Music Thank you all for coming out. If you all will get seated, we'll get started. All right, thank you very much. I'm calling to order this zone change hearing. Petitioned by Dutch Brothers LLC for a zone map amendment from an R3 to a B1 at the property located at 507 South Limestone. And I believe we will begin with a presentation from planning. Oh, thank you. Let's do a roll call. Thank you. Appreciate that. Council Member Gray. Here. Here. Council member Legree. Here. Council member Lynch. Present. Council member Minares. Here. Council member Plowman. Council member Reynolds. Here. Council member Sevigny. Here. Council member Sheehan. Here. Council member Worley. Vice Mayor Wu. Here. Council member Fred Brown. Council member James Brown. Here. Council member Ellinger. Council member Elliot Baxter. And council member Froegle. Present. Thank you. Thank you. Planning, are you all ready? Vice Mayor, I need to read the ordinance, and then I believe we need to swear some people in. Apologies. Thank you. Thanks. Item 1, an ordinance changing the zone from a planned neighborhood R3 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 0.2916 net, 0.3516 gross acres for property located at 507 South Limestone, a portion of Dutch Brothers LLC Council District 3. Thank you. Thank you. All right, if you are planning to speak tonight, please raise your hand or rise. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony of giving will be true? Thank you. All right. Now, thank you. Good to see you. Good evening, Vice Mayor Wu, members of the council. My name is Tracy Wade, and I'm here tonight along with a colleague, Mr. Daniel Crum, to present a zone change to the Urban County Council. This request was made by Dutch Brothers LLC, and they are requesting a zone change from a planned neighborhood residential zone, which is our R3 zone, to a neighborhood business zone, which is our B1 zone, for about a third of an acre of property. The property is located at 507 South Limestone Street, or South Limestone, and it's really just a portion of that property. before we get too far down the road we do have items to enter into the record for this evening's hearing and we'll go through those pretty quickly the first item is the legal advertisement that was placed in the herald leader as well as posted on our website for tonight's public hearing the second item is an affidavit that the planning staff reviewed notice that was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property that was for 42 property owners the third item is also in front of you tonight and that is a final report that was sent from the planning commission to the urban county council the planning commission held a public hearing on february 23rd of this year Exhibit 4 from the staff is a copy of the 2018 comprehensive plan that's been adopted. Exhibit 5 is an additional plan that was reviewed in association with this zone change request as Exhibit 5 and that's Imagine Nicholasville Road. That's a transportation and land use plan specifically to Nicholasville Road. Also, our current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. Two more. Another item that you also have in front of you tonight is a copy of the staff's presentation. This was also available outside the chambers to the public. And then the last item, there were two exhibits presented to the Planning Commission during their public hearing. one from Ms. Clark and then also one from the applicant. And so we brought those with us as well tonight if those need to be reviewed. I guess that is it for me in terms of presentation of the information to be entered into the record. And Mr. Crum is going to summarize the Planning Commission's recommendation and what the staff reviewed in terms of this zone change. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crumb, planning staff. Just to introduce some of the information that we've just kind of covered here, the applicant is seeking to rezone the R3 zoned portion of the property from R3 to the B1. This is intended to accommodate a proposed coffee shop use with an associated drive-through. The property is located at 507 South Limestone, which is shown on the center of your screen here. The property is currently split zoned, so the front portion of the property has B1 commercial zoning with this white portion to the rear containing R3 planned neighborhood residential zoning. It's surrounded by kind of a variety of zoning and land uses. So to the west, we've got single-family residential zoning with this yellow color here. To the north, we have B4 zoning, but that actually consists of a fire station as well as some University of Kentucky uses directly across South Limestone. And so kind of a mix of zoning in the area, but primarily consisting of single-family residential uses, institutional uses with the University of Kentucky, as well as a fire station, and some commercial uses further down south limestone. Here is an aerial view of the property showing, once again, this portion outlined in yellow is the rear portion that contains that split zoning. But from here you can see the existing single-family development to the west, University of Kentucky kind of dominating the eastern portion, commercial development to the south, and commercial as you move north further down south limestone. So here we have a view of the subject property taken from Street View, and this really is going to provide kind of context of how this site has historically operated. So the main kind of component of the site is this existing structure. This is a 3,000 square foot structure most recently used as the Arby's restaurant. This use was discontinued in 2019. However, the site has historically utilized this structure for restaurant uses prior to this. The subject property has also historically been split zoned. So since 1969, the front portion of the site has had commercial zoning while the rear has had residential. In the late 80s, the owner of the property applied for conditional use in order to expand this existing structure 50 feet into the residential zone. So this rear portion here was added in the late 80s and was the location of the drive-thru facility that served the Arby's use. At the time when this use was sort of developed and established at this location, drive-thru uses were what's called an accessory use. So they didn't require additional review or approval at that time as long as you had a principal use. So in this case, the restaurant on site acted as that principal use and the drive-thru was allowed to function. In the mid-2010s, there was a zoning ordinance text amendment that kind of fundamentally changed how we handle drive-throughs in our neighborhood business B1 zone. That moved it to a conditional use, which requires approval either through the Board of Adjustment or through the Planning Commission through a development plan and or a zone change. And so that is sort of the backdrop on the previous use of the site. The applicant is wanting to move forward at this location with a new coffee shop use. So under this proposal, the applicant would demolish this existing structure and build a single-story, 950-square-foot single-story coffee shop building along the South Limestone frontage. They would be closing an existing access point on South Limestone here, but would be retaining two existing access points on Colfax Street located here and here as well. The way that this site would generally function would be traffic flows from South Limestone onto Colfax Street, where it would enter the double drive-through use along the western-most access point, filter and circulate through the site where they would order their coffee, receive their coffee, and then exit onto Colfax Street again. Where the subject property is located does raise some kind of concerns and issues for a drive-through use at this location. So the first is to illustrate this point. Here we have an image of Colfax Street. So this is the intersection of Colfax with South Limestone and is currently governed by a stop sign. So there's no light at this intersection. And so any individuals that have gone through the site and, you know, ordered the coffee and have now gone back onto Colfax Street, in order to move with the flow of traffics when this use would be most popular and most pertinent in the morning, they would have to make a left across South Limestone, which in this location is a five-lane major arterial roadway, which presents definite traffic complications. Complicating this further is sort of the visibility. So this is the area where south limestone and upper kind of split and diverge. As a result, the site distance and site triangles here are somewhat difficult. The roadway curves, and as traffic flows from upper street as it exits town, begins to pick up speed on a curved kind of roadway. So that kind of complicates the visibility in this area and makes that stacking point or that point where traffic from the site is kind of bottlenecked really kind of causes issues with traffic safety and pedestrian safety. Here's a view on the opposite end of South Limestone, just once again illustrating kind of the amount of traffic that is flowing through this intersection or this area on a daily basis, as well as reminding that this is a significant pedestrian area. So this is adjacent to the University of Kentucky. It is next to an existing residential neighborhood, And there are several other businesses in the vicinity, so a high amount of pedestrian traffic that is going to be put in conflict with a proposed drive-through use at this location. In order to