I want it only, I promise I can keep. As long as the wheels are burning. As long as the fires are burning. As long as the... That wraps up another edition of my Council Comment. I really appreciate the Community Paramedicine team joining me today. And I appreciate you joining me as well. For more information on what's going on in our city, feel free to email or call my office or follow me on social media. You can find me on Facebook and Instagram. Thanks again for joining me. Thank you. Rose is better than me Send out my love Calling out her name, I'm dreaming In fact, she's out of bed, so I'm seeing It's my voice that keeps on watching Thank you. Roses never fade Memories fade Send out, send out my love Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh Sometimes the sun goes round the moon I see the passion in your eyes Sometimes it's all a big surprise Cause there was a time Thank you. Everyone, welcome to the Urban County Planning Commission Subdivision and Zoning Items meeting. I'd like to call this meeting to order. It is March 23, 2023. We will move down the agenda to postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Palolo LLC. It's on page three of your agenda, item number one, MAR23-1. We would like to ask a one-month postponement to the April 27th Planning Commission meeting. We met with the staff this past week to go over kind of the design of the building, and we were not able to get plans turned around in time with those changes to be evaluated. And as I told the zoning committee, if that was not able to occur before this meeting, then I'd be asking for one month postponement to go back through the committees. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you all. All right. On the commission. The floor is open. Move for a postponement of PLN MER 23-1 as requested by the applicant. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. Thank you. Nothing else? All righty. Let's put us on page two of the agenda. PLN MJDP 23-12, Melrose edition. Staff? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, we are on page two of your agenda. This is an amendment to a major development plan, 23-12, Meros edition. This was one that was previously postponed because it does require the posting of a sign because it's an adaptive reuse project, and that's a requirement under your ordinance. Here we have Thompson Road, Railroad, Manchester. This is the Burl. I think most people recognize this by that name. It's a music venue, the Burl. This is associated buildings and activities, again, that are all part of that adaptive reuse project. Now, the principal purpose of this amendment is this structure right here. That's a steel shipping container that they utilize as a bar during outdoor events. and when they have the outdoor events, they are generally held right in this area of the venue. They had been using this, and it was determined to be a temporary structure. They were going to have to move it back and forth on site, move it when they need to use it, store it when they weren't using it, that sort of thing. They felt like probably in interest of long-term stability, let's just get it approved on the development plan, leave it where it is. They have seating on top of it as well. There are stairs, so people, I assume, oops, what did I do? There we go. I assume it's VIP seating. But, again, that is the primary mover. They've adjusted their parking a little bit, primarily due to this and in these areas. We have existing access here and here. You can see when you look at the agenda, the conditions, there weren't many. that was dimensioned this north entrance, which in fact they have done, and then hardscape and landscape areas. You can see there's a lot of hardscape in the area, then there's various landscape islands. We ask that those areas be clearly dimensioned. It helps identify them. It also helps them with any necessary calculations. In this case, they don't need to worry about that, but stormwater, for instance, they go in. But again, we've asked for those to be properly dimensioned. And then we have one which is discuss the functionality of parking during outdoor events. We've had a lot of discussions with them, and we discussed that in front of your subdivision committee as well. And again, this is the area where they have the outdoor events, and they moved parking that was here. They maintained parking in this location. Part of the concern that staff had were the handicapped parking and that functionality, particularly if someone needed to leave and that sort of thing when there was an outdoor event that were accessing the handicap parking. From what we've been told, they intend to basically fence this area off with a little temporary fence barriers so that you'll have your outdoor, you'll have your music, you'll have your audience here. They can access the little outdoors. They only have electric to it. There's no plumbing, anything like that. They ice the beer down and just sell it so that people don't have to go inside to the bar. Again, so they have explained the staff's satisfaction. I believe you can see that's what that is indicated to be is that barrier to allow that functionality so people can then get in their vehicles and then access the public right away at that location. So with that, that can be changed to resolve on your number 12 can functionality of parking. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you have for staff. Any questions for staff? Oh, just for the record, they got their sign up and their affidavit. They did what they were supposed to do. Okay. Don't think we have any questions. Thank you. Applicant? Good afternoon. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. I'm here on behalf of the two owners. They're here. We are in agreement with the 12 staff comments. comments and if you have any questions maybe the owners could help answer these i didn't attend the the staff level meetings mark mccain did but unfortunately he was out couldn't make today so i'm filling in for him but we do have joe mo thompson and will harvey here they're both owners of the borough and they'd be happy to answer any questions thank you thank you do we have any questions for the applicant i'm seeing any thank you sir is there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda item please do so by stepping up to the podium if not we'll bring it back to the commission for a motion miss worth Mr. Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2312 with the 12 conditions suggested or recommended by staff, changing number 12 to resolve. Thank you. We have a motion and a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. So that put us on page four. PLN MAR 23-2 Dutch Bros. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission. This is PLN MAR 23-00002. The applicant is seeking a zone change from the professional office P1 zone to the neighborhood business B1 zone for approximately 0.57 or 0.9 gross acres for the property located at 1008 South Broadway. The applicant is seeking to situate their development within the corridor place type and the medium density non-residential or mixed-use development type in hopes of developing a 950 square foot coffee shop with a double drive-through facility. This is located at the intersection of Broadway and Virginia. All vehicular access would be located off of Virginia. Looking at the area of interest, we are located off of South Broadway, just at the intersection or transition of Virginia Avenue to Red Mile Road. Jumping a little closer, we get an idea of the zoning of the property and the surrounding properties. There is a mix of different zoning, including commercial and residential at this location. The commercial includes B1, B3, B4, B6P, and then a portion of MU3, which is a mixed-use zone. The residential includes the R3 and R4, and then this property is the lone P1 zoned portion of property. Jumping into the area, we get an idea of how the area has developed, the land uses that have developed over time associated with this development and the surrounding area. You can see that there is a host of single-family detached residential in this portion of the area, with some neighborhood-supporting uses nearby. However, the vast majority of what we are seeing along South Broadway is more of a commercial atmosphere, with the exception of the new Grogan's development. This is a mixed-use, form-based B1 project that includes a high amount of multifamily residential with a small component of neighborhood business on the first floor. It's important to note that that is a form-based project and is recommended within the comprehensive plan. The portion of Red Mile and Virginia Avenue is also a very important area to look at when we're talking about pedestrian connectivity. This area of Red Mile has developed into an area of heavy student population, and this area is heavily traversed by students going to the University of Kentucky. It's also important to note that we are located at the crossroads of two major arterial roadways, South Broadway and Red Mile-Virginia Avenue. These are major thoroughfares within our community, and they provide major access into the downtown area as well as over to the University of Kentucky. Jumping into the site itself, this lower photo, a little bit of an older one from the fall, but looking into the site from the corner of Red Mile Road, you can see the Grogan site just behind there starting to build up. Top center photo is the development directly across Virginia Avenue. It is a gas station and a fast food or a Starbucks coffee restaurant with a drive-thru facility. Looking down Virginia towards the University of Kentucky here, and then looking down Red Mile Road towards some of those student apartments as well as the Red Mile racetrack. Jumping to our next set of photos, again, this is the more recent context of the subject property. It is being utilized as construction parking for the Grogan's development. The opposing development across the South Broadway corridor. And then looking down South Broadway as we're going out of town here and up South Broadway, or going north on South Broadway towards downtown. You can see in all of these photos, one of the more apparent things is the amount of traffic at this location. This is an area of a complex intersection. We've had a fair amount of conversation about this intersection with some of the pinch points at South Broadway as it moves to the north, as well as some of the complexities of the interaction with corner locations. This is the proposed development plan associated with this application. Mr. Martin will be reviewing this in a greater way. It just helps to provide a little bit of context in what we will be discussing with the agreement with the comprehensive plan, as well as some of the elements of the comprehensive plan. They are proposing a 950 square foot structure on the front that faces South Broadway. This represents an FAR of .04, relatively low FAR, especially for a corridor. And then an area that is greater than 50% of the site is dedicated to vehicular use areas, specifically the double drive-through facility as well as the dumpster location. With review of this application, their development plan, and their letter of justification, staff found that there were several issues in association with agreement with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan seeks to increase density specifically along our corridors of our community. This actually represents a major decrease in the intensity of land use along these corridor routes. It is approximately 52.5 times less dense than the adjacent development on the Grogan site and is approximately 8.7 times less than the minimum required density or intensity of FAR associated with the B6P zone, which is that zone that occupies the shopping center just south of the Grogan site. The proposed development is also in conflict with some of the goals and objectives focused on pedestrian infrastructure and safe multimodal interactions. We really want to, with our comprehensive plan, create a roadway that is both safe for pedestrians, bikers, vehicleists, all modes of transportation, while also trying to promote mass transit within our community. This proposed development does not promote those aspects. It's promoting a single occupancy vehicle more than it is mass transit. It is focused more heavily on vehicular use area within the site. And it does not provide that pedestrian first design, specifically along that Virginia Avenue corridor. Staff has major concerns about the safety of the vehicles at this location as well. That is a significant concern, as we will discuss later on in our presentation. Again, this does decrease the effectiveness of our mass transit by promoting single vehicle options. and it does increase greenhouse emissions specifically by providing double drive-through facilities that often have a fair amount of idling in position and directly associated or adjacent to a residential development. With all zone changes within the 2018 comprehensive plan, we utilize the place builder element to review some of the aspects of the application. Within this application, the applicant is seeking to develop within a corridor place type. The corridor place type is specifically the location of Lexington's major roadways. The major component of the comprehensive plan is doing a major redo or trying to enhance overhaul some of these areas by increasing density at these sites, by also integrating a high amount of residential along these sites. This specifically gets into providing a more transit-oriented development that helps the community less rely on some of those single occupancy vehicles and move towards different options. It does not preclude those options, though. So this is located within a corridor. Staff is in agreement that this is a corridor place type. This is also one of our few place types that's actually mapped in the comprehensive plan. Next, an applicant is asked to look at their development and describe how it is meeting or is in agreement with some of the recommended development types, the most suitable development types. In this case, the applicant has indicated that they are a medium-density, non-residential, or mixed-use development type. These development types are primarily community-serving commercial uses and services or places of employment. They are meant to have a mix of uses and have a higher FAR. This is where staff sees a greatest concern with much of the applicant's development, is that they are not seeking to increase the intensity of land use at this site. They are taking a vacant site and utilizing a very small FAR footprint that does not have the mix of uses or a growth of different commercial aspects that is called for within the comprehensive plan. These structures are supposed to be places that enhance the transit-oriented development along corridors, and they are supposed to be more oriented to the street, creating a more pedestrian-friendly context. In this case, it is creating a pedestrian access point along the South Broadway corridor. However, the vast