walked down the same path as you did. Like when I first got this, I was like, well, there's no way. I mean, agricultural structures are massive throughout the place or throughout the community. What kicks it into gear is once you have subjected a conditional use permit, that language applies. That language came, you know, 24 years ago. I think it came probably before you would have had kind of larger commercial nurseries there. It's one of these things that we're trying to basically update the zoning ordinance to recognize what reality is. and I'm doing it the best I can to make sure that you're not doing anything too fast. You still get that backstop there. We talked with legal. We talked with planning truly about, like, are we sure agricultural buildings apply? Are we sure a second story that's just storage facility that applies? It does. And I understand it. I didn't love it, but I understood it. And so that's why we are here seeking kind of just what we view as very slight relief and truly the most limited zoning category Lexington has to offer. Yeah, Nick, in 21, second line all the way to the right starts with but. It says but without retail sales of merchandise. Yes. Explain that condition and how it plays with the rest of that. Oh, we heard everybody. We heard the concerns. We very much heard that it was like, well, like, is the evildoer going to turn this into Walmart? Is fan outfitters going to go in right there? That's not what we're talking about in any way, shape, or form. And so we wanted to be very clear. Like, this is the principal use here is for recreation facilities. It is not to try to get a retail operation in any way, shape, or form. it's why we left the limited concession sales is the exact language from the board of adjustment approval we didn't want to say food service because we didn't want to get into does that mean food trucks does that mean a restaurant we took the exact language because this is what we're talking about it's mom and pop selling popcorn at the game it's making sure a hot dog can be there for a little brother during the middle of a football game thank you yep mr I'm sure you thought of this and chose not to do it for a good reason, but tell me, say you own a 50-acre parcel, and in the AB, you can divide it into 10-acre tracks, I'm sure with road frontage requirements, but if the applicant needs roughly 5,000 square feet, why not divide into smaller tracks and build what you want? So we looked at that. That was another one of the avenues we kind of went down. And then you get into basically trying to draw lot lines around athletic fields that make no sense. You are basically then having to come back and seek. Again, we were in the AR at that point. And so we would have to add acreage in order to get to the 80 acres and then try to subdivide in a kind of roundabout manner that would keep basically the 10,000 square feet on each type of parcel. We went down that route. You have a lot of problems with regards to making sure that you can lay out an athletic complex that would make sense where you're stealing acreage on different parcels. And it just, it did not work. And I think also planning had a great concern about atypical parcel shapes, essentially. So I guess, is that the correct term? We are asking, I do understand the rationale about, I understand where it came from on the 2% and how the 10,000 feet was kind of not working. And what I'm trying to wrap my head around is why did we go, and maybe this is best directed to staff, why did we go to 2% of the property knowing that there is maybe a parcel out there that's 50 acres? If you need 5 and the 10 wasn't working, why didn't we go to that number? What was it, 11,800? 100, or why the 2% which on this property has such a significant impact? Knowing full well that there's the ultimate backstop. If you all do not believe that one, that the use itself would require that much square footage, or that that use could cause an adverse impact, you get to say no. You can say you get 8,000 square feet. like there's no guarantee that you get 10 000 square feet when you ask for a conditional use permit here and so it is entirely within this body's power to just say no in the two percent again it came you know straight out of the pdr uh ordinance or not ordinance but the agreements and so that's why uh it gave you flexibility that is entirely kind of within your discretion Rarely does the planning commission not like having more power. And so we thought we should give you all as much power as possible over these types of applications. Anyone else? Okay, thank you. Thank you all. I believe there are- Yeah, do we have any- In the audience. Okay, I was gonna ask, do we have any citizens that would like to speak on this particular application? do so by stepping up to the podium. Chairman Forrester and members of the Planning Commission, my name is Emily Coles and I'm here today in my capacity as chairman of Sayers Board of Trustees. Sayers main campus has been rooted downtown since 1854, excuse me, and we represent one of the our longest standing commitments to Lexington's urban core. In 2006, we moved the fall and spring outdoor sports teams to the athletic complex, which I think Nick referenced earlier is what we call the SAC. Since that time, our students have used the SAC for practices and games. We take great pride in where our SAC is located. It's a very unique location. When you pull onto Canebrook off of Athens-Boonsboro Road or congested I-75, which is right there, we find the beauty of a small horse paddock. You see Kentucky-rich tobacco farms. And in certain times of the year, you see sunflowers growing, a sunflower field. To continue our commitment to Lexington and our neighbors that surround the SAC, For the past 15 plus years, we have strategically incorporated the various athletic fields, parking, tennis courts, equipment shed or barn, and locker rooms on our current 50 acres so that our presence has the least impact on our community. And our request before you today is no different. We took the most difficult path, as Nick pointed out, seeking the proposed AB zone to maintain the beautiful landscape and what will have the least impact on our neighbors, some of whom wrote letters to you in support of our request. Sayers' text amendment proposes to increase the allowable square footage for conditional uses in the AB Zone by tying it to the total acreage of the property instead of the current limitation of 10,000 square feet, which will allow for the AB zone to fulfill its intent of transitioning from the urban areas to agricultural areas while maintaining the larger lot configurations within the AB zone. The primary reason, as Nick explained, for us needing the additional square footage is because we're hoping to construct what I like to call a very modest indoor training facility. We have no bathrooms, no air conditioning, no plumbing. Then why do we even need such a facility? The idea started in the fall. Is my time up? Okay. Does that mean I'm done or can I finish? I feel. Thank you. I would like to. What happened? I'm asking Chairman Forrester, may I? I have. Yeah, they don't change their time. Oh, okay. Yeah. May I have two minutes, please? Two minutes, how about we bargain go one minute. Yeah. One minute? Yes. Okay. The idea, thank you. You will. The idea started in the fall of 2021 when a storm came rolling through. We heard sirens and pulled all the athletic teams together. The girls' soccer teams, the runners, the football players. We all tried to take cover under what we would call the only shelter that we had, which is technically a small breezeway in between the locker rooms and the bathrooms. The conversation grew about how we might be able to use a facility for our children. In summary, I hope that you have a better understanding about why this request is necessary. This is not some mega athletic recreational facility that some have portrayed it to be with mega speaker systems or mega lights or concessions where we might be trying to make a profit off merchandise. Frankly such a representation of our request is insulting and it's outside of our core values of wisdom, integrity and compassion. We are comfortable and confident with the Sayers request that it is within the purviews of the comprehensive plan and upholds the principles of equity to our community and especially to our neighbors. And I appreciate the extra time and we respectfully request your consideration. Thank you. Okay. Is there anyone else? Ms. Rothenmeier. Thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I know it's been a long afternoon. Brittany Rothmeier, Executive Director of Fayette Alliance. We certainly understand Sayre's request to increase the size of their athletic facilities for their students and know that they do so with good intentions. But this soda does far more than accommodate those requests, opening the door to dangerous precedent throughout the rural area. We realize it's not SARE's intention, but the continued request for expanded conditional uses and the sizes of those uses in the rural service area dilute the intent of our ag zones to promote and support the ag economy. The ZODA is inconsistent with the intent of the AB zone and the Rural Land Management Plan's recommendation for this zone to create suitable transitional areas and their recommendation that land uses in the AB zone should be predominantly residential and or small hoarder farm uses and limited, keyword being limited conditional uses. SARA requests the ZODA to operate a facility that will not be for commercial uses, but the policy change requested permits both commercial and non-commercial facilities. Regardless of their site plan, the ZODA opens the door for others to use the same provisions. The ZODA would also permit any of the 17 additional conditional uses in the AB zone to take advantage of the changes in square footage requirements that far surpass the 10,000 square foot current limit. Based on the 50 acre property, they could build structures associated with the conditional use amounting to over 40,000 square feet, which is about the size of the Whole Foods at the summit. The staff report notes that the proposal is limited in scope and that it would encourage larger lots within the AB zone to allow an easier transition back to a traditional agricultural land use, should a conditional use no longer be active. I greatly respect the staff and their expertise, but in this case, these reasons for approval seem inconsistent with the intent of the AB zone. The changes introduce a new, more broad, and more intense conditional use in the AB zone, create an option for a property owner to almost quadruple the size of existing structures in the AB zone for use that is not agricultural. We believe that permitting an increase in the size of a conditional use would make it more difficult for a non-ag use to turn back into an ag use. Destroying, in this case, structures covering 40,000 square feet instead of 10,000 square feet would be more expensive to complete and take destruction of more land to bring it back to an ag use. Increasing the size of a conditional use permitted would absolutely discourage a purchaser of these types of property to turn it back into an ag use. Overall, the ZODA is inconsistent with the Rural Land Management Plan's recommendations for the AB zone, which is the policy guide for land use in the rural service area. We believe that it continues to dilute the intent of the zones in the rural service area, and the negative unintended consequences of this ZODA proposal are too significant. This proposal changes and proposes changes to the zoning ordinance to accommodate Sayers' development. But what about the next development? What about the next development? I'm just going to ask for 30 more seconds if I could. Chair, just 30, 30 seconds. But what about the next development? What about the next development and the next property owner that tries to use the same justification? These changes impacts far more than just Sayers' well-intentioned development. As a result, we request that the Planning Commission disapprove this request. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Let's see if there's one else. Mr. Nicholson, you back up. Three very quick points. While you could claim you were opening the door, the good news is the Rural Land Management Plan and the Planning Commission are the bouncers at that door. They are ones that are standing there at that door saying whether or not something is or is not in compliance with what the rural land management board or rural land management plan requires. And that is a very meticulous scrutiny of a development. It does not give free reign to have commercial developments. It has to again be proven that it is in compliance with rural land management plan before you all would grant a zone change. change and then you also get to restrict the amount of square footage through the conditional use permit process and through a development plan process so if the concern is the next development the answer is you guys are there as the bouncers for that next development with regards to that this particular use could lead to an increase that's one of the reasons why you have the the the tie-in to has to be adjacent to the Blue Sky Parkway or Blue Sky Industrial Park. Sarah already owns a majority of the land that is slated for buffer and could be adjacent to the Blue Sky Parkway. There's a small sliver of property that also hits a corner that is adjacent and something that would be taken into consideration by this body if that would be considered to be adjacent to the Blue Sky Parkway. And again, this is a total square footage for all structures on the property that are subjected to a conditional use permit that includes farms and so it would not be the 40 000 kind of foot or 40 000 whole foods that would be going on there this is a limited increase on our existing site if if we get this textment approved if you all approve a zone change if you approve a development plan and the conditional use permit Thank you, guys. Thank you, Ms. Nix. Hal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to make just a few quick corrections. When there was the discussion about who controls the conditional use, yes, the Planning Commission all too often will review a conditional use during the zone change application, but that doesn't need to happen. Sometimes what will happen is an