provide context for kind of the scale and the scope of the applicant's proposed development, I've got some images of the existing commercial context along South Limestone. So South Limestone in this vicinity really is governed by multiple-story, medium-density buildings. So in the immediate vicinity, so this is the first commercial development to the south, and below is the nearest commercial development to the north. Once again, multiple stories, a mixing of uses, typically with either retail, restaurants, service uses on the first floor, with accompanying office and or residential space above. This is sort of the development that we're looking for on corridors. We want to see higher density. We want to see a mixing of uses and really an activation of the land. Kind of by contrast, the applicant's proposal with a 950 square foot building on a lot that is approximately half an acre in size results in a very, very low density product. When we're looking to kind of compare densities, kind of a useful tool is called a floor area ratio. So effectively, a floor area ratio says how big is this building relative to the lot that it's on. So in the applicant's case, they're proposing a structure that is 4% of their total lot's size. In comparison, the existing kind of commercial context, the lowest floor area ratio in the development to the south is a 0.6, which is 15 times higher. And further north, down south limestone, it's an even higher number than that. So this is well below the established density for the area. it's really not utilizing and maximizing the use of the site as is called for within the comprehensive plan. It is also immediately adjacent to a residential context as well, with the previously mentioned single-family residential dwellings that were established in this area around the early 1920s. One thing to note, the proposed density of the subject property is less than even the established single-family residential. So all of the homes located on Colfax Street are four times more dense than what is being proposed on this half-acre lot as a part of this development. This density really plays a role in how we as a community kind of look at this. The applicant has made an application that is citing their compliance with the comprehensive plan. And to do so, they've utilized the place builder to identify a place type and a development type that's proposed for this development. They've identified this place type as a corridor, which staff agrees could be appropriate to this location. It's located next to a major roadway, and the South Limestone Corridor is one of our major corridors into Lexington. Along the corridor, the comprehensive plan is very clear. In order to reinforce the corridor, in order to ensure that there's a depth buffering between uses and appropriate intensity, the comprehensive plan calls for medium or higher density development. So the development types here are all medium density or higher. The applicant in their letter of justification makes a case that their application is a medium density, non-residential, or mixed use development. This consists of development that's typically two stories or two to three stories, mixing of uses that's oriented sort of towards the community and has pedestrian connectivity. Staff agrees that this could be appropriate at this location. However, at the size, scale, scope, and use that the applicant is proposing, it is in no way, shape, or form medium density. As previously mentioned, it is less dense than the existing single family that is found on Colfax Street. So staff disagrees that the applicant has correctly chosen the place type in this instance. The subject property is also a part of the Imagine Nicholasville Road Plan, which was incorporated in 2021 as a part of the overall comprehensive plan. It calls for several significant changes to Nicholasville Road and the South Lime Store Corridor in order to accommodate for future growth and ensure the vitality of one of our most significant roadways. So this included several proposed changes, including differences in traffic, changing access for properties along this corridor, light signalization, as well as the establishment of bus rapid transit. So this dashed line that is shown going down the middle of South Limestone would be a proposed bus rapid transit line that would function to ferry individuals up and down the corridor. Here, shown in the star, is the subject property's location. So here it is very in close proximity to a proposed transit stop. Its proposed traffic movements would conflict with the flow of where this bus rapid transit is supposed to take place and raises issues with kind of the intent of the Nicholasville Road Plan in general. The Nicholasville Road Plan lays out kind of different typologies based on where the property is located. There's a variety of different contexts along this very long roadway, but this particular item is located within the urban center typology. These are our closest to downtown areas. These are the highest density proposed and highest height. In short, the applicant's proposal does not meet anywhere close to the density that's called for in this plan that is needed to supplement the roadway to provide both destinations and riders for the bus rapid transit that's planned. And really a single-user automobile-focused drive-through directly contradicts the intent behind this multimodal, pedestrian-focused, pedestrian-friendly plan. Within the staff's review of the application, we reviewed the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan and found several avenues in which the goals and objectives that we as a community laid out were not being met. The first is that they are not constructing a density that is reflective of a major corridor. The focus of a single vehicle user use detracts from the viability of this planned mass transit, as well as the particular vehicular conflicts that could be introduced by introducing a drive-through and a more intense drive-through use at this location could overall lessen the effectiveness of the transportation system in this area and encouraging this additional drive-through increases greenhouse emissions at this location. Within our review of the development criteria, which is how we evaluate the applicant's chosen development type, We found numerous ways in which this is not meeting the site design, building form, and location criteria. Once again, building an appropriate scale to a major corridor, ensuring that this has meeting the context of what is expected in the area. Once again, it is 15 times lower density than existing commercial development in the area. And it should be improving and intensifying underutilized properties. Instead, this structure is less than one-third of the size of the Arby's building that was developed there. and is proposing an automobile-centric use that really will funnel individuals away from this area rather than serving as a hub drawing people in. It's not providing a context-sensitive transition as it is in itself lower density than the existing single-family residential in the area. So densities should build up as you reach a corridor to provide a buffer between residential areas, but this is actually less dense than the current situation. And once again, it should create neighborhoods with safe access to community facilities pedestrian and multimodal networks. However, this application creates vehicular conflict. It puts pedestrians at an increased risk and does not meet those requirements. Once again, these developments should be transit-oriented. This is as far away from a transit-oriented development as you could probably design. It does not accommodate for these multimodal options and doesn't satisfy all particular users' needs for the sites. Within regards to the development plan, this kind of just goes over the layout of the site. I've kind of described it already, but the proposed structure is this 950 square foot structure here. So shown in red, it will have a sort of a pickup window, but it will not have any seating in sight. So this is primarily geared towards serving the double lane of drive-through that will circle and function by circling around the site where it sort of bottlenecks here and then exits out onto Colfax Street. With regards to the Planning Commission's recommendation, the Planning Commission held their hearing on February 23rd. There was one lone citizen in attendance that sort of spoke in opposition to the applicant's request. So there was one and a half hours of testimony in which staff and the applicant presented our proposals. And the main kind of citizen comments were directed towards where these site access points were located and what this was going to do to the pedestrian experience in this corridor. So staff had strongly recommended disapproval in this instance. The Planning Commission also voted 8 to 1 to disapprove the requested zone change. And their findings of fact were based on staff's recommendations that they lay out in the staff report that was included in the record. To just generally summarize it, we found that they were not in agreement with the goals, objectives, and policies of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. We found that it was not in agreement with the 2021 Imagine Nicholasville Road Plan. We found that it did not meet the intent of the medium-density non-residential-slash-mixed-use development type. And that the requested rezoning isn't in line with the development criteria that apply to that development type. furthermore we found that the planning commission found that