majority of the Virginia Avenue area is occupied by activation of vehicular use area. That is not a clear activation that we would like to see with the development along these areas. So again, just looking at where they are activating, it is a small portion of South Broadway. However, the vast majority of the site is occupied by this vehicular use area. It is much less dense and intense than the neighboring developments and is actually a decrease in intensity from all the surrounding developments. In review of the development criteria, which is a distillation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, the staff found that there were nine areas of major concern. The first being the decrease of intensity along a corridor. The applicant is decreasing comparatively with the surrounding development and is increasing the impact of the vehicular use in this area. They are focused on that vehicular traffic, and they are not seeking to create that context-sensitive transition from a corridor into the other surrounding developments. Staff is concerned with the safe pedestrian facilities along Virginia Avenue, as well as the safe facilities for vehicular movement in and out of the site. Next, the applicant is looking at the recommended zones within that place type and development type. In this case, the applicant is not utilizing a recommended zone. There is a specific recommendation of a B1 zone, but with a form-based project. This allows for greater utilization of the site, increased density on the site, and is exactly what was done in the neighboring Grogan site just to the south. in addition to the applicant's justification that they are in agreement with the comprehensive plan they have also provided an alternative justification it's important to note that when providing a justification if there is an absence of a finding of agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan that is when you can move on to the other justifications in this case staff finds that there is not agreement with the the comprehensive plan for the reasons previously stated, and we must review the applicant's alternative justification. In this case, the applicant is seeking to indicate that the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate, and the proposed zoning classification is appropriate for this location. Staff review their application and disagrees with part of their justification, which utilizes the comprehensive plan to state that the current P1 zone is inappropriate and the B1 zone is appropriate. First, the comprehensive plan has been looked at as not having a finding of agreement. Staff disagrees with the utilization of the comprehensive plan for appropriateness or inappropriateness. Next, the applicant is not utilizing a B1 form-based project, which is the recommended zone within this area. The applicant does go on further to provide other justification for the inappropriateness of the B1 zone and the P1 zone. Staff, however, disagrees with their assumptions of both the inappropriateness of the P1 and the appropriateness of the B1. For staff's analysis, we look at the intents of both zones. The intent of the neighborhood business zone is to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area. Generally, they should be planned facilities and should be located as recommended in the comprehensive plan. This zone should be oriented to residential neighborhoods and should have a roadway system which will be adequate to accommodate the anticipated vehicular traffic. The vehicular traffic is one thing that we will discuss here just shortly. However, staff does not see that this is engaging with a residential neighborhood. The applicant is really focused on the transient population that is moving through this site by focusing in on a double drive-through facility and a vehicular use area that occupies greater than 50% of the site. The intent of the professional office zone, or the P1 zone, is primarily for offices and related land uses. Retail sales are prohibited except for those that are directly related to those office functions. In this case, staff finds that the P1 zone is an appropriate step down and doesn't have the same type of impact that B1 zone might have on the traveling public. This is represented by the 1980 zone change, which we'll go through in just a moment. It's also very important to look at the restrictions of drive-thru facilities within the B1 zone. The B1 zone has not always had greater review of drive-thru facilities. Until 2013, a drive-through facility was considered an accessory use to any type of primary use within the B1 zone. In 2013, there was a modification to change that to either a conditional use with review by the Board of Adjustment or on a development plan with review by the Planning Commission. This means that this is not a by-right use. It acknowledges the need for discretionary review by the Planning Commission or the Board of Adjustment to see whether or not there is a potential negative impact on the surrounding urban environment. Should the Planning Commission find that the B1 zone is appropriate, staff still finds that the drive-through facility is absolutely not appropriate at this location. There are also historic limitations on the B1 use and auto-centric uses in that zone. In 1999, there was a restriction placed on 1011 South Broadway, specifically limiting or restricting auto-centric uses that were inconsistent with the retail and office uses identified within the South Broadway Corridor Study. This study is no longer active. As we go through things over time and change, some of those studies time out. However, at this time in 1999, there was a concern with the impact of more auto-centric uses that were not in line with retail and office that was recommended by that plan that were restricted. Additionally, at 373 Virginia Avenue in 1998, there was a specific restriction on drive-thru facilities at that location. Within 300 feet, there is one drive-thru location that has been allowed. This was a property that was built prior to that 2013 modification of the ordinance. That was applied as an accessory use. There was not a discretionary review of that use in the same way that a B1 drive-through needs to have now. In 1980, this property was changed from the B4, the Wholesale Warehousing Business Zone, to the P1 zone. The specific language that gets into the appropriateness of that P1 zone is that it would allow for the preservation of the existing structure. Unfortunately, that has been demolished at this location. And would minimize the traffic impact of other non-residential uses in this area. That traffic impact, and this is a photo of 1998, not 1980. This is the oldest photo that we could find with an aerial depiction of the area, has changed. And we've seen an expansion of the amount of traffic in this area. That expansion of the amount of traffic has also included growth in some of the traffic impacts in this area, specifically vehicular collisions. Between 2018 and 2023, approximately one accident has occurred at this intersection within 300 feet per week, 336 collisions over that five-year time span. That stresses the importance of controlled access into and out of our commercial properties, importance of limiting high vehicular turnover land uses with direct access to the corridors. And that's specifically important because many of the drive-through facilities in this area do not have direct access to the corridors. They either access into shopping centers or they access into frontage roads, which is the case over here with the Starbucks restaurant. The proposed use is focused on that traveling public and receives the greatest amount of use during peak hours, traditionally those a.m. peak hours. The greatest amount of use for coffee shops is generally between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m. Staff is recommending disapproval of this application. Staff does not find that the proposed rezoning is in agreement with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan as I have presented previously in this. Staff finds that the medium density non-residential or mixed use development type intent is not met with this application. Again, a FAR of less than .04 compared to something that is 52 times greater neighboring. Additionally, staff finds that there are inconsistencies with the proposed development and the development criteria, which are the distillation of the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. Additionally, there have been no unanticipated changes of an economic, social, or physical nature in the area of the subject property since the adoption of the 2018 comprehensive plan. And the staff finds that the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence as to why the concurrent zoning is inappropriate addressing the historical establishment of that zone and why the proposed zoning is appropriate for this location the professional office p1 zone is still appropriate due to the complex intersection of south broadway and virginia slash red mile road and the need to limit high turnover vehicle traffic entering and exiting this site i do have two letters of opposition which i will point i will distribute right after this presentation but if you have any questions on the zone change i'd be happy to answer them now any questions for staff yes yes sir mr bailey i think that we've done some really good work working to increase floor area ratio that's been important for us to do as a community in order to create more dense and intense uses on these vacant and unrealized parcels. One thing I'd like to bring into consideration is that this parcel itself is a corner lot, and we've got the ratio of net to gross is pretty low just by design of the site itself because of the corner. So I think that that's important for us to take into consideration. and also the B6P zone was something that was created to increase the density and create a more flexibility, providing greater uses and more specifically dwelling units on a previous retail shopping center. So we're comparing just a standard B1 to B6P at 52 point times less. I think that that's a good number, but as in it's an interesting number to show that the density ratio is not as high as the property next door. But the property next door has unusual consequences that we've – or characteristics that we've used to take advantage of and increase the density. So what I'm saying is we've got one of the best pieces of property where we're able to do 52.5 times what you would normally be able to on a small piece of property. I think it's just important from the zoning side, not the development plan side, but from the zoning side, you are going to have a large ratio of density between a standard B1 and a B6P, no matter what. And two, we should really consider this property as a unique property with a low net to gross ratio. So just some observations. Yes, sir. And just to look at the property itself, staff did review the properties that are zoned B1 and P1 in our community. 80% of the properties located within Lexington Fayette County are of this size or less that are zoned B1. 75% of the properties in Fayette County are of this size or less in our community. So the suggestion that this property is too small to house other P1 or B1 uses that would be in more compliance with the comprehensive plan is inappropriate. Just because we have a fair amount of these sites in our community, smaller sites, corner sites, and an FAR of .04 is not representative of the vast majority of them. Okay, thank you. That is a clarification I need. Thank you. I'm not seeing any further questions. Thank you. Applicant? I think Mr. Martin's going to come up with a development. I'm sorry, we got the plan. I stole his thunder by jumping to it earlier. No, you're fine. Mr. Chairman, members of the plan commission, at your seats, There should be a revised condition handout for you on that lovely spring-like green. So Mr. Bailey has already touched on the development plan with you. You can see, again, here we have Broadway, Virginia Avenue. This is the existing access that comes into the property. Here, the 950-square-foot coffee shop that's being proposed. As you all know, this is important. We review this, and your subdivision committee reviews this, as if the zoning was already in place. And then we just take a look at does it meet the requirements, are there other conditions, other circumstances of the development to be considered. So, again, that's just a little housekeeping I wanted to remind everyone of how we review development plans in this circumstance. So there's a setback in the B-1 from 10 to 20. They chose to set the building at the 20-foot setback. Here is a rather large area that they've designated as a pedestrian walk-up to buy coffee in this area. You can see the green. There's some green areas, a large tree here. Due to the double drive-through, and again, you can see how it's structured and how summed it up nicely, you can see the tremendous amount of pavement, the vehicular use area that's required with a drive-through. But this is a large green area located here. Now, two of the big concerns in reviewing this, again, relate to the fact that they're proposing a drive-through. And as Hal said, a drive-through is discretionary review on a final development plan. Chief and foremost of that concern would be the access. Now, there's a condition that's a very standard condition in these circumstances. on your revised conditions that says denote access to Virginia Avenue shall be resolved at the time of a final development plan. And that goes back to the discretionary review of a drive-through. This is in no way meant to imply that that's an acceptable full access to Virginia Avenue because it's not. That should the circumstances arise that a drive-through, this auto-centric use, was approved, the only way in staff's review that this would work would be right in, right out with median controls. And those of you who may drive that area quite a bit, I do. It's my commute. It's my everyday commute. I was one of those accident statistics, by the way. A young lady on a rainy day accidentally rear-ended me right in that intersection. Scared her to death, but nobody was hurt. But again, you may have noticed just within the last few years, due to the tremendous increase in traffic and the left turn activity, that the state came in and set up the flag bollards in front of the shell station. So again, in staff's opinion or in review, the only way this access would work in conjunction with the drive-through would be to have a write-in, write-out with median controls. And they would probably have to equal those on Broadway and go back 250 feet or more to the access into the Grogan's property. They have a full access point into their parking garage. So I want you to understand very clearly that by deferring that to the final development plan is not in any way saying that this is any more than what it is. It's the existing access into this. And they have the right to access. Whatever development happens here is going to be allowed access. But the nature of that access, the design of that access relative to the use is what's important and what will have to be considered. The other condition of concern are solid waste people were a little concerned about having to back out and back into here and pull out. Frankly, I'm not sure what the solution of that may be. These sites are a challenge. It's important that those big trucks can get in here and back out and pull out. And that will be worked out. And that's something, again, at a final development plan stage. It's interesting to note that the employees are going to have to access those dumpsters as well. So they're going to be walking back through here and accessing those dumpsters should this go forward. But, again, our solid waste people did express some concern about this length and backing into this area. You may notice this little dotted area there, that's proposed detention. You all may recall from previous developments, including the Grogan and some that are just a little further out, that there are stormwater concerns in this area that have to be addressed through appropriate engineering design. And that's what that's intended to illustrate. Your subdivision committee did recommend approval of this plan subject to the explanation that I gave you of reviewing it as if the B-1 is in place. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff about the preliminary development plan. Floor is open for questions. Mr. Pohl. One of the letters opposed to the application suggests that the in-and-out auto access will endanger bicyclists and pedestrians. Can you tell me about the discussions that were had about that and analysis, especially of bicycle traffic there? That's always a concern, and it was discussed. It wasn't a heavy focus, but again, Graham, it does come back to the nature of that access point and how you would design it. And with Right In, Right Out, for instance, we have stressed pedestrian access across that. I think, again, you're going to the use question, which is extremely important here with the drive-through, And just the fact that it presents so much, the opportunity for so much traffic, that's inherently a problem for your cyclists and your pedestrians. And as that increases, that problem is going to get worse. So that doesn't influence the decision on the development plan? It would on the final development plan, certainly. Again, the final development plan was the additional discretionary review that Hal was referring to. And it would enter into it. I don't believe that we would recommend approval of a drive-through on a final development plan in this location. Just similar to other locations where we recommended against them on final development plans. We have done that. Your staff has consistently done that where we feel like the traffic impact would be disproportional. This is a small item just on the development plan. Where it has parking statistics, it still lists required parking, five vehicular spaces, one bicycle space, and then it says parking provided. Is that from old metrics or is that drawing on- They're just using old terminology. There's no requirement. And this is what they're demonstrating here. And I assume that's primarily employee parking. Okay. But it is not in fact, there is no in fact required parking. No, sir. Correct. No, there is not. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Now the time for the applicant. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. It's good to see you again. I'm Bruce Simpson. I'm here on behalf of Dutch Bros. And, you know, I usually try to put on a happy face and I have an optimistic outlook when I come before you because I love the microphone, number one. I've been addicted to it for 40 years now. But especially when I know there's a staff recommendation of disapproval, I know that I have a challenge to have to turn your thinking or at least give you pause for thinking differently about this. And I was pretty amped up, quite frankly, you that okay i'm in a good mood now i'm in a good place even though i know how's going to make his uh usual passionate admonition that this coffee shop is going to be disastrous for this part of our community and let me let me make make it clear i appreciate house passion as well as the other staff as a citizen i do and before this body even now i do so i don't i want you to dispute my my appreciation and respect for his delivery and the content. Well made, well taken, his points are worthy of consideration. There's a few points that he didn't touch on, or didn't touch on enough, which I'm going to get into in a minute. But as I said, I was pretty optimistic, even though I was looking at staff recommendation disapproval, except when I came to the chamber and I saw Tom Martin dressed in black. Then I knew I was going to have a bad day because when Tom shows up in black, I know my work is cut out for me. And so it is. And you've heard their presentations. They delivered them, as I said, very well. A couple of things at the outset of this proposed coffee shop at this location. Just so you all have a complete understanding, and I know you've probably driven by this location many times in the past, have some appreciation of its historical use. But just so that we, no one misunderstands the nature of this property, it's one half acre of property to be developed. There's no dispute about that. The zoning line goes to the center of the road, but obviously you don't develop the center of the road. you develop on the half acre. So when you're looking at, uh oh, can I go back? Go back to the development plan. I'm trying to use the pointer. Okay. Now which one's the pointer? Technology is still a challenge and plus I can't see either so. All right so just so we're clear. This is our one half acre that we're proposing for the coffee shop. Here's the coffee shop of course. This is the drive-through area that's been discussed. Back here is a rain garden, a little feature, amenity for the walk-up traffic that we expect in here. Get your coffee and come over in here. There's tables, a patio in here. It's set up for pedestrians because there are students, as was mentioned. They're well down the road, but we hope there's pedestrians that come and we'll get a cup of coffee. we don't really dispute too much of the staff report in that this one half acre is completely surrounded on this side by South Broadway on this side by Virginia Avenue and over here is completely surrounded by the new apartment community that's now under construction so So it's one half acre with no opportunity for any cross easement parking, if you will, or shared parking. This is a building that is enclosing this area. South Broadway is blocking the west side and Virginia Avenue on the north. So whatever is going to be done on this site is going to be done within that half acre. That's it. And as I listen to the staff's presentation, really where we differ primarily, we agree on the place type. This is on a corridor, South Broadway. We agree on that. And we agree that on the development type, medium density, non-residential. Where we differ is they say what we're proposing is low density non-residential rather than medium density non-residential. And therefore, that's not consistent with what it needs to have in order to secure part of our consideration for approval. Now, we went through this. Now, some of you all weren't here at the time. We went through the 2018 comprehensive plan. But we had considerable debate in the community about these guidelines in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, the place type, the development type, and the development criteria. And there was concern expressed by the development community that we didn't want this development criteria and the place type in the corridor or the development type to be used as a checklist that we had to check off and satisfy every single feature of each one of those items. Because the application for a zone map amendment in terms of the justification, I used to do it in two or three pages, and now it's closer to ten. because you have to address all these different issues. And we were assured, and I was assured, and it was all agreed, or so I thought, that it's not a checklist. These are just considerations. And as this body well knows, I know you've had this in your training as planning commissioners from other attorneys in land use, that the comprehensive plan under law that guides your decision. You can have a zone change if the application isn't conforming with the plan. And when the courts look at, well, okay, how important is the plan? How much detail does it have to be followed in order to secure approval? The courts have said time and time and time again since 1977, the comprehensive plan is a guide, guiding principles for development. It's not a straitjacket for development. It doesn't mean you have to have a checklist. It doesn't mean you have to dot every I and cross every T, and every sentence and every paragraph, as the staff proposes that we do in order to get approval from you guys, we have to show that we're in compliance with the principles, the guidance, the recommendations of the plan. And as I share with you, we're in agreement with everything the staff says except the density in terms of they want more density on this one half acre. And I will tell you, as someone who has represented developers and neighborhoods, still do, fortunately, the developers that have always come to me, they want as much density as possible. I should say as much density upon which they can make money. they have no desire and we've been through a couple of hearings on this as you know to have to have density that is not marketable for which they can't make a profit which is going to be deleterious on their use of the property and so it doesn't do them any good and if it was doing good if there was a market for more density and they could shoehorn it in on this site, they would take advantage of it. But that's not the case. You had expert testimony in numerous hearings, because I brought them in front of you, you'll hear some in a moment from Jamie Schrader to a certain extent, that there's no market for multi-story retail. I don't know where these people would park. The conundrum that you all face, and this is an important case, just like South Limestone is important with respect to Dutch Brothers and this recommendation, this strong push to increase density on every square inch of vacant land or underutilized land on the corridor, the conundrum you have is in the zeal to put more density, how are you going to get to this site? it's going to be, multi-story retail, apartments, if it's not retail, where are you going to park? And the inconsistency of what's been recommended to you today is we want to increase density, but we don't want you to get in a car to get there. We want to increase density, but we don't want cars, they're bad. and I understand the policy behind that. I do. Climate change is a major issue. We're not going to solve it with a half acre coffee shop but increasing density and saying for the person willing to take the risk and put a new product out there for the public hoping they'll come and allow a return on their investment at this location on this half acre site that is completely surrounded by two major streets and an apartment complex, the push that I've heard today is increased density, but you get to it by walking, by a bike, or a bus. Cars are bad. Get them out. We don't want them. We can't have them. There's too much chaos. There's too many wrecks. We can't have any more cars coming to whatever is going to be on this site. You can walk or bike or ride a bus. Now, as a practical matter, as a realistic matter, this property will sit vacant until all of us are gone on to the next chapter. It has to be made available to some amount of automobile use. people want to come to a destination, they want somewhere to park. There's nowhere to park around here. Now you can say, well, they can put in a parking deck, and yeah, on a half-acre lot, what are you going to build? What's going to be marketable that's going to take hundreds of thousands or multi-millions of dollars to build a parking deck for a half-acre site? What are you going to have that people would come and shop to you that would reward your significant return on investment? So we're here with a coffee shop. And it's undisputed that all around this property, can we go back to the zoning map, Tracy, please? You can get closer in on it a little bit. Okay, just go as much as you can. So here's our subject property, am I correct Tracy? So commercial completely surrounds us, B1. There is, as you indicate, as the staff report indicates, the subject property is professional office. To the north it's B1 and B4. B4 is warehouse. To the east is B1, mixed-use, commercial, residential. To the south is mixed-use, commercial, residential. Again, we're surrounded by the apartments with small retail on the bottom. And to the west is B1 and B4 across the street on South Broadway. And then on, get my bearings here. Over in here is B6P. B6P is a shopping center. Been there for many, many years. KS Bar is there. And you all have changed the ordinance a while back. The council agreed to increase the density potential. That's a 12.5-acre site, that shopping center. Any potential increase in density, there's room to do it there. You can go up, there's available parking that can be factored in for a business that wants to take a risk, to put a product in, to put a service in, for the public to come to, where the public can park. Now, we can bemoan the use of the automobile and come up with a pejorative and say it's auto-centric and make driving an automobile a sin in terms of planning functionality. But the reality of it is people aren't going to give up their cars. that are fortunate enough to be able to have a car, to afford a car, to maintain a car, you know and I know they're not going to give up their car to ride a bus. They're going to keep their car. It is like owning a house in the suburbs, part of the American dream, own your own car and own your own home. That mindset is still with us. It hasn't changed. so to say that a business is bad because it's quote-unquote auto-centric is inconsistent with what most people who are fortunate again to be able to have a car will do they will not ride a bus when they can drive their car and you know that and so any business that wants to spend the kind of money that infill land costs to develop, huge amounts of money, much more than raw land in the suburbs or in the country. Of course, there's no land in the country now. But since we haven't added any land to the urban services boundary since 1996, the land prices just keep increasing for the land that can be used. These half-acre parcels that used to never be touched. Developers would never touch them. Too much fight, too much money, too much risk. I can go in the suburbs and build it. Nobody's there yet and I can start my business. But now we've got different rules. We've got different values, which I agree with. Preserving the farmland is important for Fayette County. I agree with it. I support that. We've got to make some accommodation for some limited growth or we're going to be richer and whiter and less diverse, and I object to that. Enfield is important to use these sites, but you can't expect someone to invest the kind of money that is needed as a practical matter, real-world matter, and then say, well, it's bad because you're going to have cars come. We're going to have pedestrians, but you're going to have cars, and we will have cars. Now, the truth of the matter is, whether this gets developed into a coffee shop or it sits vacant for the next 20 years, waiting on some higher-intensity development and some risk-taker, and maybe the market changes in 20 years or longer and maybe shorter. But in the foreseeable future, it's not going to change. There's no market for professional office at this site, and you'll hear testimony about that from Jamie Schrader shortly. But the truth of the matter is, right now, in terms of traffic, I mean, this comes from your own staff report. On South Broadway, the average number of trips per day is 26,000. 