applicant will come in for a zone change and then seek BOA approval. That still gives the Planning Commission the ability to recommend conditional zoning restrictions on the property that would potentially impact a conditional use on the site. Staff would just like to also point out that with the agricultural building that's currently on the site, it is not being utilized for an agricultural use. As soon as the applicant went through the conditional use process, they started utilizing it as storage for their conditional use on site. So it tied to that conditional use. That was one of the reasons why it was counted in towards the 10,000 square feet. If there was a separate agricultural operation on the site, if they were growing corn and they had a combine in there, that would be associated not with the conditional use, but with that agricultural use and would not have that same kind of connection. Staff also would like to point out that we are cognizant that this is adding a conditional use into the AB zone. However, the proposed conditional use by the applicant is currently allowable as a commercial or non-commercial operation as an outdoor field with the agricultural rural zone. So staff does see that this would be an appropriate buffer or an allowable increase of use to allow for some indoor commercial or non-commercial outdoor recreational field. So there is a tie between that in which we are lessening the intensity as we are going out into the agricultural area. So there is a clear connection between what is currently allowable within the AR zone and what the applicant is proposing in the AB zone. If you have any questions, staff is available. Thank you, Hal. And we got a question here from McInnes. Yeah, I have a question for staff regarding the square footage. of structures related to agricultural structures. Yes, sir. Is it the staff's interpretation that the current zoning ordinance would limit agricultural structures to 10,000 square feet? It would not limit an agricultural structure that is not associated with a conditional use. If it is associated with a principal primary use or a principal primary use in the zone, that is what that would be tied to. But if it's associated with conditional uses? It would count. So conditional uses such as greenhouse operations or nursery operations would be limited to the same 10,000, even though those are agricultural conditional uses. Currently, the way the zoning ordinance is written, it is a conditional use within the zone rather than an agricultural use. And any tie with that conditional use would be tied to that. If it was tied to another use on the property, a principal use, then it would be tied to that. Well, I guess I was asking in part because earlier in the presentation, my thought went to, well, if the zoning text just said 10,000 square feet except for agricultural structures, then that would enable them to achieve their goal. But you're saying this other one doesn't count as an agricultural structure because of the use. So I do want to point out the conditional use associated with plant nurseries is not held to the 10,000 square foot restriction. Those first three uses that are associated with the AB zone are not limited to a 10,000 square foot restriction. I know that is a lot of text up there. I wasn't particularly trying to show this off before. But those first three uses, which is hospitals for large animals, including equine hospitals, plant nurseries, and home-based businesses are not restricted to the 10,000 square foot limitation. All other conditional uses within the AV zone, and this is reflected in the AR zone, are restricted to that 10,000 square foot. Understood. But then based on your all's interpretation, even if the zoning ordinance were to read 10,000 square feet except for agricultural structures, their proposal in your mind would still not be in compliance because the barn does count because it's not an agricultural structure if they use it for their support. It is a garage at this point for their storage of materials associated with their operation. It has been pointed out at the BOA hearings that it is also being utilized to store various different things for the athletic fields. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Meyer. I have a question. Did you say that an indoor recreational facility is allowed in the AR zone? No, ma'am. Outdoor recreation facilities are allowed in the AR zone. The applicant is seeking to add an additional aspect to the conditional use to allow them to have some indoor facilities. So that is the change with the conditional use here. How can you give us a 15, 30 second history on when the fields and lights went into AR, the zone? The ZODA was proposed in 2005. It was associated with this applicant seeking to have their outdoor fields. They are a downtown entity, so they were trying to apply for some space for their sports. The lighting specifically, and this gets to Mr. Nichols' perspective, the lighting specifically was associated with this Cane Break area and the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center because of the interstate businesses there. That's part of why staff has that in the findings for approval. Okay, so it was the same applicant in 2005. That got it into AR and now is what we're attempting now. Okay, correct. Thank you Hal. Any further questions? You're good to go Hal, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any questions for the commission? We'll bring it back. Any statements, concerns? Yes, Ms. Meyer. I have concerns in that we have, you know, approval with the staff that states that we're allowing for greater conformity with allowable conditional uses within the AR zone. Yet in the AR zone, we have no loudspeakers allowed for a facility like this. We have no restaurants or food services allowed. And as I understood just now, we don't allow indoor recreational facilities. So I question, you know, how are we coming into conformity with the AR zone when we don't allow these? Secondly, you know, with the approval number three, the staff's recommendation with the easier transition back to agricultural land, once you disturb soil it's very hard to get back i i have experienced that recently in having built a house and trying to get that soil around my house uh tillable for a garden for a flower garden so you know and this is this is a small problem related you know in in contrast to what we're talking about you know once it's gone it's gone and what what um you know once you build on it and and you disturb the soil it takes time and effort and money for a farmer to bring it back potential farmers so you know i just i i just i'm having problems with with this and i also feel like we're in we're we're intensifying the use on this property because we're taking it from a seasonal it's using it's used seasonally right now it's outdoor and so we're going to increase the intensity of the use on this property and and i'm very concerned about the long-term ramifications the unintended consequences i'm very sympathetic to sayer and they're polite you know i it's not but what concerns me is that moving forward you know we have a limited amount of ab zone ab land now and that's what we have and and but but we don't know what the result will be if we make if we may if we approve this soda and and what's going to come forward and who who's going going to want some more AB land. That's my concern. Mr. Mova. Yeah, staff, correct me if I heard this wrong, but what I heard was that the ZODA is proposed to change the AB, and if the applicant on land that they own would like to do things on it, they're going to have to come to us for a zone change. We're not changing any land at the moment other than land currently AB. That is Correct, sir. And all current AB land is 10 to 11 acres. Thank you. Mr. Nichol. I would just like to voice, I guess, my desire to intensify the AB zone so it can truly be a buffer zone between AR zone and the contiguous zone. That's the way I feel about it. So that's the statement I wanted to make. it's on record Mr. Bell I've said this before and I'll continue to say it because this isn't what I do for a living but I rely so much on staff and then I try to apply logic and decision making as I think most of us do here because this isn't what we do and for me we've got a number of different filters here to go through in our decision-making besides this one decision here. In the future, we'll have these same filters. This is my specific question to how is this precedent, and I personally was satisfied that with the fact that this isn't precedent, this is a specific situation that we're going to have similar occurrences in the future to do the same. I strongly believe in relevancy and making this community the best it can be and being as relevant as it can be and to grow with the leadership of our staff. And in this case I feel that we are doing that. Just a reminder we have Millridge Farm. we encompass Dunbar we are backed up to Palomar we live with neighbors we live with athletic fields we live with music and have for 25 years and so this idea and I'm not saying it's always perfect but you adapt to these things in order to be relevant to this community One more thing. My grandfather had Beaumont Farm. New Circle Road cut Beaumont Farm back in the 50s. So you all know what Beaumont is today. These are progressions. Manowar Boulevard cut the seven acres that we're getting ready to talk about with regard to the cell tower. Cut our farm the seven acres. This is the evolution of this community. So I just point these different things out that the large picture with regard to specific things. Thank you, Mr. Bill. You want to say something, Mr. Davis? As I've stated, I'm very sympathetic to the applicant because, again, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm very hesitant to again change something that has significant countywide implications to accommodate what today sounds like a perfectly reasonable, perfectly logical use. I think the applicant can accomplish what they want. I absolutely think they can with staff. for me this is just not the way to do it because again it is significant and it's county-wide Mr. Chairman if there's no further discussion I'm ready to make a motion but let's see if uh hold on okay okay um with what uh Sarah is um proposing right now um what kind of square footage are they looking at with the new facility and the existing Yes, yes. So it would be basically a total of including the kind of storage facility, as Mr. Bailey called it, for our tractor house. It is 22,000 square feet, I believe, in total. That was submitted for the record, so let me make sure I quote you accurately. Yeah, it was 22,288 is basically every single under roof kind of structure, and that includes the second story of an athletic building that's basically just, again, for storage. And you all have 50 acres? 51 acres, basically, yes. Okay, so basically 1% is what that works out to be? Yeah. Okay. Mr. Burst? I will say I'm really struggling right now because I appreciate what you've tried to do to do this right, to not come in the back door for that one property and make us look more closely at what the AB zone is all about. On the other hand, the law of unintended consequences makes me very nervous. And, you know, unless somebody can read a crystal ball and tell us what might happen on the downside, it's really hard for me to make this decision. And until I cast my vote, to tell you the truth, I don't know what I'm going to do. Thank you. Okay, we'll close this portion out and open it up for a motion. Hold on, I see Mr. Nickel or Mr. Davis. Mr. Nickel? Well, I was... No, I'm sorry. Mr. Davis had it first. And as I make this motion, Tracy, should I read some findings to back that up now? Well, it depends on what your motion is. A motion for disapproval, I'm sorry. Yes, you need to read findings. All right. Mr. Chairman, I move for disapproval of PLN Zota 22-19 for the following reasons, findings. The proposed amendment does not reflect the intent of the agricultural buffer zone because allowing the increase of the square footage of structures based on the property size does not provide separation between conflicting urban uses and agricultural land, but rather allows for a proliferation of larger structures that are inconsistent with agricultural land uses without providing the necessary separation between urban and agricultural uses. This text amendment is broad in scope and has unintended negative impacts and will threaten the agricultural economy and the primary intentions for land uses in the rural services area. And three, the proposed amendment promotes a harmful expansion of size and scope of non-agriculturally related uses of the AB zone, undermines the intent of the zone, and makes it both less likely that and more difficult for any conditional use to transition back into a traditional agricultural use should the conditional use no longer be active. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Ms. Meyer. Please vote via Granicus. That was denied. The motion fails. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Nickel. All right, I'm going to try the other side of this. I would like to make a motion to approve PLN Zota 22-19, which is the amendment to Article 8.2D, Athletic Fields and Structures, initiated by Sayer School. I would like to recommend approval of the applicant's language that's been submitted to us. Sir, we would recommend the staff alternative. Okay, sorry, with the staff alternative language. the approval of the staff alternative language. There you go. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Please vote via Granicus. Oh, excuse me, excuse me. Ms. Boxdale? With regard to the alternative language, I want to make sure I'm reading that right. So is the alternative language that says 2% or 10,000, whichever is greater? That is correct. Yes. Okay. Whichever is greater, that's important. Yes. Okay, and that doesn't sound like it's the same that SARE initially was requesting. That is correct, ma'am. The applicant's language did not allow for someone that currently would be allowed to have 10,000 square feet on their property to reach that 10,000 square feet. If the chair will allow me to just basically, I was very mad at myself that I did not catch what the staff did catch on whichever is greater. It basically recognizes that there is an existing nine-acre track, and they would not be able to get the 10,000 square feet in that situation. I tip my hat on the ordinance kind of construction language there. They are 100% in the right on how that should be. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Do you have a second? Yes, we have a second. Mr. Bell, second it. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Can we do like a five-minute water break or something? That'll be nice. Thank you. All right, while we're getting the presentation pulled up, I will distribute some letters that we received from citizens on this matter. We have two letters of support, 48 of opposition, and then a petition with 37 signatures. This is an application for a cell tower to be located on the Palomar Baptist Church property, Located at 2190 Fort Harrods Drive. Before we get into the details of this application, I would like to briefly go through a little bit about the process for cell tower review since you all have not seen one of these since the fall of 2020, so it's been a minute. So there are federal, state, and local laws that regulate and allow and limit the Planning Commission's ability to hear and review cell tower applications. So at the federal level, we have the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which created the Federal Communications Commission, or the FCC. This preempts state and local regulations that would effectively prohibit an entity from establishing telecommunication services. And in particular, I want to address Article, I'm sorry, Section 332. That prohibits local government from denying an application based on concerns related to health or environmental effects of radio frequency emissions. And that's assuming that the facility is in compliance with the FCC standards, which they have to be in order to construct the tower. So due to this provision, whenever we hear public comment today, the Planning Commission should not hear or consider comments that are related to health or environmental effects of radio frequency. KRS 100 regulates at the state level what the Planning Commission's duties are with regard to cell tower applications. and then locally we are looking at article 25 of the zoning ordinance. So that outlines where cell towers may be permitted, stating that they should generally not be located in residential areas, they shouldn't be in flood hazard areas, environmentally sensitive or geologic hazard areas, within 1,200 feet of a historic district or property, nor along a scenic byway. It allows for certain design standards related to lighting, signage, circulation, access, setbacks, fencing, and co-location. And then there's a provision that allows for additional design, mitigating design standards for cell towers that are located in residential or agricultural zones. So you can request additional landscaping or changes in materials or design for the tower when they are located in those two types of zones. Again, Article 25 discusses the procedure for the Planning Commission, including requirements for public notice and for a public meeting. It outlines the findings that the commission must make in order to approve a cell tower, finding that it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinances and agreements with the comprehensive plan, will not interfere with public radio systems, that the site is appropriate and the tower will not alter the essential character of the area, and that the applicant has made attempts to co-locate, but that that co-location was not feasible for a certain reason. So now we'll get into the specific application at hand. This is being made by Municipal Communications 3 LLC and Dish Network for a leased area at the rear of, of Palomar Baptist Church at 2190 Fort Harrods Drive. They're proposing a 120 foot tall monopole wireless communication tower with a lightning arrestor of five feet for a total of 125 feet. This map shows the search area that the applicant has defined as needing a additional service. So it's a slightly oblong shaped center just west of Manowar. It's approximately .8 miles north of Harrodsburg Road. And the subject property that we're looking at today is located right here. So as Mr. Bell mentioned previously, Mill Ridge Farm is located across Manowar in this vicinity here. This is also the Bowman Mill Historic District. Dunbar High is up here, and then we have single family residential to the south here, some multi-family right around here, and then additional single family residential here. Taking a look at the zoning, this property is zoned AU, so agricultural urban. Again, with AR across the street, some more AU here for Dunbar, and then single family and multifamily residential zoning. The tower is proposed for the southern portion of the property just south of the existing picnic shelter, which is located here. So as currently proposed, the new tower will be a steel monopole with an antenna for one carrier. They do propose additional space for location of up to three additional antennas. The steel monopole is sort of the general construction type of choice because it has a lower profile and provides a high level of structural support. This tower will be located within a 3,600 square foot leased area, that's 60 by 60, approximately 125 feet from Manowar and 125 feet from the nearest property under different ownership. It will have the required eight foot wooden privacy fence, and the tower equipment area will be screened in accordance with the Article 25 regulations. So this is a zoom in of that site plan showing the tower within its enclosure in the areas for additional compounds for future co-location. Here we have an elevation drawing of what the 125-foot tall tower will look like, showing the currently proposed antenna and room for three additional antenna here. The applicant also submitted some rendering showing what the tower would look like as you're driving on Manowar. So this is from the northern approach along Manowar and here from the southern approach. In our review of the application, staff found related to the requirements of Article 25 that there is no FEMA floodplain on the property. There is floodplain to the northeast and the southwest, but it is a substantial distance away, over 1,000 feet. The property has no specific areas that are obviously geologic hazard areas and that must be avoided. The topography is generally level to gently sloping. There are sinkholes in the vicinity of this property, but the geotechnical report that was provided as part of the applicant's application has found the area to be appropriate for the proposed tower. This site is located within 1,200 feet of a historic district or landmark. As I mentioned previously, the Bowman Mill Historic District is located just across Manowar. That is primarily, there are a few structures that are considered historic, but it is overall the farm use itself that is considered historic. so that's why it's a larger district. The nearest historic structure that is recognized is about 1,400 feet from the proposed cell tower. So additional screening may be appropriate to buffer that rural district. The adjoining streets are not state-designated scenic byways. They are meeting the required setbacks, and they are showing the required landscaping around the leased area. Additionally, the tower will not be located where it will interfere with traffic circulation, access, storm drainage, or other requirements of the zoning ordinance. It will be placed behind the pavilion that's located on the southern part of the property. There's adequate space for the required landscaping and fencing. When located in an agricultural zone, the planning commission does have the power to impose additional landscaping requirements. We mentioned that previously. Due to the character of the surrounding area being so close to residential uses and being so close to the Bowman Mill Historic District, staff is recommending some additional screening requirements. Again, the proposed tower will be a steel monopole, which has a relatively low profile and is permitted in all zones. The tower will be constructed and situated on the property in the most logical, serviceable, and service providing location. And it will be visible from Manowar and from the adjoining residential property, so again, we are looking into additional screening here. The proposal to construct a new tower is for the purpose of providing and or augmenting service area in the area. It's ability to be expanded in the future is necessary to allow for co-location, which is encouraged, and thereby eliminates the need for additional towers in the area. So staff is recommending approval. The proposed tower meets the required setbacks. It meets the majority of the remaining locational requirements of Article 25, except for that 1,200 foot distance from a national register district. So the property is only 120 feet from the boundary of that district, but it is 1400 feet from the nearest contributing historic structure. So staff is recommending additional screening along Manowar. Also due to the adjoining residential, we are requesting additional screening. We do find that this complies with the comprehensive plan, Theme E, as it relates to maintaining a balance between urban and rural uses and will provide a necessary level of service for cellular communications. Again, this recommendation of approval is subject to a few conditions. One being the tower shall be located as shown on the site layout and constructed as noted in the elevation drawings. The tower shall meet all the requirements of Article 25 other than the 1200 foot distance from a National Historic Register district or property. In addition to the landscaping requirements of Article 25, the following shall be installed. a 15-foot buffer provided along the eastern property line containing one tree per 40 feet of linear boundary or fraction thereof from group A or B only, plus a double row of six-foot high hedge for a distance of 200 feet, beginning in line with the front corner of the existing church pavilion and extending toward the southern property line. And the same buffer shall also be provided along the western property line, located between the overhead utility that runs along Manowar Boulevard and the proposed lease area for a distance of 200 feet beginning in line with the front corner of the pavilion. Finally, any applicable permits, such as building permits, shall be obtained prior to construction. I am happy to answer any questions that you have. Any questions for staff? Ms. Worth? It's getting dark in here. I can't find the dark. Can't see in the dark anymore. I have a couple of questions, and they may really be more appropriate for the applicant, but I'll bring them up here. In the second paragraph of the staff report, it says that the statement provided with the application said, DISH has found there's not sufficient existing wireless services infrastructure in the area available to DISH to provide the service. So my question is, does that mean there's not adequate service, period, or adequate service to other providers just not to dish? Do you know the answer to that? I think that would be a better question for the applicant. Okay. All right. And the other question, and again, this may need to go to the applicant, in talking about other alternatives besides the wire structure, I live very close to Centenary Methodist Church, which has a cell tower. It's not beautiful. but it's not wire and it's attached to the church and I wondered whether the applicant explored any options since this is with a church if that were a possibility so should that go to them I think that would be a better question for the applicant okay thank you I've seen any other questions thank you right well it looks like I have some very entertaining questions shortly to answer. I regret to say good evening as opposed to good afternoon, but it is nonetheless still very much a pleasure to appear before this planning commission again. I've got some exciting news for you in terms of a brand new wireless provider that none of you may know much about, but hopefully you're going to be hearing a lot about shortly. Before I begin, however, I'd like to take just a second to introduce some folks who are with me. I have a large delegation from Dish Network, but there are two of the people I'd like to introduce in particular, Christopher Williams, if you would, please raise your hand, and also Randy Muller, who are here to assist in answering questions that I can't handle. Also, of course, we have Glenn Katz, who's an expert real estate appraiser, and I have Aaron Roof from my office, who's a very bright and better-looking attorney than I am, to assist in the presentation if need be. I am going to do my level best based on the lateness of the hour to not live down to your expectations, and I'm going to try to get this done very expeditiously. However, this is obviously a matter of some importance, and these cases are dramatically different from every other type of case that you consider. And I think Autumn did a good job of kind of telegraphing that. I need to build on that. And, of course, the reason I've got to do that is I have to preserve certain legal issues in case they are needed later. And I think we all kind of understand that. But, again, I'm going to try to be expeditious in doing it, Mr. Chairman. Now, if we can get – oh, here we go. All right, cool. Voila. Let's begin with DISH Network. How many of you have heard of Dish Network as a wireless provider before this? Very few. And that's not unusual. That is about to change, however. This is a new full-service wireless communication system. And they have a full FCC license, just like the other major providers. And they have built a network here in Lexington. The fact that you have not heard about them says some pretty remarkable things about the nature of the network deployment that they have undertaken. Out of the 28 sites that are necessary to provide service in Lexington, 27 of those are going to be co-locations. Only one raw land build. That's why we're here. Now, in any conventional type of wireless deployment, this wouldn't have been possible. But they have done their very best and have been beyond diligent to seek out every possible co-location alternative. And they've done that with some pretty big challenges because even though they have located on a vast number of existing FCC registered towers throughout Fayette County, they've done it with the fact that there