there have been no major unanticipated changes in the area and that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence as to why the current zoning is inappropriate and the proposed zoning is appropriate for this location um so with that staff would be happy to entertain any questions you have at this time thank you mr grum Does the petitioner have, would like to cross-examine staff? You good? Okay. Thank you very much. Let's see. Mr. Simpson, you're the representing the petitioner. Okay. Come on up. You have 20 minutes. Thanks. I'll pass out some exhibits, Mr. Vice Mayor, if I may. Mr. Vice Mayor and members of the council, it's a privilege once again to be before this body. Let me express my gratitude and appreciation for you all assembling tonight because I know there were some issues with some of you being able to be here tonight to attend this meeting. I also know, and I'm going to be facetious when I say this, how much you all enjoyed zone change hearings. You look forward to them and embrace them and talk about them over Christmas. So I do appreciate that you are here very much because I know that there were significant constraints. And we have a challenge tonight. As you know, we have to have ten people to have a quorum, and we have ten. And because the Planning Commission didn't recommend approval, we have to persuade you all, eight of you, to vote in favor of this proposal, which we believe we will be able to do. And so I know that you all will pay attention and listen. And even though this is actually the smallest parcel of property I've been involved in seeking a zone change on in my 40-year legal career, the net acreage is 12,700 square feet is what we're talking about rezoning tonight. having two full-blown hearings on a property on South Limestone that has been used as a commercial restaurant site since 1974, 49 years. So it stopped being used in 2019. It closed the Arby's, but from 74 until 2019, it was a commercial restaurant. And even though the portion that we're talking about tonight, this 12,700 square foot parcel net where you can actually build something on, It's zoned R3 planned residential. It's been used for commercial purposes for almost a half a century, a little bit more. Because that's what was approved by the Board of Adjustment in 74. And it's been that way. And the other thing that's undisputed is we could go in there and the property owner who I don't represent, Brandon Gross is here tonight to share with you some Testimony from the property owner and the letter of the property owner, who is a developer of high density apartments and commercial real estate, who's looked at the site, had the site for several years, looked at developing the site, was interested in developing the site at the intensity that was recommended and suggested by the staff. if it would be economically justifiable, the cost of developing it and the revenue that would be obtained, would it be worthwhile? And you will hear from Brandon that it actually would create a loss for the property owner to go in that direction. You know, I represented neighborhoods for 20 years. I thought every development that came before this body. And one thing I learned quickly was that developers love density because they made more money. They got more dense houses, commercial square footage of shopping centers and the like. They loved it because it would generate more money. So the fact that this property has been vacant since 2019 and available for sale, and the comp plan is 2018, calls for higher density. You would think somebody who was interested in making a profit that had a market for this would come in and develop it at the density levels that were discussed. But nobody's in that interest because it's not economically justifiable. The aspirations which are laudable, no question. Increased density on the corridors are laudable if there's a demand for what those objectives are. But there is no demand on this site, third of an acre, 12,700 square feet of buildable space. There is no demand on this site, even with the property, 40% of this property is already zoned commercial. Even if you combine them together, there's simply not enough land to do the kind of density that would be economically justifiable to get a zone change to accomplish the aspirational goals that the staff has talked about. So it's not that we wouldn't like to increase density. We would. If it's going to cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to develop and you're going to lose money, nobody's going to do it. But this property is going to sit here vacant until somebody's an idiot and tries to develop it and goes bankrupt and proves there's no market. Or somewhere down the road, future plans get changed to recognize there is no market for high density on this site. And the comprehensive plan, last time I was down here on goals and objectives, I held it up, took some effort on my part. I was 600 pages. This is less than a third of an acre. Do we really need to scrutinize a third of an acre with the 600-plus page plan to make a determination whether this commercial property, this Arby's that's been there since 1974, ought to be converted into a coffee shop with a drive-thru. The Arby's had a drive-thru. That's what we're talking about. We're not changing the historical use. not changing the character of the neighborhood. Neighborhoods have never embraced density. I can tell you, in all my years of representing neighborhoods, I never heard a marching order from any neighborhood president to say, Bruce, by all means, whatever you do in this zoning case, you have got to get more density next to our neighborhood. I mean, as much as you can get, we want it. I've never had that directive, ever. And I won't, of course. But I understand the plan. The plan is laudable. I'm not saying the plan isn't laudable and the goals aren't worthy, but you have to apply them on each piece of property that comes before this body. And one thing is abundantly clear in the law that governs decision making is that the comprehensive plan, the courts have ruled time and time again. Comprehensive plan, that big document that I showed you the last time I was down here, the comprehensive plan, according to the courts, is a guide. It's a guide for decision making. You all make the final decision. It's a guide. Now, it's not, and these are the court's words, it's not a straight jacket that you have to follow every dotted I and crossed every T. It's a broad-ranging set of aspiration. Important, yes, but you have to apply them on each parcel that comes before you, and that's what you're going to be doing tonight. And I need eight of you to say, you know what, a coffee shop in Louvain Arby's that's been abandoned for five years has been, quite frankly, a blighted area, blighted piece of property for this residential neighborhood down Colfax, which is the adjoining street, which is mainly students, I grant you. But still, they deserve to live in a nice place. Not a vacant, abandoned Arby's for four years. And we'll be vacant longer unless you approve a development. This development or something similar down the road. So we're actually improving this neighborhood with the same kind of use that it's always had. Now, I listen to the staff say, we want to have density and don't have density. Well, with more density, we build a high-rise apartment, build an expensive garage, going to have more cars. That's going to, you know, we're going to have increasing traffic, but we get penalized for having a lower density development, but still having cars. I mean, you can't have it both ways. You can't have increasing density with a lot of 200 or 300 apartments, and nobody's, everybody's going to walk, ride a bike, or take a bus. I mean, that may happen in the future for Lexington, but we don't have the density of population where that's likely to happen in our lifetime. So the question before you tonight is, are you going to allow this property to be vacant for ever how long until somebody changes their mind and says there's no market for this high density? Or are you going to say, you know what, really, from what the developer has shared and what they are talking about, this is kind of a reasonable historical continuation of what this property has always been. It's been a drive-through restaurant. I mean, we're continuing the same thing. It's not going to change expectations or the reaction of anybody in the neighborhood. They're going to say, yeah, well, I had a neighborhood meeting to advise the neighbors and share with them and listen to questions on what we were doing, and nobody showed up. We didn't have any opposition at the planning commission. Amy Clark, she doesn't live in the neighborhood, but Amy was there. She has every right. Any citizen in the community, regardless of where you live, can come. She'll be here tonight. I respect that, of course. But this is, even though this is only a third of an acre, this is a major case for you guys. And I know some of you are new, but this is important. Are you going to, this is a new company coming in from Oregon, Dutch Bros. If you did a Google of them at all, they have an outstanding reputation. I mean a great corporate citizen. Now, that's not a land use question. That's a community engagement issue, and you will hear from Brandon Schaun, the representative of Dutch Bros in a minute, about what their involvement is in the community and how they serve and how this particular site will operate and how it's set up for pedestrians and automobiles and how, unlike some of the coffee shops you'll see that have created