26,000. On Virginia Avenue, it's 17,000. That's today, currently. So what does that mean, Simpson? Well, what it means is the people that are going to be coming to this coffee shop are already on the road. In all probability, historically, they're not coming from Point A to get a cup of coffee and go back to Point A. They're on the way to either work at UK or downtown, and they're already on this road. They're already on this road. These are what's called pass-by trips. People on the road and they're passing by and they say, I'll get a cup of coffee. It's not like Sonic, which has a drive-through, drive-in, Wendy's down the road, Andy's frozen Mexican Custard drive-through down the road. Poppy's Mexican Place down the road, drive-through at South Broadway. These cars are already on the road. Most of those fast food places that serve food, those are destinations. People want to, I want Poppy's, I want a Wendy's. I'm going to work but I'll get a cup of coffee on the way. That's what happens. You understand that. You've done it before. We all do it. others that like coffee. So if we're going to talk about realistic development and encouraging high quality development and to create a community that provides equity and equitable treatment for the property owner who's surrounded by B1 uses and B6P uses, and he's got a P1 use that's been vacant as a P1 use for a number of years, and they've got an opportunity for a coffee shop next to a 257-unit apartment building. It's just, y'all just approved not long ago. 257-unit apartment building. Where was all the concern about traffic when that apartment building was approved? It's at the same location as our proposed coffee shop. Our coffee shop is going to be getting the cars that are already on the road. The apartment building, the apartment building, 257 units, is going to be adding almost 260 parking spaces. New cars at this supposedly dangerous accident-ridden interchange. But you all approved it. You added 260 cars. Now, I asked Brad Boas of CMW Architects and Engineers to give me just what is the ITE Trip Generation Manual, which is the frame of reference for assessing traffic impact trip generations from a given use. How many trips a day does the average apartment user take? Five. Five. So when you approve the apartment complex in this high risk, high hazard intersection, you added 1,257 new trips a day in the area. And it wasn't a concern then. We're talking about serving the public that's already on these roads, 26,000 that's on South Broadway and 17,000 on Virginia. That's the great majority of people who will already be on the road that will stop and get a cup of coffee. So I think we have a compatible use. It's compatible with all the zoning that surrounds this property. Now, there was a question raised about exiting onto Virginia Avenue. Legitimate question. Tom raised it. we're not going to have a left-hand turn this is a preliminary development plan and we listen to what Tom had to say at the subdivision committee now quite frankly I've been out of function for about three weeks and so I wasn't able to tell the folks to file an amended plan but we're not going to have a left-hand turn coming out of this coffee shop it's going to be restricted to a right-hand turn only on Virginia Avenue. They can go down to South Limestone. No left-hand turn. Whatever conflict that was discussed would eliminate that. We'll put whatever barrier or barricade needs to be, bollards, whatever it needs to be, to completely seal off the opportunity for a left-hand turn. out. Now we will have or we want a left-hand turn into the property if you're coming westbound on Virginia Avenue, but there won't be any left out. That's a development plan issue and with all due respect you all know how this operates. Preliminary development plans are preliminary. We don't have zoning so we don't get into the weeds about all the development plan and obviously you have the consideration of the drive-through at that time as Tom indicated to you. At this point we're just talking about the zoning aspect of this. Is this a worthy proposal? Is this coffee shop a worthy proposal considering it's right next to a 257 unit apartment community with pedestrian access, dressing it up with a nice little rain garden. We have a public art easement. How many half-acre commercial properties have you seen recently that have a rain garden and a public art easement, an outdoor patio, to make it an attractive amenity for the pedestrians that will walk from this apartment building to wherever they're going to walk, for students that come from wherever they might come through that get on this sidewalk, that have to be careful about the 1,257 cars that will be generated every day from the apartment building, the new apartment building, the new trips that are going to be generated, not from the trips that are already on the road that will be coming to this coffee shop. But UK students, I was one, nine years, took me a long time to get out of there. It's, you've got to be careful. Anywhere downtown, we get more people every year. We grow every decade. We don't advertise for people in Lexington. We grow every year. People want to come and live here, and we have to wait longer in traffic. We have more traffic. One thing about this application, we didn't have to do a traffic study. It was not intense enough under the zoning ordinance that you all adopted to require a traffic impact study. And you know, those are usually required if you generate enough trips to create a problem. We weren't required in this zone change to do a traffic impact study. So you can turn this down and the property will sit here for who knows how long. Is that the precedent that you want to set to be so wedded on increasing density at all cost at all locations and not consider all the relevant circumstances of the property? Is small size in particular the fact that it's hemmed in by an apartment building and two major thoroughfares, there's nowhere to park. Who really is going to do anything with this property? And considering the traffic, we're really just taking advantage of what's there and not adding to it like the apartments are. And the pedestrian orientation that we want to serve as well as the motor vehicle orientation, We believe that the comprehensive plan, for the reasons outlined in our justification, and for reasons of sound public policy decision-making, considering that at the end of the day we're proposing a coffee shop that's taking advantage of already traffic in the area, that's focusing on pedestrians and this is exactly what the principal theme of infill and redevelopment is all about. This is the message that developers have been sent for a number of years and we're offering that and this is an opportunity to provide it and we very much urge you to approve it and I'll be happy to entertain any questions okay any questions for mr. Simpson right now yes I do have a question mr. Simpson we've been talking a lot about density and intensity and I think you've made the comment a couple of times about the request from those here on staff and on the Planning Commission for second in increased density in the form of second floor retail. Where did you hear that? Well, I don't know how you can increase it. It comes in the form of a question that I've asked the staff many times. We had this at the Fountains hearing. We had it at the Masonic Lodge hearing. If you recall, we had an expert talk about second floor retail where there was no market, tenants wouldn't stay very long, they left, a lot of vacancies. And the reality of it is, from everybody I've talked to, and we brought in realtors even outside of Kentucky, to say, my gosh guys, I'm telling you, the staff wants more density. What do you, do it. Make money, make more money with more density. I don't have anybody knocking on my door, nor am I aware of any of the other people privileged enough to practice before this body to have similar calls for having all this increase in density on these small parcels that are half acre in size. Thank you. I think that we are talking about increased density overall as a part of our comprehensive plan. We're not pointing towards, or the way that I read it and understand it, and everything that I've heard, I've never heard, increase second floor retail density. We don't see that anywhere. We haven't talked about it anywhere. I would just like to clarify and I'm going to ask staff, is that something we're trying to promote or are we just talking about overall density? My understanding it's an overall density conversation, not a second floor density conversation. Second floor is an example, but you're exactly right, Mr. Nickel. You're exactly right. It's increasing density. And so how do you do that unless you go up on a half acre size? Got you. How do you make that marketable for anything? Within the bounds of, you know, in theory, could you do it? and we'd have apartments that would be priced for rich people only, square foot cost of putting all that in. Are we really serving a community need by doing that on a half-acre lot? I don't believe so. I get it. And we are talking about practicality here. I just wanted to get off the table that in my understanding and anything that I've seen from this body or staff, Nothing I have seen has reflected the need for second floor retail. It's only increased density per parcel. You're exactly right. I agree. I just want to get that. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate that clarification. Absolutely. Anybody else? I do. And I'm going to get off the density question. And I want to preface this by saying my business partners and I owned the property at 860 South Broadway for 10 years. We sold that property in 2000, and we all drove to work Virginia Avenue going right on Broadway. So I know that area pretty well, although I haven't worked over there in a while. You mentioned the 17,000 trips a day along Virginia. And I imagine that your client has some projection about what volume of cars would be going into that parking area between 6 and 10. how many additional turns in and out on Virginia are we talking about impacting that area peak hours just a projected number obviously we didn't do a traffic study well yeah that so I'm Brad Boaz with CMW and it's worth we didn't know we didn't do a a.m. p.m. projection as mr. Simpson was explaining the traffic impact said he wasn't required um but if this if we decided to move forward we would i mean we're open to providing that to be able to analyze those numbers if that's something but you have some idea of volume of customers coming in i don't know their business i mean we don't have a dutch bros representative with us today um no ma'am i can't speak to their am peak if it's 100 cars or a thousand dollars okay when we come to the drive-through portion on the final development plan we would have all that data even though it's not required i understand the concern and at that time we would amp up to show all of the facts and figures and file those in advance so the staff could review them and have the opportunity to rebut them if necessary thank you any further questions yes i do have one one more question mr simpson it is important for us to judge on the appropriateness of a zone change. So that's what we got first. From P1 to B1 is the zone change question, which is going to be based on the justifications and the arguments that you've made. And then from there, we need to look at the development plan. As the development plan was reviewed, there would still need to be a conditional approval for a drive-through. Correct. Walk me through if this was approved, What is the process for you all to get a conditional use for a double stack drive-through? Well, it comes back before the Planning Commission. We get into the level of scrutiny and detail, the traffic impact assessment, the timing of it. We all have, you know, videos of other stores of Dutch Brothers around the country so you can see real time how things move or don't. Whatever the facts are, the facts are. but it would be subject to your all's complete assessment and debate, just like, you know, it's an important feature of the final development plan. Absolutely. Okay, so that's a final development plan process. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. All right, this is time for citizen comments. Is there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. Give me your name. address mr. Schrader I'm Jamie Schrader I'm with Schrader commercial properties and I have been representing Dutch Bros in finding locations in Lexington and I did want to add a few things that maybe weren't touched upon by mr. Simpson's presentation first of all they're very popular product I think they'll be well received in the marketplace and it's not quite as a.m. centric as you might think I've seen Dutch Bros. I've been very surprised at the hours of operation. They'll go late at night, later in the evening. They sell energy drinks. Certainly it's hot coffee, but you would be surprised at the activity throughout the day. I want to say that first of all, so that's one thing for you to consider. I guess three things kind of come to mind when I think about this. The first thing that I note is if there's a Dutch Bros at that location, I don't think that's incongruent with what's on South Broadway and what a person would expect to see in that location. And I'm not going to mention all the retail uses that Bruce already mentioned, but, you know, there's already a coffee shop. There's already a gas station in the general area. There's a Sonic drive-thru. There's a Wendy's drive-thru. We've got a racetrack across the street. having a Dutch Bros is not incongruent with what's in that corridor. It fits. If you drive down there and there's a coffee shop there, you'll say that's a good place for a coffee shop. It's consistent with what is in that corridor currently. It may not be exactly what you're looking for, but it's not incongruent with what's currently all along that strip. Okay? That's the first thing that I'd like to say. The second thing that I would like to point out is that the P1 zoning is inappropriate. It's an island. It's sitting there by itself. It's surrounded by every other zoning used practically except for P1. There's no demand for P1 at that location. We're trying to figure out what to do with office buildings right now that don't have tenants in them. I don't see someone buying that P1 lot and building an office building at that location. That's my opinion. We've got other uses that are going to be of a higher and better use, certainly, than P1 zoning on that one sliver of a corner. So I would say that that zoning is inappropriate for that location. And I think if you went down the street today and you tried to think in your mind, what is that lot zoned, you would not say that's a P1 zoned lot. That's not what you would think it would be. You would anticipate it to be a retail use, which is what's proposed. Okay? The third thing I want to bring up is when you look at the size of the lot, you look at the configuration, there's nothing to build when you have the apartments surrounding it on all sides as it is thank you thank you mr schrader miss clark there's a timer but it's not visible right now thank you i i am an objector i promise i won't take nearly as long as the applicants. My name is Amy Clark and I live really on the other side of Nicholasville Road near the Euclid Kroger in the 3rd District and I have to say this is a really important route for me along Virginia Avenue and South Broadway. I have a good friend that lives very near there at the University. My gym was there, my bank was there off export Street and Virginia Avenue is a perfect horror and I think adding a use that's a single story, single use, automobile traffic oriented use is not what we need for the zoning and the larger design of the activity along that corridor. I want to stop because I'm holding something on my cell phone and if i don't keep fiddling it it goes away let me read to you about the virginia red mile forbes trail connectivity study that is currently being bid out and probably will be finished in a year the study is going to take the cross route from the university along virginia along Red Mile and even along Forbes, and it's hoped to really affect a good cross route all the way to Leestown Road and Meadowthorpe. The study will evaluate crosstown bicycle and pedestrian improvements along Forbes, Red Mile, and Virginia Avenue from the Meadowthorpe neighborhood off Leestown to the University of Kentucky campus at South Limestone. That's both the major academic campus and quite a lot of hospital service for the city as well. Improvement concepts will address multimodal facilities along the corridor, safe pedestrian and bike crossings, and multimodal gateways to the adjacent neighborhoods, to Town Branch Trail, and to the U.K. campus. So if they can make that route feasible, workable for bikes and pedestrians, it can actually change the mode share along this corridor. We all know that the comp plan is supposed to offer a plan. And there are several parts of it, but in each part, I've always been amused by the line, it's supposed to be appropriate, desirable, economic, and feasible. and it always seems like our planning kind of falls down on the truly feasible as far into the future as one can see. And it's no longer feasible when you have the kind of traffic volumes mentioned, not to think about shifting the mode share and creating an infrastructure that makes it possible and convenient to do that. That use for that corner is going to be not so much a traffic volume. the volume is there already it will divert the traffic in turn after turn after turn it's hell on bicycles thank you thank you that's a city study and uk matched some money for it too all right okay we uh mr simpson do you want to step back up for any additional comments Mr. Chairman, thank you. I do have some proposed findings that I will pass out, Wes. I'm here with Wes Harned, and I forgot to introduce Wes. Wes is with me on this case, an attorney in our firm. Let me give one for Tracy, then. Thank you. While he's passing those out, I appreciate Amy Clark's comments. You know, Amy is a true citizen volunteer. She takes her time to come down here to be heard on these cases and highly unusual, but I've always had a high regard for Amy because she does that. not every citizen does people will complain about a decision and never choose to come down and be heard and Amy is always here and that's what this forum is all about. As I share with you a moment ago and I'll be very brief I'm going to repeat what I've already said. This is an important case in terms of how the development community is looking at you all and ultimately the urban county council with respect to applying this strong pushed increased density everywhere along the corridor regardless of its size and regardless of the fact that it's hemmed in on three sides four sides two highways and apartment building mr. nickel is exactly correct about the density it is density not just retail. He's correct about that. You can turn it down and we can sit and wait, the property owner can sit and wait. At the end of the day, you can get in a comprehensive plan and you can find anything that you want to support your argument. That's a fact. This This isn't like we are trying to discover a solution to the Pythagorean Theorem. We don't need to get into the micro weeds of the minutiae of the comp plant. This is a coffee shop on a half acre of land on a commercial corridor, surrounded by an apartment building and two major highways. It has a pedestrian focus and it has a motor vehicle focus. Is that conspicuous by its presence or will it be if you approve it at this location? Hardly not. It is a fair proposal. It's worthy of consideration. Now I understand the statistics in these cases. The staff is your staff and they serve you and they serve our community. As I've said many times over the last 35 years, I've been privileged to be in front of you all. I value the staff's recommendations. But in this instance, I'm asking you to assess it as people who've lived in this community, who are serving this community, who understand real world practicalities, who understand equities, and I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for a developer or a property owner, though they be human too. I'm not asking for sorry or sympathy, but I am asking for equitable treatment because what we're asking is already in place all around us, drive-thrus and restaurants. We're taking advantage of an already existing traffic flow, unlike the apartments that were approved that generated 1,257 new trips a day at this same location. My submittal is that if you consider all the relevant factors, if you factor in the equity, if you factor in the need to do infield, if you factor in this is sensitive to the as-built environment, that it's not a noxious use, didn't require a traffic study, it's complimentary to the apartments that are next door, to the neighborhood that's going to walk by on their way to school or back home from school, this is a good use. It's worthy of being approved, and you should, and I ask that you do. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Schrader, do you want to give any additional information? The only thing I wanted to mention, we've talked about cars, but there will be more walk-up traffic than you would imagine. I've seen Dutch Bros in the western United States, and you will see walk-up traffic from the apartments and people that are heading to UK campus. That's the only thing I'd add. The other thing I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, is just given, and I didn't get to last time, just the configuration of the site, there's not a whole lot of things that are going to fit on there. And that's why this 950-foot coffee shop, some people will disagree with that. But when you look at the setbacks and the size and the ingress-egress, there's not as many things that you can put on there that require a whole lot of parking and more room on that top site. That's it. Thank you. Mr. Clark. I couldn't agree more with Mr. Simpson that this really is a very important case about what do you do with a half acre of vacant land? And what do you have a right to do with it? And what is your responsibility in interpreting our comp plan to steer things toward development that the community wants? Let's remember it wasn't always a vacant half acre. Certainly Ms. Worth remembers that. It was a historic house. It was actually, I think it was a McMurtry house. It was a proud adornment to a major corridor in Lexington. And there was such another where the gas station is now. Those are gone. They're not coming back. I didn't own it. I didn't tear it down. I didn't buy and pay for it. So we look forward, not back. I have a lot of hope for this intersection in learning of the MPO study that is going forward now. I think it's important to make a good multimodal cross route that will connect with Town Branch Trail, that will connect with Versailles Road, which has arguably the lowest car ownership and use in the city, and very low wealth, Cardinal Valley. So there's something happening here that could be very good. It could mean I could, as I a few times did, bike to the gym on Export Street. It was just too scary. I stopped doing it. So the house came down that was two stories. There's a potential for a mixed-use historic niche there, but it's too late now. What you can do in denying an inappropriate zone change for an inappropriate use is send a message that you can't just tear something down and build anything afterward. afterward we do have a plan for this community and it's a plan that means buildings that are usable for many in many modes that are embraced by usable streets and ways i think the house that was there had much more density much more intensity of use it produced good jobs and it was fairly light on traffic this is just uh let's just turn it into a conflict in and out so i ask you to support what they're aiming at in this public mpo project to make the entire corridor well walkable and bikeable actually feasible and to shift the thousands of cars to some on bikes and some walking especially the people who live right next door please deny the zone change thank you thank you mr bailey thank you very much mr chair and members of the planning commission there have been a lot of comments today that staff feels that we need to clarify um first uh from mr martin and i discussed a left hand turned or in any capacity with this would be a dangerous turn at this location we showed the uh the graphic of the accidents that occur you can see that there is clustering along this portion of the roadway because of unrestricted access any type of left hand turn would be inappropriate for a development plan now just jumping into some of the aspects of the comprehensive plan the first comprehensive plan is not a straight jacket the recommendation that staff is providing today is a comprehensive review of the comprehensive plan and how the applicant is not meeting the goals objectives policies development criteria of the comprehensive plan they have not provided evidence as to how they are intensifying and densifying a corridor a specific goal that is called within the comprehensive plan they haven't addressed many of the pedestrian safety issues that would be developed by this and this is not a conversation about denigrating the vehicle staff understands that people will continue to drive cars it is meant to make a or have a conversation about the safest possible development that is available at this site for cars pedestrians cyclists anyone that is using any type of mode of transportation the amount of traffic that would be exiting and entering is the issue mr simpson is correct that that they would be capturing traffic, but they would be increasing the amount of traffic that is coming in and out of this site. That is the biggest flaw with the traffic perspective of this. They are not increasing the density. This is not a medium density, non-residential, or mixed-use development. They are not increasing density along a corridor. The applicant has talked significantly about how the P1 doesn't work at this location as well. There are P1 uses up and down South Broadway and up and down Virginia. Some of those are zoned P1. Some of those uses are zoned B1. The B1 allows for all of the P1 uses. Just across the street, there is a gym and an office associated with computers and computer servicing that are P1 uses. These are uses that are allowed in that zone. So the characterization of this site as not being able to have the uses in this area or is not representative of the strip of this area is incorrect. Also, the applicant, as said, and some of the supportive evidence that was provided by their professional indicates that this is a meeting with the current development of that area. The vast majority of this area, except for one or two spots, including the Grogan site, were rezoned in the late 1990s. They are representative of a time in which the comprehensive plan had a land use map, and there wasn't as much robust discussion about how to have a future-facing development. What do we want for Lexington, again, for the next 20 years and beyond? This application represents a decrease in intensity, even from what was being established in the 1990s. It increases conflicts on the roadway, and it can be a real problem for our community at that intersection. Trip generation, there was a fair amount of conversation about the potential conversation about this at a final development plan. There was no real conversation about the P1 and how it can be appropriate at this location. Staff finds that the P1 is appropriate for the same reasons that it was appropriate in 1980, in the fact that it allows for the greater utilization of this site, while also reducing the potential impacts of traffic in and out of this site. The P1 zone allows for professional offices, but also allows for a mix of uses, including residential above. This development is auto-centric. Now that auto-centric development is problematic because of how it interacts with the public right of way. Many of the drive-through restaurants located up and down South Broadway, including the Starbucks, Poppy's, and the Wendy's restaurant, have alternative access to non-arterial roadways. This has one access point onto an arterial roadway. There are not other options. Staff is recommending disapproval of this application. The zoning committee also recommended disapproval of this application at their meeting. If you have any questions about this application, I'd be happy to answer. Any questions for how? I'm not seeing any how. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we bring this back to the commission. Do we have any questions, concerns, any additional statements? if not then the floor is open mr chair yes sir so are we going to do yeah thank you um so mr simpson i appreciate your yours and dutch bros desire to be here in lexington we we want dutch bros here in lexington but not in the locations that you suggested as far as i'm concerned so So I'm going to move for disapproval of PLN MAR232, Dutch Bros, LLC. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Ms. Wirth. any further discussion to that motion. Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes. We've got the development plan. This is going to be page 5. so mr chair so on the when the planning commission recommends disapproval then we're postponing indefinitely the development plan just want to make sure so thank you thank you mr chair move for postponement indefinitely for pln mjdp 2311 Okay, we have a motion second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion, please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes. So that will put us on page six, PLN MER 23-3, Bread and Roses, LLC. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, but before Mr. Mickler leaves the room, Mr. Mickler, could we ask that he place on the record why he is not participating in this next action? yeah my name is robin meckler and i'm recusing myself because i have a financial interest in this application thank you all right good afternoon everyone Daniel Crumb planning staff the next item on your agenda is PLN MAR 23 3 this is request by bread and roses LLC and they're requesting to rezone approximately 1.23 acres of the property at 446 East High Street from a professional office P1 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone the applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to establish a bakery use within an existing professional office structure the applicant in their letter of justification touch on both the place type and development type for this application the applicant has identified this as an enhanced neighborhood place type and a low-density non-residential slash mixed-use development type. Staff agrees that both the chosen place type and development type can be appropriate at this location. However, we will get into that a little bit later on in the presentation. Here we have a vicinity map showing the location of the subject property. It is this 1.2 acre parcel here shown in the center in white. It fronts on East High Street, which is a one-way arterial roadway, so right between the split of East High and East Maxwell here. Zooming in a little get closer we get an idea of the land use and the zoning that is present in this area. The subject property is currently zoned P1 as is this development to the south of it that developed sometime in the early 1950s, 1960s. However the majority land use in this area is residential with a large amount of R3 zoning that is indicative of some of the oldest residential portions of our community. It is worth noting that the subject property is also adjacent to one existing parcel of B1 zoning. This parcel, located directly to the west, was rezoned in 2013 to the B1 with conditional zoning and is the current location of Mickler Forest as well as the Kentucky Native Cafe. I mentioned that as the proposed bakery use that will be operating at the subject property is also proposed to operate in conjunction with the Kentucky Native Cafe to supply them with baked goods to be sold on site as well. The subject property is also the location of the parking that serves much of the Kentucky Native Cafe as well as the Nicholas florist use. It is also worth noting that this is located within a historic overlay and an ND1 overlay as well. However, as the applicant is not proposing to change any of the exterior of the existing building, it doesn't require any additional review under those guidelines. Zooming in on the site here, we have an aerial that shows the current layout of the property. really comprised mainly of two different pieces one is a two-story professional office structure approximately 18,000 square feet in size has a kind of a variety of tenants from some professional office uses engineers office nonprofit office uses as well as a gym so kind of a mixing of uses the applicant is seeking this B1 zone in order to establish a bakery use on the first floor and part of the lower level. Approximately 4,500 square feet of that would be devoted to this newfound use. In addition, we've got the existing parking areas to the north that serve to provide the parking on-site. Due to the nature of East High Street, on-street parking is really not feasible in that location. From the aerial, you can also see this is the Kentucky Native Cafe and the florist use. Existing professional office development here. surrounding pieces of residential, including two points where the subject property directly adjoins residential zoning. We have a multifamily residential development here, and another residential development here are the two points that this property directly adjoins residential zoning. This is the reason that the applicant will be seeking several variances from landscaping, where property perimeter screening is required between two unlike zones, but I'll get into that a little bit later in the presentation. Just to give you an idea of how this looks on the ground, we've got the existing structure built in 1958, 18,000 square feet, comprised of those two levels there, along with the adjoining parking lot. Now, it is worth noting that this parking lot was developed prior to the current development standard. So, as such, it's really not in conformance with some of the more recent standards, including that property perimeter screening, interior landscaping, as well as tree canopy coverage requirements. However, due to Article 18, as they are proposing to keep the structure as is, as they are proposing to keep this parking area as it is currently configured, they are not required at this time to bring those interior elements up to current regulations. They are, however, required to provide the screening and property perimeter elements, which would apply here and the rear of the site that we'll touch on a little bit later. Here we have views of both up and down East High Street. So the first view on the left is looking north. So you can see it's a fairly narrow road for the amount of traffic that it receives. And as a result, there really is an option for on-street parking. Looking both ways, it is just a fairly narrow roadway. Here we have a development plan for the property. Mr. Martin will touch on this in a little bit more detail, but there's really not much changing. This is the existing structure as it sits today. This is the existing parking as it sits today. The access point is a little bit further south. So the access point is here circulating for parking throughout the site, and they exit closest to this northern boundary, closest to where that property perimeter screening normally would be located. Mr. Martin will kind of touch on kind of the rest of the development plan aspects following my presentation. As is with all applications within the urban service area, we conduct a place builder review based on the applicant's letter of justification. In their letter of justification, the applicant has touched on this as an enhanced neighborhood place type. These are the areas that are adjoining an existing residential neighborhood that can be enhanced through additional amenities, additional services, and really have a focus on a mixing of uses and promoting walkability and safe connections. Within the enhanced neighborhood place type, the applicant's sought B1 use or zone is a recommended place type. and the applicants chosen a development type of low-density non-residential mixed-use staff finds this is appropriate as well and accurately reflects what is on the site in its current form with the existing office building in terms of goals and objectives within the comprehensive plan the applicant is really honing in on keeping the existing context they're wanting to expand the breadth of services and uses that are available to the neighborhood without fundamentally changing the character with expanding building or making a lot of site changes so they're going to be keeping the existing pedestrian connections and sidewalks that are in place on the site expanding and enhancing the neighborhood through additional uses all while maintaining their existing character as far as a review of the development standards and development criteria this site is going to retain the existing parking areas which are located to the side locating or keeping the existing structure which is in in conformance with kind of the context of this area. From a transportation standpoint, all of the existing connections are going to be maintained. And from an environmental side, while they are seeking a landscaping variance, they are going to be increasing the net canopy and overall amount of landscaping present on site. So with this, staff is recommending approval. We find it's in agreement with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to enhancing neighborhoods, providing safe interactions within neighborhoods, providing additional uses that attract young professionals, and several other uses. We find it's in conformance with the development criteria that are found within the comprehensive plan, specifically the site design, transportation, and environmental health components. One aspect of this application is staff is recommending a number of conditional zoning restrictions to prohibit certain uses on this property. The list that you see before you contains 13 uses that are largely derived from the conditional zoning that is present on the adjacent parcel with the Kentucky Native Cafe that was done in 2013. Like this application, they also sought a B1 zone. And the list that is before you today was derived from the conversations with the neighborhood, the applicant, planning staff, the planning commission, and the urban county council. And so staff, in looking at how these two parcels would have the cross-utilization, are located within that same neighborhood context, and with a desire to maintain the existing character and promote that pedestrian-scale connectivity, have suggested these conditional zoning restrictions you see on screen. It is worth noting that at the zoning committee, the zoning committee offered up several of these that they indicated they would like to see removed from the list of prohibited uses within the zone. They included tattoo parlors, indoor theaters, and funeral parlors. The zoning committee indicated they would like to see removed from this list, which I believe lines up with the applicant's wish to have them removed as well. Staff saw overall these conditional zoning as appropriate in order to protect the character of this corridor as well as the Aylesford Park area. that meets the goals, the removal of these uses meets the stated goals of providing development that's oriented towards the neighborhood and increases the pedestrian experience in this area. As always, our recommendation of approval is made subject to certification of the corresponding development plan, which Mr. Martin will be on momentarily to discuss. But before then, if you have any questions of staff regarding the zoning or any of our other recommendations, I'd be happy to entertain them at this time. Any questions for staff? Not seeing any. Thank you. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, once again at your seat you should find a handout on revised conditions as what you see before you is a revised final development plan on this property. And as I always tell you, they're not doing any changes. They're not affecting... property at all on this final development plan so it's not as much fun to review but again this is the existing site access off of high street into the parking area you can see there's a lot of pavement a lot of parking developed over time with this there's a total of 68 parking spaces in this area. The building, again, the existing building, as Daniel mentioned, is remaining. It's just a use change. It's 18,000 total square feet, a little bit bigger than that. It's got a basement as well. The footprint is a little over 10,000 square feet. There is a lot of perimeter vegetation. They are requesting a variance in a couple of areas along the boundary and Daniel will go over that with you. Primarily a big part of that is to protect the existing vegetation along the boundary. Again, they're not proposing any physical changes to the site. There's some existing little outbuildings. And again, with that, your subdivision committee recommend approval of the final development plan. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Any questions for staff? No, sir. Oh, Ms. Worth? You have anything? Okay, okay. All right. And the last component of this request is staff will just briefly touch on the variance request that the applicant is seeking. So just as a reminder, Article 6 of the zoning ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to grant variances that are associated with a zone change. And that the applicant is primarily coming before you today with the request for a variance in order to address the property perimeter screening elements that are within Article 18. So essentially, in Article 18, any time that we have a business or professional zone that adjoins a residential zone, a 15-foot buffer is required that consists of one tree for every 40 feet, along with a double row of 6-foot tall hedge. The applicant is seeking kind of two variances with this. One, to reduce that 15-foot buffer down to 6 1⁄2 and 2 1⁄2 feet, respectively, and to reduce the number of required shrubs from a double row to a single row. It is worth noting that the zoning ordinance does allow the applicant to reduce that 15-foot required buffer down to a 5-foot buffer when it's used in conjunction with a 6-foot tall wall or fence. But one thing to note as you kind of evaluate this request for a variance is kind of the required findings. So as you are looking at this variance, you have to find that the granting the variance will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, won't alter the essential character of the general vicinity, and won't cause a hazard or a nuisance to the public. It also must not allow an unreasonable circumvention of the requirements of the zoning regulations. And kind of as you evaluate this, you consider whether the requested variance arises from any type of special circumstances, whether applying these provisions deprives the applicant reasonable use of their property, and whether or not the circumstances are a result of the applicant's actions. So bringing the development plan back into focus again, there are two areas where this P1, currently zoned P1, proposed B1 property, adjoins residential zoning. It's this parcel to the north, so this entire boundary adjoins the multifamily R3 use here, and this small portion of this western boundary adjoins that same use as well. The applicant in their letter of justification really touches on a couple major points. The first is that along with most of their application, they are