are already multiple wireless carriers who are taking up all of the top slots on all of those towers. Meaning the DISH automatically gets the lowest slot, which also then means that we can't provide service over as broad a geographic area, requiring even more sites. Despite all that, we've busted a gut in order to make certain that we have maximized the use of co-location whenever possible, and that's one reason this commission hasn't heard about this network before today. There is one hole, however, that cannot be filled otherwise, and that's this spot. And to kind of make, to answer one of your questions right now, there will be no service in this area without this structure. So we have to have it in order to provide new structure as a new provider in this specific area. Now, a lot of my presentation, as I kind of telegraphed, has to be heavy on the law. I think we all understand why that's the case, but of course another key reason for doing it isn't just the legalities of this situation, it's the fact that, I think as Autumn put it, it's been a moment since you've had one of these cases. They don't occur very often. And also there are totally unique federal and state laws, some of which she did a good job of starting with. Ultimately, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a revolutionary enactment, changed how we live all of our lives today. And one of the key goals in that law was to accelerate the deployment of wireless communication services, to provide new services, and to use competition as the model to encourage the improvement of wireless communication. Now, that law expressly preserves local zoning authority, but subject to a bunch of caveats and restrictions. Probably the most important one initially is the fact that you cannot disapprove a cell tower unless it is based on substantial evidence under federal law. And, of course, it's federal cases that construe this law on a systematic basis nationwide. And the following items are not substantial evidence and cannot serve as a basis for a cell tower disapproval in our view. Naturally, of course, you're going to want to turn to your own legal counsel for her advice on this, but here's our view of the law. First of all, lay opinion as opposed to expert opinion cannot serve as a basis for a cell tower disapproval because it is not substantial evidence. Unsupported opinion, the classic example being, here is my printout from the internet, and you should now read this and take it as gospel. That cannot serve as a basis for a cell tower disapproval. Expressions of concerns regarding aesthetics. Claims that a tower is unsightly, that it is ugly or unwanted, that people don't want it in their backyard. none of those under Sixth Circuit appellate opinions that are directly applicable to the Commonwealth of Kentucky have been ruled out as substantial evidence and cannot be considered by the commission as a basis for disapproval. Of course, I think it's black letter law and understood by all of us that allegations concerning health and environmental effects are ruled out. That's not only based on the federal law, but of course the provisions of the state law that parrot those provisions word for word. Now, the other thing that local planning commissions cannot do is they cannot make decisions which have the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless service. There is a two-pronged test in order to establish whether a prohibition has occurred in the event that you disapprove a cell tower case. The first one is that the applicant has to show a significant gap in service. We can do that. We are a brand new carrier and we have no service here. And, of course, the second one is that there had to be an inquiry into the feasibility of alternative facilities or site locations. We have done that systematically in the mountain of materials that we've been filing with your planning staff over the last couple of months. Now, a key issue in this is, of course, your historic zone prohibitions. And it's important that I kind of give you my take on that because, again, it's important that I preserve issues in the event that this application was turned down, which I dearly hope will not occur. And I'm hopeful that we're going to reach a good resolution this evening for our customers. Ultimately, those provisions indicate that cell towers cannot be placed within 1,200 feet of historic districts. Now, it's my view that as applied in this instance, that would constitute a prohibition per se. Let's take a look at this district. It's huge. And to some extent, that is a great testimony to some of the work that this commission has done over a long period of time to try to strengthen the importance of agriculture in this community historically and as part of its future. and as I think as Mr. Bell put it earlier, in a relevant fashion. Those are all great achievements. But when it comes to enforcing a restriction indicating that you aren't allowed to place a cell tower within a district or within 1,200 feet of it, look what happens here. This district is over 4.3 square miles in size when you add in the 1,200-foot perimeter. By definition, cell towers have to be in the area that they are going to serve, and as a result, in this instance, since we have exhausted all possible co-location alternatives, enforcing that provision as it applies here to this 4.3 square mile area would constitute a prohibition under the Federal Telecommunications Act and cannot serve as a basis for a cell tower disapproval in our case. To put that in perspective, the University of Kentucky's campus is only 1.4 square miles. This is a really big area. Now, I think your staff has done a marvelous job, if you've read their report, of isolating exactly why we comply with the provisions of this act. of not the act, but your local regulations. We've demonstrated systematically in our site acquisition reports that there is no other site that will comply with your local regulations available in the search area, even though we don't have to do that. All we have to do is come to you with one viable site under federal law, but we've exhausted all of them within the search area using your own criteria, area, things like whether you can meet setbacks, is it in a residential zone, is there a floodplain involved. This is a monopole tower design, as your staff indicated, that is the one with the lowest visual cross section. Now again, keep in mind, I reject legally the idea that aesthetics can be used as a justification for a cell tower disapproval, and I believe the appellate court cases in the sixth circuit back that up squarely, but nonetheless, I think your staff is dead on right, and that is exactly the type of tower that we have proposed here. Also, of course, this is one of the shortest towers that this planning commission has ever considered, period. Again, to put it in perspective, if you take a look at the average height of all the FCC licensed towers in this county, this tower is almost 200 feet shorter than that average. The tower does not have to be lit. We've landscaped it in accordance with all the provisions of your local code, and we've used every practical means to, quote, conceal, end quote, because that's the term of art under your local regulations. Again, however, none of that should be construed as me waiving any objections on criteria that would disapprove a tower based on how it looks or its aesthetic impact. We've taken a look at all the sites within that 1,200-foot area, and none of them were available, leading us to the fact that this is the most suitable and reasonably available location. since most of the area is ruled out based on the fact that it's residential, it's too small to meet your lot's setbacks, or it's located in a flood zone. And of course, ultimately, it would be our argument, as you might expect, that we benefit the agricultural zone by providing high-quality wireless service to it. And we can't serve that zone unless we're able to place something within that 1,200-foot perimeter. Otherwise, that will be a dead spot for us in our network. Now, tower concealment. Again, from our perspective, this is a requirement of your regs. From our perspective, it violates the aesthetically based prohibition under the Federal Telecommunications Act, but we've done everything we can. It is a monopole, which your own staff has acknowledged is the lowest visual cross-section tower available, and also it's one of the shortest towers that you're going to have in your entire community, and it's unlit. We provided photo simulations. Again, these aren't required, but we provided them in order to help put in perspective that although this is a tall structure, And I'm not bold enough to say that something 125 feet is short, but by cell tower standards, it very much is. Now, I think it's also worth noting that from our perspective, again, preserving legal issues, there's some fatal flaws in the existing way that this regulation is written regarding the 1,200-foot provision, which, again, in our view, in the event that there was a turndown, is a legal issue that needs to be preserved. Ultimately, this only restricts, quote, cellular antenna towers, which means that we could construct an identical tower to this in every single respect and put microwave dishes on it in order to transmit data, and it would not be subject to this provision. The same thing would apply to water storage tanks, radio towers, skyscrapers, cranes, television towers, all sorts of tall structures, all of which have a higher visual cross section, but none of which are dealt with under this prohibition within the 1200 foot area. We meet all the setbacks and we've worked really hard to do that. We were just able to do it with, I think with a foot or two to spare, but as staff has readily acknowledged in their report, that's the case. Ultimately this tower has to be located within that search area because it has to fit in with the rest of the network. It can't overlap other sites too much and it can't leave dead zones. So we have to locate it within that area. It has to be built to the specified minimum height. It can't be any shorter and still accomplish its objectives and we've looked at other methods to provide service such as microcells and the like, none of that will work and we've provided executed reports by experts as mandated by the Federal Telecommunications Act documenting that that's the case. We've worked on co-location thoroughly. In fact, the closest tower to this is .66 miles to the south. We're on it. As well as many of the other towers throughout this community. out of the 28 sites, 27 co-locations, which has to be a new record. We did extensive analysis, and I'm going to blow through these tabs, which is H, which is our site acquisition report, all of which ruling out multiple other sites within the search area, primarily using your own regulatory criteria, which indicate that residential tracks and tracks which can't meet your setbacks or tracks which are in a flood zone can't be considered. Property values, in our view, this is not substantial evidence. Cannot serve as a basis for a disapproval, not just because this is a cell tower, but because it's a registered utility with the Kentucky Public Service Commission. But because the issue often comes up, we have Glenn Katz here with us. Raise your hand, Glenn. I'm going to summarize his findings so that we don't have to belabor you with more testimony. Glenn has over 25 years of appraisal experience. He's a certified general real property appraiser in Kentucky and multiple other states. He holds every professional designation offered by the Appraisal Institute. He is the past president and education chairman for the Kentucky chapter of the Appraisal Institute for over 10 years, and he is the current education chairman for region five of the Appraisal Institute, which includes multiple states and Kentucky. He's conducted extensive studies on this and has found that towers deployed like this and this tower will not adversely affect the value of real estate. We've dutifully complied with all of your regulations and I want to thank your planning staff for putting up with our constant telephone calls, emails, and other types of communication in an effort to make certain that we had dotted every I and every T from the perspective of LFUCG. It's also worth noting that this has already been looked at by multiple other agencies. The State Historic Preservation Officer has found that this will have no adverse effect. And of course your local historic preservation specialist found that it will have no adverse effect on the historic district. The Federal Aviation has issued their determination of no hazard to air navigation, which is their approval and the Kentucky Airport Zoning Commission issued their final approval as well for the site. Now, let's talk about your staff report. If when you read the staff report, the findings that are made in it, if you accept their logic and accept their validity, mandate an approval in our force this evening. She makes all the findings that are required. I want to take issue, however, with the additional condition that's proposed. And I want to explain why, and then I'll tell you whether I will accept the condition if I have to or not in a moment. At the end of the day, I'm convinced that this is gross overkill that serves no useful purpose. The staff report itself acknowledges that our wooden privacy fence effectively conceals all the equipment at the base of the tower. We've also provided the required landscaping around the perimeter of that. The additional 400 feet of landscaping here that is proposed along the roadway and along the boundary with surrounding neighbors will not conceal this tower. What it will do is effectively visually block the church from its community because it's done around the perimeter. Now if this commission, I believe the more reasoned approach is if you would like us to add another row of hedge around our existing planting perimeter, we would be more than glad to do that. I think it's worth kind of remembering the following in terms of equity and propriety here. The first thing is that this is an unprecedented request for perimeter landscaping which has never occurred before and you are seeking to impose that on a church as opposed to private property owners. And this commission has had its share of experiences with the First Amendment protections that all churches