issues along South Broadway, where the cars back up on the South Broadway because there's too many people that want to get a cup of coffee at this other coffee shop. I'm not going to name the name. You probably know what I'm talking about. We've got spaces on site for 19 cars if we get that busy. And the majority of our traffic is after 11 a.m. And Brandon will share that with you. It's after 11 o'clock, most of the customers. But we've got 19 parking spaces where people can drive up and get their coffee so you don't back it up onto the streets. That's a public safety issue that we're going to address. The other issue is no loudspeakers. Arby's had a loudspeaker right next to a single-family lot. Now, the single-family lot that's adjacent to this property is vacant. It's been vacant for years. But we don't have loudspeakers. This is like, if you've ever been to Chick-fil-A, you drive up and people are out in the outside taking your order. This is the way this will be. It takes about 30 seconds. It moves quickly. You don't have to wait very long. So there's a lot of benefits to this. You've got a new corporate citizen who wants to be a part of this community. The founder is actually working right now to live here. The founder of Dutch Bros. He's currently engaged in acquiring a property to move to Lexington. So it's a small parcel, but it's a big case for a lot of reasons. Now, the staff has shared with you some of the outlying surrounding land uses. I want to give a context of what we're talking about here. Because this little property, this third of an acre, is like a little island, if you will, surrounded by the University of Kentucky, primarily, and Lexington-Fade Urban County Fire Station No. 3. All governmental uses. The significance of that is they're bigger buildings. They have more density. But you know what? The University of Kentucky doesn't have to comply with zoning. They're exempt. Urban County government, they don't have to comply with zoning. They're exempt. They can do whatever you want to do, wherever you want to do it. What a wonderful thing the government has in terms of land use power. It doesn't have to comply with any of these regulations. We're surrounded on all but one side, a vacant lot on the other side of us, by institutional uses. They're never going to change. If anything is going to change, as you all know in this community, it's an expansion of UK and gobbling up existing neighborhoods. They may take Dutch Bros one day if you all approve this. I don't know. We hope not if you do approve it. But you're not going to see redevelop of anything related to the comprehensive plan on this property that surrounds us. So let me put up our first slide. It simply shows. The uses. West you help coordinate that. That's right. Okay, so our property is 507 South Limestone. which is we're founded on the property. All this brown that you say that's owned warehouse before warehouse. That's our neighbor to the north. All that land to the north is owned by the University of Kentucky. and the urban county government. All of it. And over in here, right there, is a 108,000 square foot parking lot with 359, 389 parking spaces to serve the University of Kentucky main campus, which is 83 acres. And right now, these people in this 108,000 square foot parking lot, they have nowhere to get to UK except here. But what they've done is actually cut a path across the back of the Arby's in here, where that blue area is, on their own. We haven't stopped, or the current owner hasn't stopped, or we don't own it yet. Dutch Brothers hasn't owned it. to get to Colfax, this street right here because it's easier and safer to cross. Our commitment to you tonight and what we told the planning commission is we're going to build a sidewalk from this area right here at this 389 spaces right to the coffee shop onto Colfax. Colfax. So all these people that work at UK and go to UK as students have a safe place to walk. They don't have a safe place to walk now. They don't. So we're improving public safety with this. We're also improving public safety because, as the staff mentioned, currently right now with the Arby's, there's access on the South Limestone. As I said, we could operate, we could open the Arby's next week. Somebody wanted to go in there and operate it. Obviously nobody's been interested, but we can operate. nobody can stop us we have all the traffic you want nobody can stop us permitted currently but currently if they did operate as a drive through arby's right in here with the access out on south line then the pedestrians all these students and employees that currently have to walk down here and walk up here an extra lengthy distance, they'd have to deal with all the traffic coming into and out of the Arby's entrance and exit now in South Lyme. We're taking that away. We're taking that away. It's going to be safer for the people that live in that area. Two major improvements for pedestrian safety that will come about if you approve this rezoning. That's a major benefit to this neighborhood. it. And the people that work at UK go to school at UK. It's a major safety improvement. And the other, other, so we have UK and the fire station is right in here. UK is all, this is all in here, 83 acres. And then UK from Colfax, this area in here, it's the B1 is commercial the same as part of our property, about 40%, 50% is commercial right now. This is our property that's subject to the zone change, a third of an acre. But all this property you see from Colfax, this whole block from here down to Mount Mullins, right here, all that's owned by the University of Kentucky. They don't have to comply with any zoning. It's not going to increase any density unless they can do whatever they want. We got 12,700 square feet we're trying to rezone. And basically switching from an RV's to a coffee shop is the net effect of what we're asking you to do. Now under tab number two, put that up on the screen. I mentioned the parking lot. This is the parking lot from Google Earth. 1,008 square feet, 389 parking places. Here's the RVs. Right now, they have just cut a path on their own, the people that park there, because they don't want to have to go all over here and come back this way. They just cut a path like this. It's a current owned property, but it cut a path here and it's dangerous. Slip and slide when it's muddy. People get hurt. We're going to put in a standard according to government regulations. Sidewalk. Dutch Brothers Expense so these people can now safely walk from this parking lot all the way over to Colfax. If I could have just a few more minutes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Simpson, I'm pretty tight on keeping people to their time and not offering extensions, and I do that across the board with everybody. I'd ask for 30 in my letter to you. I understand that, and I replied that I was giving planning staff and the petitioner 20 minutes each. Okay. Could I have two more minutes? Okay. Thank you, sir. I have other people who want to talk. Next person talk will be, I have Dufet findings of fact at the end of my presentation booklet. I have other photos in there that I encourage you to look at, or self-explanatory of what the area looks like, most of which I've covered. But Brandon is the next person who's going to be speaking here on behalf of, it's an individual, it's Dutch Brothers. The 20 minutes was for the petitioner's side in total. Well, he's here as an individual just to talk about it. I don't. I mean, individual people in favor of his own change can certainly talk. You can do that by signing up for the public comment part of that. Well, you can sign up now if necessary. No, I'm signed up. I signed up. We've got you signed up? Okay. I thought you were talking about Mr. Brandon Gross. No, no. Not correct? He signed up too. We don't have you signed up. Hold on. Brandon, come on up, introduce yourself and tell them who you are and what you're about. So let me, if you want to speak during the public comment section, the iPad is here somewhere and we can get you. Hannah Iden in the back has it there. I'll sign up. Thank you, I appreciate that. Does planning staff have any cross examination for petitioner? No? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Thank you. All right, we're going to move to public comment. And before we do that, Ms. Clark, you came in after we swore everybody in. So if you would raise your right hand, I can swear you in as well. And Mr. Gross, did you swear in before? I believe you did, yes, thank you. All right, Ms. Clark, let's see here. Do you swear or affirm that any testimony that you give at this hearing will be true to the best of your knowledge? I do. Thank you, Ms. Clark. All right, so we're going to, we've got you on the list. We're going to start with public comment. When you come up, please give your name, your council district, and then you will have three minutes. We're going to start with Brandon Shan, Scan? Sean. All right, thank you. City Council members, thank you guys for your time. Men and women, we really appreciate you guys. Give a little bit of history about myself. I've been with Dutch Bros Coffee for 15 years. I have been, I worked there when I was in high school. I've been in operations for 10 years, and I've been on the development side for five. You guys, we have an opportunity here. The city of Lexington has an opportunity to have a corporate citizen come into your town and be a part of your community. Dutch Bros has always been about, not about selling coffee, but about planting roots in the community. How can we encourage community members, employees, and other businesses to be philanthropic? Planting roots is exactly what we've been doing since 1992 in Oregon. We have three mandatory community give backs. We have one this Friday, actually called Drink One for Dane. It goes back to the Muscular Dystrophy Association in your local community. So my assumption is UK probably has one, most major health organizations do. And we would be donating back to UK. We also do a Buck for Kids Day every September on National Coffee Day, where we ask the community, is there a youth organization that needs help? We would love to donate our proceeds for that day back to the youth. Another one that we do is Dutch Love Day, and that's for hunger. So we partner with local nonprofits that are helping fight the fight for hunger. Unfortunately, I only have three minutes. I thought I had seven. So we talk a lot about this being a drive-thru-centric drive-thru facility. We've done a lot to mitigate that. We understand what Lexington wants and that you guys want a walkable site. So if I could show my elevations that my team did, we've designed a new walk-up patio. So here's the new walk-up, right? It shows the walkway. Sorry, I'm stuttering. I'm under some speed here. Vice Mayor Wu, the council's rules don't allow for renderings to be presented. I just want to make sure you're not showing a picture of a building. The site plan is acceptable. We were going to show a picture of the rendering so you guys could see how walkable, but I can walk you through this. And so- Hold on a second, let me pause you for a second. So a site plan is in essence the development plan which we've already shown to the council, but not a rendering of a proposed structure, it's not permitted by your rules. Okay. No problem. We can stick with this, this is a little bit different than what you guys saw. So, Tracy, are you objecting to the image we have on now? Okay. Go ahead. So what you guys see, and we're showing the walkway. You do me a favor, Mr. Sean, will you speak into the mic? That way everything is on record. So what, City Council, what you guys see here is we're improving that walkway, ADA walkway across to South Limestone. You can see that there's picnic tables there. Do you mind if I? You've got 20 more seconds on the clock. Go ahead. Okay. You see that there's picnic tables there. There's actually outdoor heaters there as well. We've expanded that. We're encouraging walkability here. I was on site today. This site is meant for walkability. We are only showing this many drive-through queues because we don't want to be a traffic nuisance. This is almost four times the amount of what is required by a traffic engineer. Based on our sales projections, this is going to be overkill for us. But we want to make sure that we are identifying the issue and prepared for worst case scenario. But really we're focusing on that walkability. Thank you, Mr. Sean. Next up is James Schrader. My name is Jamie Schrader. I live at 805 Old Dobbin Road. I'm a real estate broker that owns Schrader Commercial Properties. I have worked on behalf of Dutch Bros in locating sites in Lexington. The one thing I want to add that hasn't been discussed in much detail is the basic concept in real estate of the highest and best use. There's always a reason why each property is used in its current fashion. And the highest and best use on this property is a restaurant, a drive-thru restaurant, a retail location. and that's why it's been that way for 50 years. If you talk to all real estate experts, when they see that site across from the University of Kentucky and the way it's been used previously, they're going to say that needs to be some type of quick service restaurant at that particular location, and that's indeed what we've had for 50 years. It would be great to have something more dense, taller, if that was logical. But that's not what the market is saying relative to this property. The market says it needs to serve the University of Kentucky. It needs to serve people that are driving by there. It needs to have a drive-through at that location. And I am going to echo a little bit what Bruce said. Failure to take action is basically taking it out of inventory and leaving it as a vacant site. Drive by there today. Take a look at the site. I would encourage every one of you all to go by there and see if you think that building needs to be sitting there in its current use. If we want to hire some people, provide a service, I've got a feeling a lot of the people on this council would be driving by there, walking up to it, and enjoying a cup of coffee. I believe the University of Kentucky Law School, the U.K. Business School, the administration, students, the 380 people in that parking lot would ask for this particular use. It's meeting the needs of the community and will be successful at that location. What we have right now is not meeting the needs of the community. It's not successful. and it would be great to have a tall building there, but in essence, the best use, the highest best use is a Dutch Bros there. I think it will be successful, and I think you need to think with logic and follow what makes sense at that location. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schrader. Next up is Dottie Bean. My name is Dottie Beam. I come from the 8th District. Council members, we are here tonight, fresh off of an experience on Nicholasville Road at Rushire tonight. Trying to get here on time. Right off the bat, we are going to tell you that any kind of drive-through activity at this location is a very bad idea. There is no way to describe for you this or show even a video of how awful that street is at 4.30 p.m. in the afternoon, Monday through Friday. We were headed into town, and there was only one inbound lane from Southland Drive to Vine Street. You really have to experience this for yourself to really know how bad any more highway business along Nicholasville Road would be. The outbound lanes were also bumper to bumper, and much of the traffic we saw was shifting over to Harrodsburg or Purcell's Road, which always happens on a bad road in Lexington. It shifts west or east, and it puts more pressure on those roads, so that would mean alumni and chinoe also get part of the traffic from Nicholasville. The idea of the street offering anything in the way of walkability is almost criminally negligent. We question whether there would be anything left of the affordable housing to the west of this. In the east, of course, is the University of Kentucky. Even when it was Arby's, it was impossible to get in there and out of it, especially if you were headed toward town instead of toward the medical center. We were at UK for some classes when it was Arby's. You couldn't get across that street. You either had to go up to one or the other intersections, and even then, really, that street is not walkable, period. That is a traffic street period. Since UK has greedily taken up all the land they did not have in that area, this area has been an impossible road to travel if you're trying to go south at any time of the day and north at rush hour. It would also be so bad we wonder why no one else has shown up here and we know it was advertised in the paper. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bean. Amy Clark? Jamie Clark of 628 Castle Road and I have placed some material into the record and also copious material on a thumb drive into the record. I feel it's important to express my formal objection to not being recognized as an objector and afforded the rights of an objector in this process. It's a gallop from here on out. This property stands at a critical nexus of transportation in all modes right at the heart of Lexington here. There's everything but a fire station. Actually, there's a fire station next door. There's dense housing. UK is one of Lexington's largest employers, including the hospital. There's a VA hospital not far. Our Red Mile pipes into this. It debouches all its traffic onto Limestone just south of here at Virginia Avenue. It's probably our poster child for transit-oriented development. Lots of high-density housing. People ride the bus. People bike very actively. There are projects in the works of feasibility study to make that route connected all the way to the Legacy Trail and Meadowthorpe and on into UK. Okay, your raised bid for a major federal grant to complete and connect. To complete and connect Oliver Sales Road with High Street and Maxwell concludes with the red part and the end point of that red part you can see is right where Upper and Limestone meet at the University of Kentucky, immediately adjacent to where this drive-through will be. And I have warrants for why they think this final segment is important, because there are safety issues. This is the larger part of the final segment. And the red part, you will notice in the past five years, there have been 104 total crashes and 14 resulting in injury. This realigned intersection, I'm quoting from the bid for federal funding, will provide an incredible opportunity for improvements. This RAISE project would connect the Town Branch Trail and the Tiger Grant and the park and so forth and the Convention Center. It brings things together. UK is probably Lexington's greatest infill and economic development project. Enormous investment in housing density and jobs that is ongoing. There's amazing investment here. The two hub buildings or Corlex. And I would beg you to ask me about the rest of what's wonderful and important about what Lexington has done and is doing for this corridor. Please ask me