wanting to keep the character of this existing site as consistent as possible with how it has operated since the late 1950s. They are wanting to keep the existing trees, that's mature trees in the rear, they are wanting to keep the existing parking lot configuration. It is worth noting that the current site provides approximately 68 or 69 parking spaces. However, much of that is clustered in the northern portions of the property, where this adjoins the required property perimeter buffer area. The access point or the egress point for the site is located directly within that area as well. And so in order to meet the ordinance's requirements, they would have to remove the pavement here, create that 15-foot wide buffer. In essence, it would reduce their parking available on site from approximately 68 or 69 to slightly over 50 spaces. The applicant indicates that with the number of tenants they have, the cross-parking utilization with the Kentucky Native Cafe, as well as the inability to provide any of the parking on East High Street due to its level of service and width, would unreasonably restrict the utilization of their property. Here, just to give you kind of an idea how this looks today, is the northern property line is sort of a mix of two different components. The first half is just a five to six foot hedge, while the rear is mostly mature trees. under the court current ordinance they would have to have a double row of hedge here along with trees filling in the portions where they do not currently exist much is the same with this rear portion here as well the landscape review committee met earlier this week to discuss the proposal and when we met for the zoning committee staff did not have a recommendation for this item as we wanted the landscape review committee to have an opportunity to take a look at this item. The landscape review committee did not have a quorum so they were not able to make a formal recommendation. However the two voting members that were present voiced their support for the request noting that in order to install a six-foot tall fence or to do some of the things that were required by ordinance may require them to remove existing trees as well as providing this type of screening would potentially disproportionately impact the applicants. One thing that they did note in the review of the site was kind of conspicuous lack just due to when this property was developed of interior landscaping they indicated to the applicant that they would like to see some interior landscaping provided to to help mitigate some of these impacts staff has recommended as a condition of approval that the applicant provide an interior landscape area either with a large canopy tree or two smaller trees that meet the requirements of article 18 as far as the minimum size to help mitigate some of the heat island effect and to mitigate some of the paving that would be retained if this variance was granted. Staff in their review of the variance has recommended approval as it should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare. This site has sort of existed in a non-conforming state since the late 1950s and the proposed landscaping that the applicant intends to provide should visually screen the use. Second, the staff finds that the inclusion of this interior landscaping proposed under the condition of approval would help mitigate some of this heat island effect and would provide additional tree canopy coverage to help mitigate some of the loss there with the lack of on-street parking asking the applicant to completely redesign the parking lot redo the access and lose the parking spaces when there's not any available on street would unreasonably restrict their use of the property we found that the applicant's variance is not a result of any action that they've taken subsequent to the adoption of the zoning ordinance and so this staff recommendation of approval is made subject to the conditions of the first being that the the board or the planning commission recommend approval of the p1 zone the second is the requirement of a 144 square foot interior landscaping area that's the minimum size needed to support a large canopy tree the development be conducted in accordance with the approved final development plan that they obtain all necessary permits and that the action of this body be noted on the development plan for the subject property. So staff is recommending approval with those conditions, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff regarding the variance there. Any questions for staff? Yes, Ms. Worth. I don't know if this goes to staff or to the applicant. I think I recall in subdivision committee that the neighborhood had been consulted and they were supportive of this change. Am I right about that? So specifically for the variants, I'm going to go back and bring up the visual here. So the applicant noted in their letter of justification that the northern property line adjoiner is in support of the requested variants. And then they indicated that the property owner here did not have any reservations about the request. they also met with the larger neighborhood and no concerns were voiced based on the letter of justification they provided then thank you thank you mr murphy thank you mr chairman i'm dick murphy i'm very pleased today to be representing bread and roses LLC, which is the owner of this property. Uh, bread and roses is a company, which is most of the members are members of the Mickler family or associated with the Mickler family. Um, obviously they operate Mickler florist, right adjacent front end, which fronts on Maxwell street and the Kentucky native cafe. The members are a little different in the companies, but they're associated with the Mickler family. As you know, as you all know, Mickler florist is one of the oldest family owned businesses in Lexington. They've been here in Lexington for 120 years. I'm pleased to have John and Claudia with me today who are obviously part of the Michler family and have carried on the tradition of the Michler family over these years. I think we have some other family members here as well. Also with me is Aaron Masterson who is our landscape architect and designer with gresham smith chas height works for me as well so we appreciate being here just wanted to tell you a little bit more about this the as daniel told you i think we have no change there will be no change to the exterior of the building the only change to the interior is that we will be adding a bakery to it this building is about 18 300 square feet the bakery will be about 4,500 square feet so it'll take up about a quarter of the space in the building that bakery is going to serve Kentucky Native Cafe and it will also have a retail component if you want to eat a pastry you'll you go to Kentucky Native Cafe and you order it there and you eat it there but you can come to the bakery here and you can take it away to your house or your office or wherever you want to take it. So it'll be a bakery. The other four tenants in this building, I would add the Mickler family purchased this building just in the last year. It was mainly vacant when they bought it. There was only one tenant in there. There was a gym. Since they've owned it, they have added an architecture firm, an advertising agency, and a non-profit organization, girls on the run in this building and the the bakery will make the fifth tenant in the building and the parking lot also serves as staff mentioned the mickler florist and the kentucky native cafe so i think we're i think it's a very efficient use of space and i think you can see the uses in the building all the uses are are local uses and i might add kentucky native cafe is probably a a truly unique place. It's a restaurant where you can dine in the forest. It's just truly, truly unique, unique to Lexington. Just wanted to address the variance a little bit. If you all could put up the color development plan again, and I do want to enter into the record. We do, as Mr. Crum mentioned, we do have a letter of support from neighbors, which I'll just hand some copies out. As Mr. Crum mentioned, these are the two variance areas. But I want to emphasize that even though we're asking for a variance, we are going to be enhancing the landscaping on the property. On the northern boundary, as you saw from the photographs, the left-hand side has many mature trees. These are 30 to 40-foot tall trees along the left side, but there's no hedge. Then up on the right side, there's a very mature hedge, 6 feet tall, but there's no trees. so they will be supplementing the area with the trees adding a hedge among them and on the other side where there's a hedge they will be supplementing that with trees and they'll be doing that on this little stretch down here where we're asking for the variance too they'll be supplementing trees or hedge as needed in that area I also wanted to point out that here along High Street they will also be supplementing by adding some trees along High Street During the review of this, it was pointed out that there is a 25-year-old downtown landscape plan which covers High Street, which does call for additional planting along High Street. And it's interesting because it specifies one species of tree for each street in downtown, which I think is not really a good thing to do anymore. But luckily we have honey locusts on these. The ash trees called for on some other streets may not be a good choice right now. But we will be supplementing this area right through here. The letter of support I presented to you was from the owners of this apartment complex right to the north on the side toward downtown. There's a, I think a four-story white apartment building there. We consulted with them, and as you can see from that letter, they are in agreement with the variants. They point out this has worked for 65 years or whatever on it, and they do not – one of our options, if we had to meet the coordinates, was put up a solid masonry wall or a six-foot-tall solid fence, and they said they did not want that. They want – if there's going to be a buffer there, they want plants in the buffer, not a solid wall or a fence. So we did consult with them. this neighbor i think is also has no objection to what we're proposing i did want to say too that as part of the zone change process the ailsford neighborhood association has considered this reviewed this both at its regular january meeting and at its regular february meeting as well and i did want to discuss the the conditional zoning restrictions a little bit just as mr crumb mentioned at the zoning committee we had a discussion of conditional zoning restrictions and the zoning committee recommended that you remove three of those conditions as prohibitions that is I want to explain each of these tattoo parlors indoor theaters and funeral parlors they recommended that those be removed from your list and we would request that one the indoor theaters Interestingly enough, when the Michlers bought this property a year ago, one of the first parties that came to them to talk to possibly moving in was a community theater group. They thought the building was well suited for their offices and for a small community theater. That didn't pan out. They didn't lease it. But I think that shows that this is a good use for this. We're not thinking of movie theaters. like Cinemark or something, but as a community theater, that may be a very good use and a very community-oriented use for the property. Funeral parlors was pointed out that for years, four doors up, there was a funeral home on High Street very near to this. It's in the building which is now Russell Capital Building, about four doors down on the same side of the road away from this, which operated for many years as a community-based funeral home and it was pointed out also that the there are many smaller funeral homes in Lexington that operate in in areas and this would be an appropriate area for a small funeral home at some point and I will always remember mr. Davis's comment at the zoning committee he he mentioned that his grandfather had a funeral suit and and that his grandfather would only wear that funeral suit to go to funerals. And he wore it two to three times a week to go to funerals, and that was a community engagement for his grandfather. So we feel that would be appropriate here as well. The other one, tattoo parlors, is sort of a more philosophical thing. Tattoo parlors are very low intensity, low traffic in and out, and it's more of a generational thing. There's a lot of younger people feel that a tattoo is a beautiful method of self-expression, and a lot of older people don't think that. But again, that's sort of a low-intensity use. we felt that philosophically that would be appropriate in a neighborhood setting like this. So that's why we were talking about those three uses being removed. So we would request you to remove those three uses. I think they're number, if I can read my Roman numerals here, two, that's tattooed parlors, six, indoor theaters, and ten, which is funeral parlors. We would request those be removed. so that's where we're at we appreciate you hearing this very much and hope you'll vote to support it thank you thank you do we have any questions for the applicant not seeing any thank you mr murphy citizens comments do we have any citizens that like to speak on this particular application Good afternoon. My name is Art Thomas. I live on East High Street. I sometimes refer to it as the East High Interstate. It's a very fast-moving street. ingress and egress. I really don't think it's going to change all that much. So despite it being a high traffic street, I'm not too concerned about that. What I am concerned about, it was said in the flyer that was sent to me that the intent was to keep it mostly a professional office building with the bakery i really don't have an objection so much to the bakery but if the intent is to keep the rest of the building as a professional office building why not just have the bakery be a variance and let it be. I was told by someone that variances would not cover something like that. They're usually for something smaller. But that would be one way to protect, I think, the use of that particular building. I was disturbed to just now hear that there could be a funeral home, a theater and other type I can't remember the third one this was the first time I heard that I want to talk about East High Street a little bit East High Street is in a historic district between Ransom Avenue and Grand Avenue 10 of the 11 structures are in the historic district in the Bluegrass Trust. I think funeral homes and such would not add to that. Again, I want to say I'm not against them putting in a bakery. I respect their business. I respect how successful they have been, but if we can't just have it be a variance to P1, and you people do approve a B1, I would like to ask for a couple conditions. One being no patio seating or outdoor seating on the property. Secondly, I would not like to see any alcohol sales coming out of that building. Don't want an indoor restaurant. It's