get and with the Religious Land Use Rights Act. And in my view, this comes nowhere close to the extensive requirements that are required under RALUPA to impose additional requirements, especially when they are clearly different and more onerous than what is being required for private property owners. The second reason that I think it's inappropriate is it is punishing a new entrant and treating them in a different fashion than the established and existing wireless providers. One of the other key provisions of the Telcom Act, as I think your counsel will affirm, is that you cannot make decisions which have the effect of discriminating among functionally equivalent wireless providers of service. Now all that having been said, if we have to accept this in order to get this approved, we'll do it. Because completing this network is crucial for DISH Network. importantly it is crucial for our customers. I'm in the home stretch with just a couple of slides Mr. Chairman. Over the years that I have practiced in this field in a bunch of different states and in thousands of cases, one of the things that I have watched every year or so is the federal communications report that comes out on how people communicate. And I've watched some key statistics change. The most recent version of that report, which is the National Health Interview Study, in June of 22, we crossed some critical thresholds. That was the first year where over 70% of all adults in this country live in households with only wireless phones, no landline phones. Over 80% of all children are raised in households exactly like that. So the idea that we can compromise in terms of whether we are providing adequate coverage enough or not under our FCC license is no longer an option. This is the pathway for people to reach emergency services and to live their lives. And we have to grow and evolve to recognize that this is how people now communicate. And it is incumbent on every community to make certain that we are providing the right level of planning input on that, but that we are never taking actions which prohibit the provision of those services because those services are the heart and soul of communication. We think that this community deserves this new provider, more importantly I guess the FCC thinks so too. We're very excited about providing a wide range of very high quality, high speed communication services for this entire community. Competition is always good. This is a new range of services, it's the latest and greatest technology. This company has been the ultimate in responsible. To build an entire network in a community and to only request one new tower build is an unprecedented feat. Add to that the hundreds of other co-locations that Dish Network is installing all over Kentucky, and it's something to be proud of. We hope that this evening you will vote to approve the last linchpin that we need to complete that initial rollout of this network. We've worked hard to comply with all your provisions and I hope that you will recognize that at the end of the day this is a utility and it's a vital utility for this community, for this entire community's future. Now at this juncture, to kind of clean up a couple of points, I have been referring to your hearing binders. Can we get one binder cumulatively submitted as an exhibit since I have referred to it? All right. And of course also I want to make sure that I have submitted all of our prior filings of any type in connection with this case as exhibits in this public hearing as if read in full. I've done my very best to get this done quickly. That completes my presentation and unless you have questions that require them, I have no other testimony since I have pre filed it all in the record. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? All right, thank you sir. Okay, it's time for citizens, comments, statements. um who's that walt are you up first yes okay he made it first person to sign and sign in sheet he sent an email a few days ago yeah before i start the powerpoint that i've got i want to thank the chair and the commission for letting us bring in four small PowerPoint presentations in opposition to this particular cell power as designed. And also, I've got some good news for you. I've been talking to some people in the audience, and some of them maybe have never been here before, and they indicate they thought that the people who wanted to speak would, that was actually just a sign-in list to let you know that they're here. So for those of you who did that, if you don't want to speak when your name is called, all you have to do is say, sorry, I just thought I was signing in. So we have a little bit of good news. Second, we have given you some material that could be used as a finding of fact should you decide to, for one reason or another, decline to approve this. One of them is a state statute that allows you, upon turning it down, to apply your ordinances and your ordinances and some of your comp plan stuff. Or rather, but anyway, you have some things that you can use for findings of fact. Now I'm ready for the presentation. I would say we've got three of them or four. If we hit the 20 minute mark, the one Yan Ling behind me will take three minutes for her presentation. And let's see, it's been a long time since I've spoken here. There should be a, ah, there you go, thank you. Didn't want me to speak. Let's see. Okay, the current status in Lexington that you need to hear a little bit about, division of engineering working with at&t and verizon to place many cell towers on highway rights-of-way right now at&t has already placed 100 mini towers in lexington and actively is planning 200 more verizon also is working with lexington and is committed to this strategy and recently sold 11,000 large towers. Oops. Okay, there we go. That's went the wrong way, sorry. This doesn't seem to be moving this. This one goes backwards, this one goes backwards. Got it, of course. Okay. Okay, this is Herod's Hill Park. I didn't give my name. I'm Walt Gaffield. I'm on the board of directors for the Herod's Hill Neighborhood Association. Herod's Hill Park has a mini cell. It's down there in the distance. It's less than one mile from Palomar Baptist Church. I know that. I know I went forward. Okay. okay this is a a large cell tower at first alliance church note the dead tree and the poor condition of the fence it's 2201 higby mill road it looks different when you take a close-up picture of it these these mini cells they're primarily an urban need they you know they may located a thousand a thousand feet apart and they have almost no imprint and that's the direction lexington is moving and it's newer technology there is a clear need for cell towers outside of the urban services boundary there's no question about that so that's actually a close-up of a mini cell you just put something on top of a light pole it's not invasive but anyway it's clear it's clear i did it again okay large cell towers or some other technology are necessary for the rural parts of faya county while small cells are better for the urban and suburban parts of lexington the rural areas lack fiber broadband and a large enough population to use small cell technology the population adjacent to a large cell tower next to palmar baptist would not benefit from it because again it's a primary urban use and that's what's happening in inside the urban services boundary the issue is really not where it's is not where it's where it's not what If large cell towers are primarily of use for the rural part of Fayette County, they're technologically inferior to small cells for urban Lexington. The large towers need to be non-residential areas only or outside the urban services boundary, which is the area they're going to serve. Otherwise, a residential area inside the urban services boundary will receive all of the cost and very little or no benefit, and it'll receive visual pollution. People outside the urban services boundary need large cell towers or other technology so they can, because they need to find appropriate sites on their property. The advantage of large cell towers is that they can send signals a great distance. Small cells are for areas with larger, more dense populations, and they'll probably have one every 1,000 feet. Okay, that goes to my second PowerPoint. Okay, cell tower location. The applicant looked at very few areas because they already owned it. The applicant rejected Dunbar High School as a tower site because of lease issues. Land near Dunbar must be a good idea if available. Mill Ridge Farm next to Dunbar is an obvious possible site for a large tower. It's right next door to a site that the applicant actually looked at. The land is directly on Manowar Boulevard and not near a residential area. The Lexington Division of Historic Preservation and the Kentucky Heritage Council indicate the land is not in a historic district and is not obviously protected due to the presence of National Register properties. The primary issue, if any, would be the viewshed, and that probably to sort it out would probably require a Section 106 study. Millridge has never applied for PDR protection. The applicant did not conduct an adequate review of available services. He found that only his land was appropriate. He looked at Dunbar High School, but not its neighbor, Millridge Farm. The applicant did not divulge that the farm was ever considered. if outside the circle the applicant should have to show how much of the proposed circle would be left out. Just saying so would not be substantive. If Dunbar was appropriate, the farm bordering Dunbar, the property as Mill Ridge, would maybe move the circle a little bit, but clearly there wasn't much consideration of that property. It wasn't even mentioned. The applicant's proposal lacks any assessment of a competitive site. We recommend disapproval. Thank you. I'm available if there are any questions. Thank you. Just forward. Yeah. My name is Joyce Arvin. I live at 2108 Violet Road, and I have a child who lives within 500 feet of the proposed cell tower. I'm going to address geological concerns. And in the application, there is a geological report that was prepared by Terracon Consultants at the request of Dish Network. It's dated August 30th, 2022. Article 25 states that no cellular antenna shall be constructed on land that is environmentally sensitive or a geologic hazard area. Area residents, when they found out about this cell tower, expressed concern because they have seen photos of depressions. I mean, they sent photos to me, but they've seen depressions, possibly could they be sinkholes on the church property. That on the right corner there is the, that is the church's picnic shelter. I looked at the applicant's geotechnical report, which quote, included a review of geological maps prepared by the United States Geological Survey in cooperation with the Kentucky Geological Survey. Those maps are readily available on the internet and you can also call them and find out about them. No sinkholes are mapped within one half mile of this site, according to the Terracon Geological Report. They have a variety of disclaimers about the thoroughness and the scope of their study. They state, end quote, The scope of services for this geotechnical engineering report did not include exploration for the presence of underground voids or solution cavities that are known to exist within this type of geology. In fact, the report refers to this as a high karst area. There's another disclaimer that I find very unusual, and that's why I'm taking the time to read it to you. It states that it is possible that documentation exists regarding the extent of existing depressions and sinkholes in the surrounding area, and the risk these depressions pose to infrastructure within the vicinity of the project area. If this communication is available, it should be provided to Terracon, the geologists, so that they may reassess and revise our recommendations if necessary. So basically they're saying that there might be sinkholes there, and if you, anybody reading the report, and I don't know how many people in this room actually read the geological report, but you should let Terracon know that there are sinkholes if they are. And they are the geologists who are supposed to be telling the Planning Commission whether there's a hazard or risk, a geologic hazard there. I contacted the Kentucky Geological Survey, and initially I just asked, is there a map that shows sinkholes? And I spoke with Charles Taylor, KGS groundwater hydrologist and head water resources section. Mr. Taylor sent me this map, which also is available through the Kentucky Geological Survey online. And the red and blue polygons indicate sinkholes, mapped sinkholes. The green star just is a relative point so that you can understand where the cell tower is. So I asked him, you can see at the bottom there's a scale that is, Sorry, I don't know how to use a pointer, but in the bottom corner, that little bar is three-tenths of a mile. I asked Mr. Taylor, I emailed him, and I've given you a copy of that email for the record. I asked him how many sinkholes are within a half mile of the site, and I gave him the applicant's latitude and longitude coordinates that were provided in Pike Legal's letter so that we'd have an accurate location. He said that there are 24 or 25 sinkholes located within a half mile circle. In addition, the closest sinkhole is a tenth of a mile. I want to draw you back to the quote in the report that says, no sinkholes are mapped within one half mile of this site. Mr. Taylor also, so I think it's really important to look at that map. And I didn't draw a circle on it, but approximately 24 or 25. Mr. Taylor also recalls that there was a large sinkhole at the site where Palomar Baptist Church was built before the church was built. In the exact spot where the church and the parking lot, et cetera, were built. And I did an open records request, but sadly, karst requirements were not done. were not in place in 1975 or 6 when the church was constructed. So they didn't have any geological data on it. Unfortunately, in 2015, I don't know if you all recall, there was a catastrophic roof collapse at Palomar Baptist Church. Fortunately, none of the church members were killed or injured in that collapse. On the basis of the information that I have backed up with an expert from Kentucky Geological Survey, I ask you to deny this application because it is incorrect, seriously flawed. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your patience and your attention. While he's loading the next PowerPoint, I'll let you know my name is Michael Walsh. I live at 2153 Palomar Trace Drive. I'll be very brief. Mine's more pictures than words. and I want to just share some information with you about design elements and aesthetic impacts that are important for this proposal. It's very easy to gather information about how cell towers can be camouflaged to blend into their surroundings. Here are just a few pictures where there is trees. There's specific language in the ordinances that talks about context-sensitive and artistic design. You see desert locations where they're masked as cactus, lighthouses for seashores. There are a lot of patriotic elements. The one there that's second to the right looks to be more in an urban commercial area that is very artistic in nature. and the one on the far right on the plains is celebrating bison. It would be very easy to incorporate elements of Kentucky's culture, be that the equine industry, the bourbon industry, although I doubt a church would want to see a stack of bourbon barrels disguised in a cell phone tower. However, there were also plenty of examples of religious concealments, whether that's crosses, church towers, or bell towers. And as Ms. Worth mentioned earlier, this is a photo of the tower concealment on Tate's Creek Drive at Centenary Church. This photo was actually taken out of the Rural Land Management Plan, where it cited this photo as an example of how cell towers can be designed to mitigate their impact to the surrounding property uses. This is what we're more likely going to end up with, is one that doesn't have any proposed camouflage or concealment that's going to be easy to discern. The photos that the applicant showed were from, the closest one was maybe 850 feet away. That was the southern view of where they proposed the tower. The northern view was over 1,300 feet away. So that definitely detracts from the landscape because it's out of context with the area. The distance between the right-of-way on Manowar and the property line of the residential zone is a bit concerning because if the plats that were submitted with the application were accurate, there's very little margin for error if that has to be shifted to the east or to the west, because then you start to run into other concerns in the zoning ordinance about height to yard ratios. It's been well established that it's within 300 feet of a National Register property, which according to the zoning regulations requires additional screening. And then it's being placed in an agricultural urban zone, which actually there is a description in that zone that says one of the prohibited uses is for radio or antennas or towers. This is some of the specific language in there. Section 25.4C says every means feasible shall be used to conceal the tower. nothing's been proposed to conceal the tower and in the comprehensive plan it goes into even stricter more direct language about context sensitive caring about the existing surroundings and not using the the financial costs of concealment as a means to avoid it unless there are compelling and legitimate reasons. As far as the inadequate screening, this was done before seeing the staff's recommendations for additional screening, so it's good to see that. I would suggest that even more be added. And the applicant talked about putting a public utility in the backyard of a residential zone with no screening to the road that's necessary to access that facility. So the road should be viewed as part of the facility, and screening should be considerable along that road, given that the industrial vehicles that are going to have to service this public utility 24 hours a day, possibly seven days a week, going to be diesel, bucket trucks, dual axle vehicles that are going to be right on the doorstep of a residential zone. This becomes an attractive nuisance. It's readily available if there's no screening or gating of that paved road. It becomes a congregating point for skateboards, scooters, bicyclists. Typically, cell towers are located in industrial or commercial areas or off the road where they're very easy to identify who should and shouldn't be on there. None of that exists in this plan. And just to add to some additional improvements that could be made to the property, since its use is being drastically altered by this cell tower, if that were being done through a zone change or a conditional use, then you would look at ways to find other opportunities to accomplish the objectives of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Pike mentioned he was concerned about separating the church from the community. There is a sidewalk that terminates right there on Cave Hill Lane that could very easily be connected up to Fort Herod's Road. I'm sorry, but that would accomplish objectives of the comprehensive plan. And that's a better but rudimentary picture. And this is what could be versus what we're likely to get. I apologize for going over and thank you for your attention. Can you please hold your applause, please? Thank you. Good evening, my name is Yang Ling, I'm a Kentucky state licensed realtor. And I have many clients and friends in this neighborhood. And they are very concerned about losing value of their property. So I'm here to help represent them and present the case that property value decrease when they are near to a cell tower. In my research, I found a survey conducted by National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy which engaged opinions of neighborhood with a cell tower nearby. And you can see from this slide, 94% people said a cell tower nearby will negatively impact the interest in a property. And 79% said they will never purchase a property within a few blocks of a cell tower. Next, I have a report produced by a real estate appraisal company based in Michigan. They have found the largest impact on property value is neighborhood aesthetics. And in addition, HUD classifies cell towers as a hazard and nuisance, even requiring adjustments to property value. And another report finds out that homes close to cell towers sell for discount up to 7.6% and an active price impacts are more severe within a visible range of a cell tower. Now beyond looking at individual homes, I want to look at the impact on the neighborhood as a whole. So there are total 4,395 households in this neighborhood. From city's perspective, considering average home value and tax rates, property revenues were for approximately 616,000 per year. And here I have select two sections from the Actual Planning Commission procedure which pertains to cell tower, and I don't think I have enough time to read right here. So we feel that large tower would damage the community and its welfare and would change its character. And here I have also collected, in a very short time period, we collected over 300 signatures for the petition to reject the proposed cell tower. And I still got a call from the people willing to come to deliver their signatures. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. I'm actually here to support the cell tower. The cellular signal around my house is only one bar. I often have trouble making phone calls when walking around my neighborhood, and people have trouble hearing me and the calls get dropped. I had to replace the base station for my security system because the original carrier that they used did not supply a reliable connection, so they switched me to another carrier. We need better cell coverage in Beaumont. Everyone that has a cell phone carries a miniature cell tower that emits the same radiation as a cell tower. The farther a cell phone is from a cell tower, the higher output from the cell phone and more radiation from the cell phone and increases their battery life if we had a closer cell tower. The people attending this meeting have brought their own source of cellular radiation, so we're all adding to the noise. In addition, Wi-Fi routers and cordless phones use similar frequencies as cellular, and most people have one or the other in their house or place of business. At least three new small 5G cell towers were added to the Beaumont area in the last year. Many of us are already closer to the 5G towers than we will be to the 4G tower. My family only has 4G phones. Security and medical monitoring systems also use 4G for their services. The addition of 5G towers in my section of Beaumont has not improved my usable cellular coverage since none of my devices or services support 5G. We still need improved 4G coverage. Some people are looking towards Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation as a possible blocker An historic site sits across as has been mentioned. The Kentucky Historical Council has already reviewed this cell tower proposal and determined that it has no adverse effect. The Dunbar High School sports fields are closer to the historic site than the proposed cell tower. The football field has four light towers and the baseball field has six light towers and they're all clearly visible. The human race has succeeded and progressed more rapidly than any other species because we collaborate and share responsibilities and effort. All progress comes with a cost, and it is impossible to evenly split the cost across everyone. We accept these costs for the betterment of the entire community. If every person stood by the not-in-my-backyard philosophy, then we wouldn't have cellular telephones, regular telephones, or even electricity. All these core technologies have been treated differently because they benefit everyone, and we accept their costs in order to achieve the associated benefits. It has to be in someone's backyard. If we want to enjoy the benefits, then someone has to pay the cost. Many others have already paid the price to get us to the cellular coverage that we use today. The Planning Commission has a difficult task ahead of them in that they need to balance the needs of the many with the concerns of the few. The entire world has decided that cellular communications is worth the risk. It is evident in the fact that we have over 100 cell towers in Fayette County, 400,000 in the U.S., and over a million in the world. The commission should ask people that are opposed to cell tower if they are going to turn off their cell phones and cancel their cellular service in order to reduce cellular radiation and decrease the demand for additional cell towers. And I believe that the small cell towers are 5G and the big ones are 4G. They're not the same. So having more little ones doesn't help me. Sir, can you state your name for the record? Sorry, Dean Pulsifer. I signed up on the mic. Oh, sorry, Dean Pulsifer. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm LaShawn Fugate. I'm a resident of Palomar, and I'd like to thank you for listening to our side of the story. I'm here to oppose the construction of the cell tower. I appreciate the view and the presentation from the first speaker. He's quite a salesman. I'd like to draw your attention to the lease agreement, actually, between Dish Network and the church that talks about construction in the leased property. It says that basically that they will have without limitation tower, base, antennas, microwave dishes, equipment shelters, cables and utility lines, related equipment. They can also upgrade, replace, exchange. They can sublet the property without the church's prior knowledge too. All of this takes place in the corridor or a main corridor coming into our city from the airport and from Keeneland, which is something that we strive to make sure is very inviting. And with this cell tower proposed, I think that that is going to deter from that cause that we have listed in our bylaws, actually. The staff states that that cell tower will be placed behind the pavilion when actually if you're out there and you look at the pavilion, you can see it from every side of Man of War and from the houses that are behind it. I wanted to also elaborate on something that Mike was talking about in terms of a road to be able to access that area. If you are back there, that road is a side road. That's one way. It's very small and actually I went out there to take a video. I had to park my car over to the side off the road so that someone would not hit me coming from the townhomes in that one way direction. So someone will have to buy or put a road in to be able to access the equipment that's back there. The other thing that I wanted to bring your attention to is something that we do say in 254C, that with every means feasible that we shall try to conceal the tower or antenna so that it is impossible to discern its existence. And I don't believe with the plans that they are talking to do there's no way that you're going to be able to see that thing coming from to and from our area. And I think that's it. So thank you very much. Thank you. Hi, my name is Joy Murphy. I live in Palomar at 4093 Pepper Tree Drive in Lexington. And I'm standing here before you as a representative in a few different ways. I am standing here tonight as a board member of the Palomar Hills Clubhouse HOA. HOA. I'm also standing here tonight as a homeowner and a resident of Palomar, and I'm also standing here tonight as a realtor, okay? And a member of the licensed Lexington or the Bluegrass Realtors Association. On Monday, February 20th, 2023, during our monthly board meeting, the Palomar Hills Community Association Board of Directors voted in opposition to the proposed cell tower at the Palomar Baptist Church property, located at the corner of Manowar Boulevard and Fort Harrods Drive in southwest Fayette County. The PHCA board believes that the proposal tower is completely out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods of Cave Hill Place, Harrods Hill, Beaumont, and the Palomar neighborhoods. It's also out of place with the historic Mill Ridge Thoroughbred Farm, located directly across from Manowar. To me, 125 foot tower is similar to a 12 foot story skyscraper. So just kind of keep that in your mind when you're thinking that. From the urban, when you're talking about the service corridor, one thing I noticed, I'm sure you could tell from my accent, I'm not originally from here. And I am amazed at the beauty that you all take, and I now take pride in, from Keeneland and the airport. And your tourists and your visitors, that's their