questions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. Next up is Brandon Gross. Thank you very much, Brandon Gross. I live in the 10th district. And for those who don't know, I'm the oldest of four boys. Grew up a 1,100 square foot house in the Southern area. So about halfway through my senior year in high school, I had enough and I left home. I ended up down here in Praultown, so I may be the only person in this room who actually lived in Praultown. Took the bus, rode my bike up to Kroger on Regency. At the time, Arby's was, all right, Ms. Fogel was from Praultown. So I was able, even with that Arby's, I was able to ride my bike, take the bus, get to school, and I can attest I am alive today even though there was a drive-thru in my neighborhood. I would like to also say on the mixed use, my client, I'm here on behalf of my client who owns the property, they bought this property in 2007. It had been a drive-thru at that point for 20-some-odd years. It's continued to be a drive-thru. They want to continue to use their property as a drive-thru. I've looked, and they have looked in the area. And if you look between Virginia Avenue at Limestone down to campus' new corner exchange, you will notice that almost half that retail is empty. At Center Court, two-thirds of the retail in that mixed-use development is empty, and it's got 200 apartments above it. If you go to the hub at Limestone and Virginia Avenue, half those units are empty. mixed use does not always work while it's great and it's laudable it's not always going to work in every single location my clients in this letter that i have in front of you in the second paragraph did some quick numbering they think maybe they could get a 4400 far on this property which is floor area ratio if they double that up one floor retail one floor of apartments they would need to borrow about $1.8 million. The debt service would be $15,000 a month for them to pay for this development that they don't want. They think they may lose $200 a month after they collect the rents, and that's not including the taxes, insurance, maintenance, and other items. My client will not build a mixed-use project here. It just won't. If this project is not approved, we will likely find another user who will use the Arby's building as it is, as a drive-through, And they will continue to use as it's currently being used. And with that, that's all I have to say tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Grose. And last up is Brad Boas. I apologize. I want to enter my letter on the record. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Brad Boas. I'm in the 10th district. I work for CMW Architects and Engineers. And I'm here to speak about the letter that was in your packet that provides a little bit of technical information about traffic, since that seems to be a big issue. Looking at the existing Arby's, it is a sit-down fast food restaurant. And according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, when you look at their trip generation manual, that says it will generate 467 trips for every 1,000 square feet of building. So in total, we can estimate that 1,402 trips will be generated by that building that sits there today, if it's an Arby's or it's repurposed as another drive-thru restaurant. On the contrary, when you look at a coffee shop that does not have sit-down, that is only a drive-thru and walk-up, it will generate 533 trips per every 1,000 square feet. So as a smaller building, it will generate 507 trips. So you're comparing 1,400 trips if this building is repurposed, as Brandon just explained, as a different drive-thru sit-down restaurant versus the coffee shop, which gets a lot of its traffic through pedestrian activity. I went to a U.K. graduate school, parked in the Scott Street parking lot, and walked by this restaurant every single night for three years. And I could tell you if it was a coffee shop, I would have bought coffee every night going to school. So using it just as a half drive-through, half walk-up, it will generate 507 vehicular trips a day. And again, that letter is in your packet. So again, thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Browes. Does planning staff have a rebuttal to any of the presentations? You'll have five minutes for a rebuttal. Thank you all. Daniel Crum, planning staff again. Just wanted to offer some context and clarify some of the information that was presented to you. Several times throughout the presentation, sort of a smaller number was used to represent what could be built on this site. So this site is approximately .51 acres. So that is the buildable area of the site. It's not limited to strictly the area being rezoned. they have the entire, if they were successful in rezoning the site, they would have up to half of an acre in order to develop. This is larger than many of the existing commercial parcels in this area, commercial parcels that have been able to maintain for upwards of 50 or 60 years that mixing of uses, that sort of higher density development that staff and the comprehensive plan kind of calls for within the corridor. With respect to sort of how the site has historically operated, there is that current existing Arby's building. if the applicant wished to establish a restaurant use without a drive-through, they could establish that today with no issue. If they wanted to use the current drive-through extent, as in not expand it or enlarge it, they could do so today. The issue before you here is they are seeking to significantly expand the drive-through facilities. The existing drive-through facilities on the site have not been, or based on the applicant's projections, aren't sufficient for them to operate. That's the reason they're seeking the rezoning. So this is a higher number of cars specifically being utilized for this use. It's worth noting that an Arby's restaurant does function differently fundamentally than a coffee shop use in the hours of operation, hours of peak trips. And it's worth noting that the traffic generation numbers that were provided to you were not reviewed or a no traffic impact state was provided to traffic engineering. And during the Planning Commission review of the site, David Filiatri kind of noted the kind of issues with how they have chosen to kind of portray the amount of traffic being generated by this use. Once again, any type of B1 use could utilize that front portion of the property and could be a meaningful pedestrian-oriented use. However, this increase in vehicular traffic to the site and the issues that it is causing kind of with the roadway around it, along with the lack of density, are really kind of the main barriers here. Staff would be happy to entertain any other questions you have, but those were the primary points of clarification. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Does the petitioner have a rebuttal? You will have five minutes as well. All righty. Thank you. I'll pay attention to my time. Mr. Wu, thank you. I mean, really, as I said at the beginning, y'all's task tonight is pretty simple. The facts are really simple. And the critical facts before you tonight are undisputed. Staff didn't rebut the critical facts in this case. One is, as they just indicated, regardless of what you do tonight, if you turn it down tonight, the drive-thru stays. and the concern about traffic going in and out continues. Only it comes in off limestone, which is going to put the pedestrian students that are walking on limestone at risk because we're going to close it if you approve this. And the poor people that live in that parking, that 108,000 square foot parking lot behind the site are going to have to continue to wobble and weave and risk injury to get safely to Colfax. That won't happen tonight if you approve this zone change. The other thing that's not in dispute is that no traffic study was needed for this case because it doesn't generate enough traffic to warrant it. If we had to do a traffic study, we would have done a traffic study. What we did share with you, which is undisputed tonight, is that the trips generator from this site, standard recognized research, is that the Arby site, if it's reconstituted, will generate more traffic than this coffee shop. That's undisputed. Those are facts from the ITE trip generation manual research all over the country. That's undisputed. There's no need to have a study for the staff review. I said the same thing at the planning commission. You're going to have more trips generated from the RV site than you will a coffee shop. So we're going to have less trips. It's going to be safer. We're going to cut off access to limestone, pedestrian connection, this parking lot where all these students and faculty come going to and from. Safer. And we're going to eliminate a vacant building, put some jobs there for students that live right up Colfax. They can go to school and work part time. Same use. Nobody's going to be surprised by the change in use. Less traffic. All the things in a typical neighborhood, when you move into it, whether you rent or whether you own, you don't want to be shocked by some radical change in use from what's been there when you bought your property or when you rented your home. You want to not be surprised. We're not surprising anybody. Now, you've heard unrebutted evidence that the recommendation for high density, and I'm telling you from representing developers, they love density if they can make money off of it. You've got unrebutted evidence before you tonight that there is no market for high density on this small site. The owner, who's a developer of