not planned to be that way now by the Michlers. I would be concerned about proper ventilation and filtering to minimize any odors that would come out of the bakery and any noise from a ventilation system. and i would also like to see green space maximized rather than minimized one thing i think they could do to make the building a little more attractive is to put some landscaping immediately in front of the building the grass just runs up to the building, there's no landscape beds, and I think that would be an improvement for the neighborhood and for their particular building. With that, that is my only comment, again, or comments. Again, I did want to mention one more thing. sir we got you on uh you're a little over your time yeah i'm right here the bald head dude you're over your time i've already granted you another 30 seconds another 30 seconds no you already been granted 30 seconds oh yeah you took all i'm done yes sir i don't know the rules and regulations but thank you i didn't want to stop you i didn't want to thank you is there anyone else that would like to speak yes sir i'll be quick my name is alexander short i'm a homeowner on east high street i am in favor of the bakery i think the promotion of the green space inside the parking lot is beneficial because not only is it a heat gain but it's not great for watershed and that gives us an area to push it off my one concern and i didn't have it till today was again the funeral home scenario and that's just because on high street with the existing funeral home that's on main street we already get large processions that come through of people leaving that funeral home and coming down high street so now that parking lot would function as a collection area for those processions to begin which is just adding a little bit more traffic flow to an already high flow street but that's my only concern i think it would be great for the neighborhood it offers a nice amenity and and Kentucky native is a good place already. So thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay. All right. I haven't seen anyone else. Mr. Murphy. Do you want to, I forgot to mention that we do agree with the staff's condition on the variance about adding the additional interior space. I forgot to mention that when I was there. So in addition to adding to the existing perimeter screening, we will be adding the additional space that Mr. Crumb mentioned to you as well. And I know a lot of the conditional zoning restrictions and potential future restrictions are theoretical because we filed the zone change in order to get the bakery in the building. But at the same time, we can't circumscribe the uses too much for the future. If you go through the conditional zoning restrictions that are there already, we have taken out all the automobile-related uses, if you will. No drive-through windows. I guess we won't be having Dutch rows here. And no drive-through windows, no automobile mechanics, no sale of gasoline, no service stations and some other miscellaneous ones, no carnival circuses, that sort of thing. So we're thinking about 20 years down the road what might be appropriate here. And I would certainly ask you not to limit us too much. We don't know what will happen in the future in 20 years. I can see a restaurant might be appropriate in the building with indoor seating or outdoor seating on the property. I mean, you'd have to look at that because we'd have to change our development plan in order to do that. So it'd be coming back to you anyway. So the uses, you know, funeral home, that's a theoretical one, but there has been one. There's a very successful one for probably 50 years, four doors up, serving this community as well. So that's where we're at with that. And we are in the H1 district, as I mentioned. And that doesn't, since we're not proposing any exterior changes, that is not an impact on us at this point. But that is a further protection for the property and the area that we are. This building, even though it's, if you drive by it, doesn't look maybe like it's in a historic district. It is. This was built 65 years ago by an engineering firm. And it has a number of interesting features on the inside. But that's where we're at. So we, again, ask you to approve this and just remove those three items from the conditional zoning list. Thank you. Thank you. Staff? Staff just wanted to offer one last bit of clarification as far as the process, when Mr. Thomas kind of spoke, on to why this is not a variance. within our zoning ordinances variances are dimensional so for instance they can reduce the size of a buffer they can reduce the number of plantings one thing that they cannot vary is uses in a zone and so the applicant is seeking this zone change process in order to allow them to engage in a use in this case the bakery that is not afforded the P1 zone so under the B1 zone all of the P1 uses that they have there currently are also permitted but this is the only mechanism that is in place for this property in order to expand uses because variances are limited in what they can kind of accomplish that's staffs only comment thank you all right thank you this is the Commission do floors open for questions any statements Okay, well, great. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Nichol. Chairman Forrester, before we start, I would just ask that we have three motions. Yes. I know your agenda doesn't show the variance request, but we would have that as a separate motion from the commission. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Maybe that saves some time for what I'm going to, if I've been asked to make a motion. We need a second. There we go. Oh, wait, I've got to make the motion. You've got to make a motion for a second. I got confused there. All right, I'm going to recommend a motion to approve PLN MAR 23-0003, Bread and Roses, LLC. see with the staff's recommendations. But looking on the staff's recommendations under the provisions for the following restrictions, we would like to remove restriction. This motion is to request a removal of restriction to tattoo parlors, six indoor theaters, and ten funeral parlors. Okay. Do we have a motion? and a second by mr pole any further discussion to that motion seeing none please vote via granicus okay the motion passes unanimously All right, here we are. The second motion would be a motion for approval of PLNM JDP 23-00013, Bread and Roses Development. Okay, thank you. And that's based on the revised development plan? All right. Yes. Okay, and we have a second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Granicus. Motion passes unanimously. Okay, and now the third piece. I would like to make a motion to recommend the approval of the variants requested for Brad and Rose's development located at 446 East High Street. We have a motion second by Mr. Beall. Any further discussion to that motion? Please vote via Grankus. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. That'll put us on commission items. and I'm passing the gavel over here. Mr. Chair, we're also going to go get Mr. Mickler so that he can join our meeting. Who has the gavel? Who has the gavel? Chairman Bell, okay. Just wanted to double check who had the gavel here today. Problem. go all right we do have just a few items on our agenda left for commission consideration the first of those is a fayette county public school public facility review and this is our first one for the year so just a reminder to the Planning Commission your responsibility for public facility review is to assess if the requested public facility either a new facility or a change is in agreement with the comprehensive plan if you find that it is you can also make recommendations for changes to the site plan and that particular public entity can consider those recommendations so today's public facility review is very specific it's for a softball field house at henry clay high school and some of you might remember we had something very similar in the fall i believe for lafayette high school so the parcel for henry clay high school is 2100 fontaine road and that's high school is located at the intersection of fontaine road and lake shore drive and the request is to construct a little over a 2 900 square foot building it's one story on the site for a field house for the softball team the existing site for the high school is located within a single family residential zone the r1c zone it is surrounded mostly by residential as well multi-family and single family residential and then to the southeast by the kentucky american water company site this is an aerial view of the high school site the main building lies in the center of the site with larger athletic facilities to the to the southeast for the football soccer lacrosse teams tennis courts to the northeast and then the softball and baseball fields for the high school are located to the southwest of the main building softball field is closest to lakeshore drive with the baseball field closer to the water company's property i'm going to zoom in a little bit here or show you where the proposed construction would be is right behind both or near home plate for both fields if we zoom in a little bit the location where a new field house is proposed is adjacent to the softball field also to the to the baseball field with access to an existing drive that comes in this location there is removal of some pavement and storage containers in this general vicinity and they would be replaced with the actual building so again this is a 2900 square foot one story building there's no new parking required no new parking necessary for this existing activity on the site within the application from fayette county public schools they did provide an overall site plan and again the field house is located along the eastern side of the property or north southeastern a little bit of a zoom in there's an existing there are some existing structures nearby besides the bleachers and the dugouts and those are the I believe where they score the game and have concessions in these two smaller buildings. And the baseball team does already have a field house. So the purpose of this new field house for the softball team is to have equivalent athletic facility and support for both the male and female athletic teams. In accordance with Title IX, which we of course support. The comprehensive plan, 2018 comprehensive plan, makes reference more generally to public facilities and encouraging our school sites to be incorporated within neighborhoods. Obviously, Henry Clay High School has been there for an extended period of time, and it is incorporated into the neighborhood. There's residential access and sidewalks to the site already. So the real question is, how is this additional facility being incorporated into the site? and they're locating it right next to the baseball and softball fields where it can be utilized by the teams and also in a location, I'll just go back real quick, and in a way that they're protecting the existing hillside and storm drainage that occurs on the hillside here. So there is a bit of a green area and sloped area as it goes to this small park, and so the Fiat Cain Public Schools will build a small detention basin just to the south there so that they don't impact the park facility further to the south of the site. In addition, it is going to be accessible from the parking nearest to the fields for both visitors and then the softball field or the softball team. and I thought it was interesting but the inside of the building will have batting cages and locker rooms and and storage and such for the team so the staff is recommending approval that this is an agreement with a comprehensive plan public schools again are part of the public facilities for our community that are necessary and are there to serve the needs of the community and in this case specifically the needs of the henry clay high school students and visitors that come to the site for those games the staff found that there weren't any goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan that were in opposition to this type of improvement and in fact most of the goals and objectives more generically support the provision of schools and then extracurricular activities and athletic facilities associated with those as well any questions about the proposal i have a question i don't think it changes anything just a question about the variances they're requesting for the landscaping buffers it doesn't look like what they're proposing is close to any residential development is that am i missing something here well this is a public facility review so there's not any variances to the landscaping are you looking perhaps at it says that at the bottom it's a oh no no no i've got the wrong plan in front of me sorry about that that might be the landscaping buffer here yeah got it last one no fate county public schools generally doesn't adhere to our zoning landscape i didn't think they did that's the reason i was curious I can't resist asking if it's going to be snake and vermin proof. Oh, I sure hope so. I sure hope so. Although, I mean, the building is probably closer to the source of the snakes and vermin, so I'm not really sure. Yes, I think it will be. Ms. Davis is here from Integrity Architecture. Is that right? yeah she can probably testify that it will be yeah let's hope so just a reminder for our friends the snakes they do control vermin yeah that's a good point tracy i'm curious that that park you refer to is that is that a city park or what you know I believe it is a city park is there are there any trails or anything there is a trail yes in fact when I dropped someone off the other day for lacrosse practice I walked through there there's a trail that cuts through and then there's a smaller playground at the other end so it does wrap around these single-family or duplex city-owned yes you think okay thank you i'm told that i have relatives who live pretty far down lakeshore and they say they can walk in a on a trail system all the way up to henry clay high school from quite some distance down lakeshore yeah so at this point we just need a um finding that the fayette county public schools improvement project for the softball field is in compliance with the comprehensive plan yes please okay you guys heard her okay judy you want to make it mr chair Second by Ms. Meyer. When it comes up, please. And then I'll let the director address the last few items. Thank you. Thank you all. Mr. Chair, one more action for you all, please. we recommended to you last week at your work session that you would cancel next week's work session. So we've got that on the agenda. If someone would like to make a motion to cancel the Planning Commission work session for March the 30th, then we will follow up after that. Please vote when it comes up. Thank you very much. And thank you Mr. Chair, and just one more thing. And with that, our next get together with you all will be at your committee meetings on April the 6th in the Phoenix Building, third floor. We'll see you all then. Thank you. Thank you very much, everybody.