gateway to when they enter the community. And when you see that and you come out of the area, and you see the beautiful horse farm at Mill Ridge, you don't want the next thing they see is to be that 1,200 and whatever, 1,205 feet or 25 feet or 50 feet tower. But there's a few things besides everything else that everybody said. There's something that this gentleman said that really upset me, and I have to tell you, I was really kind of offended. I've been listening here for seven hours or however many hours to all the arguments that were going on tonight. And I have to tell you, sir, I know you came in here and I know that you're very talented. and you're probably very well educated, but I was surprised at the way you came in, and I'm kind of offended about how you came in like a bully with your company. You need to address us. Okay. Well, I felt like the gentleman came in like a bully to us, and he said that, you know, this is what you have to do. I'm telling you, there's no way you can get out of this, and you're coming in. Well, first thing is that Dish, he didn't tell you that, yes, he's on 27 towers already, because the CNN article, CNN.com, on July 19, 2021, DISH reached a 10-year agreement to use AT&T as its primary network provider as it attempts to transition to a nationwide wireless operator. So the reason that you asked before, is there a way to get, do I get more time? Like the other lady did today when she was talking about her? Okay. Well, I'm just not going to accept because I told you so, and I hope that the Planning Commission doesn't accept because I told you so also. Thank you. From Dick. Just gave up on a clap. Hello, my name is Paula Johnson. I own two homes on Cave Hill Place. This is the neighborhood that borders Palomar Baptist Church. One single family house I own is 125 feet from the cell tower, according to the Pike Legal 500-foot radius map, so I'm close. The other single family I own falls just beyond the 500-foot radius. I've owned these properties for more than 20 years. I also work at Visit Lex, and that's, as you know, the local tourism bureau. As others have stated, the site and intended use of this cell tower are completely out of character with our residential neighborhoods and the Man-o-War corridor. Yes, they've talked about the effect on property values and the tower looming over a major unique section of roadway leading to Lexington's Crown Jewels, both Keeneland and the Horse Farms. And I think this significantly degrades this roadway in its appeal, in addition to the view from my properties and my neighbors on Cave Hill Place. Whether or not you think, or the applicant thinks that this is not a reason to not want this cell tower, just doesn't make sense to me and my neighbors. Section 25-4 of the zoning ordinance says a tower shall be sited at locations that minimize their adverse effect on residential uses in the immediate area. Clearly, this proposed tower is in a residential area. Section 151 states that the ordinance is to provide for cellular service while preserving the character and value of surrounding property and protecting the view from residential areas. I urge the planning commission to follow its own guidelines and its comprehensive plan regarding this tower. And I want to mention something else. Additionally, the tower location does not consider long-term use of land as outlined by Imagine Lexington, the comprehensive plan, which states that it exists to support neighborhoods by locating development opportunities in respect to surrounding neighborhoods. I wonder if anyone understands that locking this 7.7-acre property into a location for a cell tower negates the possibility of the property for use for other applications, something that could not only benefit the church, the city, and the people of Lexington. And use of this land for other applications could keep this unique section of roadway scenic, whereas a cell tower within feet of homes and a major Lexington roadway degrades it all around forever, not to mention safety and the appearance of safety. I urge the applicant and the planning commission to really search for another location or another application to provide cell service. And I want to make sure that our group that's opposing this, make sure that all of our information is put into the record. Also want to make the point that the applicant never met with us prior to coming here. Seems like they're trying to rush this through. They never met with us to discuss any of their plans or any of the application whatsoever. Want to make that note. Thank you for your time. Thank you. One more, one more behind you. My name is Michael Wolkin. I live at 3475 Lion Drive. Just to follow up, what was just communicated to the Planning Commission is that the, well, Tracy and Autumn, who worked for the commission, did an excellent job at Beaumont Public Library when they invited the community members and our neighbors to review the application and went through it in detail. The applicants were invited to that meeting and were no-shows. Did not fail to show at the meeting to communicate to the neighbors the nature of the application. And I think that the commission needs to understand that, that this is not fair to my neighbors and myself. The applicants had an opportunity to meet with us, to discuss this application, and to give us the same information that they gave you tonight. Yet we didn't have that opportunity to meet with them. And I think it's important for the commission to know that. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm the octogenarian telecommunications engineer. Sir, can you state your name on the microphone? Who lives in Harris Hill. I believe you have my comments. Sure, sir. Can you state your name on the microphone? What do I do? Speak your name into the microphone. Emmanuel Zonakis. I live in Harris Hill. I believe you have my comments so I should not belabor the point to repeat them. But back in 1960 I was a young engineer intern at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill. And my mentor collaborated with the people that conceived the cellular service. It was ring and young. So what they believed was to keep things small and harmonious with the communities where the installations were taking place. So that's what I tried to do in my career, which I served with telephone electronics, which became Verizon recently with Bell Atlantic. So that's why I thought I'm making an appearance to make sure that you saw me, I'm real, and please read my comments. should be going to smaller, more attractive things, harmonious to the communities where the technology exists. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. Mr. Pike. Bill Labs was a remarkable institution. Make no mistake. I don't think I have to belabor a lot of this. And, of course, if there are specific issues that the commission wants me to address, I'll be more than glad to do so. I'd like to begin with kind of a reminder that lay opinion, unsupported materials, and aesthetics are not substantial evidence and cannot be used as a basis for a cell tower disapproval under federal law. One issue which has come up several times, and I believe there was an earlier question from Ms. Worth, was regarding stealth at this location. And I think since that question was voiced in particular, it would be good for me to pick that up. First of all, in this case, it's an impossibility. And the reason it's an impossibility is when you go back to those site plans, you'll remember that your planning staff correctly indicated that we met setbacks. We meet the setbacks precisely without an inch to spare. Any type of stealth facility, and I mean any stealth facility, will have a wider cross-section than this tower. The tower has to be built to this required height, and hence a stealth requirement would have to be done. If a stealth facility was sought to be required by this commission, it would be you requiring a violation of your own setback regulations, regulations, which cannot be the case. This is the type of facility with the thinnest visual cross-section. In addition, stealth facilities just in general, although I think my first comment disposes of this issue, come at a great price that most people don't recognize. You'll remember in some of the drawings that I did not put up on the screen, but I believe the planning staff did in their presentation that you saw multiple sets of antennas. So this is a tower that is pre-engineered for multiple co-locators. That is crucial in an area like this in particular where that you have very limited wireless infrastructure. It means that other companies can then place their antennas on that tower. Almost any type of stealth facility dramatically limits your ability to co-locate. on the structures involved and what's required in order to be able to co-locate. So typically, co-location comes at the, stealth often comes at the cost of co-location, which is a bad trade-off. One of the reasons why we were able to deploy our system with only one new tower was that a whole lot of towers earlier, based on this planning commission's requirements, many of which I did over the years, are pre-engineered for multiple wireless companies. If that hadn't been the case, we would have been here with a lot more tower applications than was the situation. And, of course, finally, any stealth requirement is fundamentally based on aesthetics, and I think I've belabored that point and where it stands under federal law enough this evening. If there are any other questions, I'll be glad to try to comment on them. or if there are loose ends, those were the issues that I thought I needed to pick up and address now. Ms. Wirth? I'll ask you one about the geology. You don't live here. I don't know if you're familiar with our karst and problems we've had in this community. Would you address that one? Absolutely. First of all, let's go back to expert opinion versus lay opinion. And I'm a native Kentuckian. I totally get karst topography. And in my foolish youth, even did some cave exploration. That was a very foolish youth at that point. We've provided a report that is not just a theoretical report. This is, of course, a report that was prepared by a licensed engineer. And it was done with full-blown core sampling at this location with photographic evidence of the cores that were taken at this precise location. And that goes way beyond the requirements for any other types of construction. And of course, also, that same engineer will be on hand during the drilling of the actual foundation in order to confirm that what's done matches up with the expectation. And these are exactly the type of subsurface geology examinations that are done for every new cell tower. And they're exactly what your planning staff, as experts, had an opportunity to look over and fully accept it. Just for the benefit of the people who stood up, Kentucky Geological Survey would probably not like being called lay opinion. I'm sorry, what? I said the Kentucky Geological Survey would probably not like being called lay opinion. They're not here. Yeah, but that was the source of the information. Well, they're not here to be cross-examined, ma'am. Okay. Any other questions? I would just like to make an observation about this whole case. I think it's very unfortunate that the people who are sitting in the audience today did not have an opportunity to hear a lot of this information that we heard today. And, you know, that's one of the things that I truly believe in is that it's important to have people, applicants, explain what they want and to educate them. And I think that it's unfortunate that didn't happen here. Thank you. Staff? I just want to quickly address a couple of items that came up in the discussion so far. Someone mentioned the prohibition in the AU zone on certain types of towers. That prohibition does not include cell towers. Potentially that language is quite old. But additionally, Article 25 does acknowledge that cell towers are allowed in all of our zones. And then to the applicants, issues with our additional recommended screening requirements. They have characterized this as a public utility, and the recommended landscaping that we are requesting be installed is similar to that that is required for utility substations and for sewer pump stations. So that's where we came up with that recommendation to be consistent with how other sort of public utilities are treated with perimeter landscaping requirements. He also spoke about RALUPA and requiring landscaping for churches being potentially sideways of that, and the law department may be able to go a little bit further into that, but I will say that Article 18 requires zone-to-zone screening even for churches. And I will also say that while most of the other cell towers that I'm aware of that have gone through this process, we have not had these additional conditions requested. However, the proximity to the historic district is a different circumstance in this instance. In most of those cases, the towers were able to meet all of the requirements of Article 25. In this case, they are much closer to the historic district, and I think that that's a justification for requiring a little bit of additional landscaping, especially along the Manowar perimeter. Happy to answer any questions. Excuse me, sir. Yes, sir. Hold one second. Go ahead. I just want to make sure you're here to speak. I assume about this application, correct? No. I'm just giving one more person, and I'm going to allow you to speak. Okay. That's what I want to make sure. But I want to see as a commission. I'm for the resident. Yeah, you're fine. You're fine. Do we have any other questions before anybody? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. My name is Peter Sun. I'm a resident of Beaumont. Fellow residents and commission members, thank you for this opportunity for me to speak out. I want to break my own rule to be the silent majority. I want to speak out this time. And I think the proponent well-spoken, well-organized, but they miss one important element, the people. If it's so crucial, why is there so many federal residents opposing to it? And they care about their welfare more than anybody else. And there are already a lot of opponents left because of the long hours this afternoon. A lot of them. And I talked to many, many residents. Vast majority of them say no. Please say no. And you are on the stage. You are of the people. and false people. You're from us, representing us. I implore you, please vote no to this cell phone tower. They are missing the people. The people is the resident and the resident will be their future customer. And the customer is the true nature of the business. They're serving the people and they're not really like the input of the people. Therefore, I want to We implore you again, all fellow commission members, please cast a no. Thank you. All right, we bring this back to the commission. The floor is open. Don't have any questions. The floor is open for a motion. Larry, I'm going to just comment. Okay. So my name is Headley Bell, and our family farm is Mill Ridge. And as I mentioned earlier, my grandfather's farm was Beaumont. New Circle Road came in and cut Beaumont, a good chunk of Beaumont. My grandfather wasn't in favor of that, but that was the way it was. That's the way cities grow, progress, things of that nature. Y'all are living where you are now, likely, because of that. Palomar, all those things. I've served on this planning commission, which is truly a privilege. We are not elected officials. We are appointed by the mayor. We answer to the council whom are elected officials. Mr. Pike, I don't know that I've ever experienced anybody quite as, in my opinion, as talented as he is in his role. He is an expert in what he does. When he started his portion of this hearing, everything that he said was because that is the law. Staff, whom I referred to earlier, everything that they do in guiding us is based on the law and such and their expert opinions. That's what they do. We are the lay. All we do is try to judge based on. So you can imagine me sitting here with Millridge, with our history in this community, and being so sensitive to everything that you're saying, and being, I know how frustrating it must truly be for you. Sir, when you spoke, you spoke beautifully, the last speaker. Mr. Pike hears that every time he goes to a hearing. Every single time that a tower is going to be put in anywhere, it's not in my backyard. That's the way it is. We learn to live with these things because, you know what? we all use a cell tower and the last thing you want to do is to be have be knocked off the cell so the law has allowed him to he doesn't mean to be quote arrogant or whatever bully he is just very good at what he does and he cuts right to the chase because he can so i say this to yourselves to try to make you aware of what this is, this planning, council, your government body. It's not what you want to hear, but it is the process that we go through all the time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Nickel, make a motion. Yes. Thank you for those comments. That does reflect at least my opinion being put in this situation. We've been trained on this before. We've gone through this to understand what the law is, what we can do in this situation. And what we have found along the way is that our hands are really tied in the position that we are in. And as I was stated as we started, this is a buy right. This is buy right. So with all that being said, but most importantly, just noticing that what Mr. Bell said is my sentiment as well, I would like to recommend approval of PLN, cell 23-0001, municipal communications 3, LLC and DISH network, with the staff's findings that have been reported here at this hearing. Okay. we have a motion do we have a second we got a second by miss barxdale please vote via granicus okay still passes motion passes thank you thank everybody for your time mr chris woodall there were three We're just in a bad mood tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Chairman Forrester, we'll just take a minute to rearrange for long range planning. I really do. I mean, so. I'm going to cancel the other. Come on. And you don't even know. No. No. I was shocked. I think it is interesting. I didn't email this for something. This is wasteful. I'm good. This is all over. Is she saying? Thank you. Members of the commission, I appreciate your patience. It's been a long evening. First of all, we're going to continue, well, just to introduce the agenda item, We're going to continue the public hearing from last Thursday on the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Excuse me. Excuse me, guys. Can you talk outside? We still got an agenda item here. We've got a closed hearing. Tell them we've got a closed hearing. Yeah, we have a closed hearing. Oh, it's not closed. It's not closed. I'll just continue it. You want it closed, but it's not closed. No, it's not. Okay, Chris. Sorry about that. That's all right. Thank you, members of the commission. As I was saying, we're going to continue our public hearing on Imagine Lexington 2045, the comprehensive plan, the goals and objectives recommendation. You all should have a sheet in front of you and that we've distributed to you all ahead of time and was available at the back for everyone to pick up as well that had some recommended changes. First off, I want to thank everybody who participated in that process last Thursday. We heard a lot of really good feedback from a number of people who took the time to come out and talk to us. And we felt like that feedback was really important, but we also felt like it was indicative of a lot of the other feedback that we've heard throughout this public input process that's been going on now for about a year. A lot of the important issues that were discussed about housing and equity and the environment are all themes that we heard throughout the public input. And we continue to hear throughout the public hearing. And we feel like there is a lot of opportunity for those to continue to be addressed throughout the policies and the implementation items as we complete the rest of this comprehensive plan after the council approves the goals and objectives. So I want to acknowledge those folks who came out to talk about those things, and we feel like those are important issues that we're going to continue to expand upon as we move on to complete the comprehensive plan. I mentioned the sheet as well that I distributed, that's been distributed to you all, and it includes some changes here. For one, there was a housekeeping item that was changing Affordable Housing Trust Fund to its proper title, Affordable Housing Fund. So just a cleanup item there in theme A. And then we've addressed the concerns and the issues that were brought up relative to theme E and the urban service area in the rest of the proposed edits. So I don't want to take up a whole lot of your time right now and read those to you all, but you've received those edits, and staff is available for questions on those as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I've just got a little housekeeping. Through the letters that we've had here distributed this afternoon, there were some letters I think that were related to this issue, this comp plan that I've filtered out. So may we have a minute to just have a look at them? I mean, since they're here, or do you want them? I think they're dated. Those were given to you, Ms. Meyer? They were passed out. They were mixed in with some of the other letters. I believe they're part of the record, yes. They're part of the record, yes. All right, thank you. Okay. Yes, Mr. Michler. Well, I thought a lot about the public comments that we heard. It, to be honest, made me rethink the goals and objective in a different way than I had. And I appreciate the staff's effort at coming to a compromise, and I do plan on supporting the language that they've come up with. But I did realize that what some of the commenters commented on that did seem to be missing was a lot of those sort of quantifiable goals. And a lot of work has been done towards providing information that could give us quantifiable goals, whether it's a sustainable growth committee, whether it's projected dwelling unit needs, whether it's impacts of different, whether it's how many jobs we want to create, whether it's how many not just that we want to increase public transit biking and walking but what percentage of our mode share do we want that to be and the absence of those concrete measurable goals I feel will down the road impact us when we come back to set policies because if we don't have, for example, a number of dwelling units that we're targeting or a number of pedestrian mode share that we're targeting, how do we measure the impact of those policies? And so I guess this isn't really asking for those to be put in today, but the comments that the citizens had regarding goals for climate emissions or deadlines really gave me pause to think where are there more places as we go through this process that we can put in these measurable metrics that pair up with these ideas that are in here. Thank you. I would agree with that. assumed that these were at this level more i don't want to call them aspirational goals but to some extent that's what they are but that when we get to the level of policies and procedures we'll get some more metrics in there that's an assumption on my part i've not been through this process before is that accurate assumption yes ma'am i think that's appropriate i think at this stage we're really doing direction setting about the the types of things we want to accomplish but we can We can certainly get more specific in those policies as we work on the second phase of this plan. Absolutely. And along that same line with the letters and the feedback that we got last week, I hope that moving forward those comments and letters will be taken into consideration. And Chris and Chris, you know, I was interested because, again, I don't understand quite the mechanics of things, but you mentioned different text amendments and different ways of really navigating these, executing on these things. Can you give me an overarching example of how we go about implementing some of these things that are more specific to, let's say, the tenant people or whomever, you know, type of things, or affordable housing, or those kinds of things. And y'all have got obviously a list of, quote, goals that we're working on, I presume, and things like that. I think it's helpful to be reminded about getting in the nitty-gritty of stuff, if that makes sense to you. I see y'all talking to each other. I guess that was a little bit kind of different. Well, Mr. Bell, I think a lot of our implementation, the policies in the plan that get specific back to Robin's point, they're a reflection of where the community and the planning commission are at any given time. And so where there's been vagueness, it represents where the community's at. And where there's specificity, it reflects where the community and the planning commission is at. And so through the next six months, we'll go back and look at the areas where we've been vague where we clearly saw some movement from the community and we'll up the ante on implementation and specificity there. And in areas where we've already started that work and been specific, maybe it's time to take the next step. And so, and I think you've seen some of that through the text amendments that we've brought, but there's a lot left to be done. We think we can iterate on those and lay those out for you. And then you all give us the direction of whether or not that's too much, too little. That's the way I think we've tried to do this in the past, and I don't think there's any question. We've got a lot of community input that is pushing things further in areas where they haven't been pushed in the past, and that's excellent. And that's the goal of the comprehensive plan is to move with people as they want to do that. So really what you're saying is it's a community buy-in as to whether or not things can... Yes, it doesn't do us any good to get way out ahead of ourselves on policies that the community is not ready to accept. in a lot of ways that delivers pushback and blowback on the staff and the planning commission. We don't want to do that. We want to bring everybody along as best we can. Thank you so much. Okay. Any other questions? I know everybody's tired, so I understand. I get it. All right. So we need to make a motion of approval as presented or changes. Mr. Chair, I will note that we do have a resolution in front of you all as well. So is that red? Yes. What's this? The resolution is basically, we prepared it last week, but it's to, if you all, it doesn't have to be read in its entirety, but if you all want to move these goals and objectives as they've been presented to you today and amended after the public comment last week, you would adopt that resolution and it will move, it will adopt, you all will adopt these goals and objectives as presented and move them forward to the Urban County Council for their consideration. You could just read the top of the, I mean, in terms of like the actual logistics of the motion, it could just be a motion to approve the resolution and read the title of the resolution, but not in its entirety. That's what I was going to say. We just need to make mention of the resolution and the motion, which is the title. Yes, yes, but you can do that by reading the title. Right. Okay. Ms. Meyer. It would be as amended. Thank you. All right. Mr. Chairman, if nobody else has anything to say, I'm moved. Just a moment, Ms. Worth, before you do that. If those who were not in attendance last week would like to state for the record that they have caught up with this meeting through other means on the record, then perhaps we could get that on the record. Yes, eagerly raising my hand to announce that I watched the three hour and 23 minute presentation before participating in however long this was. Well, I'm excited to be to this point. Put it in the record. But you missed the last two meetings, it don't matter. Well, I paid for it, I'm good. I feel like I'm good. Okay, are we ready? Yes. All right, Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the resolution adopting goals and objectives as required in KRS 100.193 of the Imagine Lexington 2045 Comprehensive Plan. Okay, we have a motion by Ms. Work. That would be as they were amended. Because you got an amendment today. So as amended. As amended. Yes, sorry. Okay. This was last week's. And we have a second by Ms. Meyer. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Duncan, you don't have anything to say, right? Mr. Chair, if you all can stand it, we'll see you all next Thursday at committees. Thank you all so much. Case closed.