high density apartments and retail, has looked at it. It's not going to work. He's going to lose money. There's been no evidence to counter that. I mean, that's the evidence you have to consider on this site. It's a small site. Yeah, it's only a third of an acre, and they've got some extra commercial land they could use, but from what Brandon has sold you, they've looked at that. They're going to lose money if they incorporate the existing commercial site into this third of an acre to make it commercial. Developers wouldn't make money if they could make money. They're going to lose money on this site. And so if you turn this down, it's going to stick vacant, or it'll become another Arby's. struggle probably or some other fast food restaurant. And is that what you want? Is that you want to have more traffic and more danger to the students that are walking in front of that Arby's along South Lyme and the poor students and faculty have to walk from that parking lot down that slippery slope hill, up the next slippery slope hill, risking injury. If you turn it down, I mean that's, we're putting people at unnecessary risk in my opinion. I think the smartest thing to do, reasonable thing to do, what the comp plan requires, which I have provided for you under my last tab, I set forth the goals and objectives, which we meet that encourage this kind of infield development, safe, compatible, foreseeable, historically similar, no surprises, safer. This is what the goals and objectives you all adopted, set forth on the last page, require. We are in compliance with those goals and objectives. I've adopted findings of fact for you to prove it. I need AWE to vote in favor of this zone change. Don't let it be vacant for the foreseeable future. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Would planning staff like to do a summation? I need to correct that I put something into the record that wasn't mine. At the request of the Prawltown Neighborhood Association president, There's a letter there from Betty Boyd, and I did that at her request. Okay. I apologize. Thank you. Noted. One thing, Mr. Chair, I need to enter this posting of the sign and affidavit in the record. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. All right. You'll have five minutes for a summation. Sure. Thank you, Vice Mayor Wu, members of the council. I just want to remind you that with a zone change, the request is made and the evidence provided by the applicant is required to prove that they are in agreement with the comprehensive plan. So that's the first condition or the first reason for the council to approve a zone change. The applicant is required to provide information that they're in agreement with the comprehensive plan. In this case, the planning staff as well as the planning commission did not find that that was the case. The applicant provided no additional information at the planning commission that they were, that met either the other two requirements that are allowed for a zone change, which are there's been a social, economic, or physical change in the immediate area. Again, we heard nothing from the applicant tonight that there's been any changes in the immediate area. of the zone change and the other finding would be their proposal is appropriate and the existing zone is inappropriate again we've not heard from mr samson or the applicant that the r3 zone is inappropriate they've not used those two findings that are available to them so again the planning staff and the planning commission both came to the conclusion that this request was not in agreement with the comprehensive plan and specifically the corridor place type and the development type that they proposed for evaluation, which is medium density or medium intensity use along a corridor. They are not showing a medium intensity use along the corridor, which is existing on that section of Nicholasville Road. We have multi-story buildings. We have mixed-use projects. And this particular proposal is just not consistent with the type of corridor that Lexington is trying to create, the type of intensity we're trying to create along our corridors in order to meet some of the other goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. So I guess that's it from the staff. I'm glad Mr. Simpson provided his sign. I was a little concerned we weren't going to meet the due process requirements of the ordinance. So thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Would petitioner like to make a summation? yeah would you like would you like to make a summation mr simpson all right you have five minutes thank you thank you we've talked a lot about money tonight everything's about money and i know this is a rezoning planning commission it is a very small piece of property but what what we have here is we have a tenant we're locally owned and operated it's a husband wife I wish they could be here she's eight months pregnant so she couldn't make it so her condolences for not being able to make it they want to start their family in Lexington they want to give back to the community and I know I know we talk a lot about traffic we talk a lot about the viability of this project money is important but it's not as important as the community and so with us with Dutch Bros trying to help make a more viable walkable site we're a coffee shop company we live we pay the bills for through a drive-thru we understand that we've we've mitigated that to the best of our abilities we do things differently you're not going to see cars stacked out on the road there's no static ordering point everything's fluid the traffic's fluid it's a really unique opportunity if you guys ever get the opportunity we're under construction on new circle road right now so hopefully here in the next six months you guys will be able to see that but i don't want the city council to just think that this is all about money money we've we've identified lexington as the first market in kentucky that we're going to go when i spoke with these operators five years ago i said where do you guys want to be where do you want to raise a family both of them said kentucky oregon-based want to be in kentucky so we want to plant roots here i know this is a rezoning uh hearing but you have to look at the applicant that is wanting the rezone there's a little bit more behind it than just that 13 000 square foot rezone and so i hope there's eight of you that would love to see dutch bros as a member of your community and i hope that you guys have seen how much we have gone above and beyond to try to make our design and our building walkable desirable i know you guys can't see elevations but i believe bruce circulated circulated to the city council uh earlier this morning but when you guys see that um i hope that you guys can can look at that so maybe not i don't know then he probably didn't if he's not allowed to he probably didn't so that that's my closing statement i mean i really hope that you guys uh can identify the business uh and the want and the desire to be part of your guys guys's community although it's not high density there's other non-high density uses up and down up and down the corridor we were we were out there all all day today so i appreciate your guys' time. And at a minimum, we look forward to being part of Lexington and other markets as well. So hopefully it's on limestone as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sean. I'm going to open the floor up to questions from council members. Go ahead and sign in. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This question is for our planning. And I just need some clarification, was there or was there not a traffic study? Daniel Crump planning staff, there was not a traffic study provided with this request. So what is the difference from Arby's traffic versus this coffee house's tentative track traffic? I can't speak to the specific trip generation numbers, but just operationally, the hours of operation of a potential morning coffee-based business versus an Arby's, which I think traditionally when it operated at the site would have been lunch and dinner. So that has impacts on the flow of traffic when the mornings, you know, if you're getting coffee, you're making a left and going with the flow of traffic and making the commute into town. When you access the site does have impact on kind of how the site functions. Okay, and one more question for you. Since the R&B closed, have there been any other potential owners who have reached out to you all? Yes, there was one application by Dunkin' Donuts that I believe was in 2021 that looked at potentially applying for a conditional use of this location. They wanted to modify some aspects of the site, but that application was ultimately withdrawn by the applicant. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My questions are for the applicants. And my first question is, why is the current zone not appropriate for your use, your planned use? Well, we need the current third of an acre that's zoned R3. That is currently being used commercially under a conditional use permit that was approved by the Board of Adjustment in 1974. that allowed that portion of the property to be used for parking and the drive-thru part. We can continue that use. But in order to put these extra traffic lanes on the property to keep them off the street so there's no backup, we have to get that property rezoned to accommodate that use. Plus, we're going to have a new building on the property. It's going to be a smaller building. but we need that extra property for the stacking of the cars so they don't go out in the street. The property has to be rezoned. Why this design with the stacking of the two drive-thru lanes? Why did you choose this design for that space? For that space, so the reason why, and to reiterate what Bruce said, the reason why we need to rezone that back is that we've identified as the applicant that access on the limestone is dangerous. It's 45 miles an hour right there. it's just dangerous and so we wanted to close that off again make this more of a walkable pedestrian-centric use and so we brought the our walk-up patio over and then the doubling the traffic we utilize an escape lane i didn't get to talk a lot about this because i only had three minutes unfortunately but we utilize an escape lane so you know mrs lynch if you grabbed a cup of coffee and you were four cars back you could actually leave because you've already paid you can bypass that escape lane which helps us hit that 30 second requirement and so we we utilize the two lanes as operationally to be able to kind of move in and out and efficiently serve our customers at a higher faster clip which is why we did the we went above and beyond 19 19 cars in the stack for a small site what kind of community engagement did you do with the surrounding neighborhood and what was the result? We had a neighborhood meeting. I invited everybody that owned property within 500 feet of the property as required by the zoning ordinance, but nobody showed up. Is that the only thing you did? I'm sorry? Is that the only thing you did? Yes, other than send out notices like, you know, everybody in advance with my name and address on the envelope before the neighborhood meeting to contact me or the staff about it. And we just typically, if there's interest, you get people contacted and they'll show up to a meeting, but we didn't have anybody show up. Probably because a lot of the people that, you know, are rental property or students and the owners didn't care enough about, you know, what we were doing. Quite frankly, a lot of that's that way. But usually if somebody's upset about it in the neighborhood, they will show up and call the staff, come down here. Okay, Mr. Simpson, you said the majority of traffic will be after 11 a.m. What evidence do you have considering our market to support this? Yes. Yes, Dutch Bros is not just a coffee shop. We are called Dutch Bros Coffee. That's how we originally started. We are publicly traded coffee. The evidence would be, I could enter slides and evidence from our quarterly earnings, but our day part mix is a lot different. So 60% of our sales come after 11 a.m. we offer a lot of energy drinks teas smoothies italian sodas and we're really our menu part is really geared more towards the younger generation so every when people hear coffee shop they think of your standard coffee shop that's been around forever and you go in and you get you know your cup of coffee it's hot most of our sales are actually cold coffee and so in the morning not everybody drinks cold coffee and so really what we've seen nationally is 60 percent of our sales happen after 11 a.m and we do have i would say supporting evidence to to show that we are on texas a m's campus as well and very similar demographic and it's the same same day part mix we we see a little bit higher in the afternoon and we see we see a lot of walk-up traffic we're We're on Arizona State's campus as well, and that's why we really identified, and we love connecting with that community, college community. I hope that answers the question a little bit. I guess my last question is, with my 30 seconds, did you meet and discuss with community stakeholders to discuss the site opportunities and constraints prior to your application? We reached out to the neighbors with a meeting, but again, nobody showed up. Those are the only community stakeholders you reached out to? Yes. And then just a follow-up on the traffic issue. No traffic study was required. Most traffic, if you generate enough traffic, you have to do a study. Because we didn't generate that traffic, we didn't have to do a study. The only data that's been introduced so far at both the Planning Commission and this hearing that has not been rebutted is that the Arby site, if it's reconstituted, generates more traffic than what this coffee shop will. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have two questions for the planning staff. One is about the outreach process that we've talked about a couple of times. I just want some clarification there. I know that previously we had talked about notices going to renters or residents as well as owners of the properties. But in this case, did only the owners of the properties receive notice? So when this application was originally filed, the mailing process would have included both the occupants and the owners. So two mailings went out for both. I can't speak to the applicant's outreach on their end, but we send to both, at least for this property. So those are two different forms of outreach. So I guess I don't mean outreach. We're talking about notification from planning. And then the other outreach would be through Mr. Simpson or the petitioner. And did that, I guess, only go to property owners but not renters? Or would you be able to answer that, Mr. Simpson? It went to the owners. Okay. These are voluntary meetings. They're not required meetings. They're recommended by the plan. But we send them out to everybody that owns within 500 feet of the site. And then there's a sign posted on the property that advertises the hearing as well. Okay. Thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify another couple of different things involved. And then I just also want to clarify, when we're talking about the intersection of Limestone and Colfax, and I'm very familiar with the area. It's in my district. I've walked it. I've biked it. I've driven at all times of day and night. There is no signalization there, is that accurate? That is correct. Okay, and there is heavy pedestrian traffic and we saw some people trying to cross mid block. Yes, every time we've been out to the site we've seen pedestrians crossing not outside of the crosswalk that's established, I guess a little bit closer into downtown on the other side of Scott Street. Okay, and there are no plans for signalization of that intersection? No, ma'am. Okay, those are my only questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My question is also for the staff. And it's mostly around, I understand our reimagined Nicholasville Road concept and infill and redevelopment. How much experience, like, can you, can you, is there some place in Lexington that on the third of an 18th? is doing great mixed-use space like I'm just trying to think of literally a third of an acre is very very little now if they these guys like absorb the parking lot behind them and did something they might be able to do some sort of mixed use I don't know what they physically could do that would be it also has to be financially feasible right so I'm just looking for examples so just as a clarification the the total site is once again 0.51 acre so half an acre which is still on the smaller end but that existing development along montmullen street mixing of uses been there since the 1960s i believe um and has been able to continue to operate since that time with the mixing of uses with the floor area ratio and the density that staff would kind of recommend at this location. So as far as other, anything off the top of your head, Tracy? But the immediate vicinity has examples of kind of the development that staff feels is most appropriate here. Okay. I don't know what that thing is, but perhaps somebody else could tell me, but I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fogle. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think my question is leaning toward the traffic. I'm very familiar with Colfax. This little girl lived over there before it was gentrified. What happens to our fire department when they're going out on a call with the traffic? And Colfax is not a wide street. And so I don't even know who this question goes to. As far as has there been any studies? If I'm looking at the reimagined design of the building, the fire department sits over across the street on Colfax. So the fire department actually faces onto Scott Street. So here's Scott Street. here's the corner here with the fire department around the corner then around the corner is our property with the arby's and then this is the area being rezoned the third of an acre so again as mr crumb mentioned it's really half an acre site which is even larger than the i would say larger than the fire department so when they exit they exit onto scott street and of course they have their sirens and thus they're able to stop traffic to exit and even when they come back so yeah yeah so i don't know maybe i can't imagine it yet because i'm thinking if this delicious coffee shop and people and this blows up bigger than that other coffee shop on broadway um i'm just trying to imagine that traffic going in colfax even though scott comes out that the block before it. Right, so Scott Street. I'm just going to withdraw my question. I'm just trying to imagine the traffic. But I'm also imagining the walkway and all the students walking across. That's a problematic street regardless without a traffic light and folks trying to cross over to go to school or whatever. So I don't know, maybe the next thing is how do we make people safe getting from that spot. So I don't really have a question. I'm just trying to imagine out loud and have you all help me imagine this space. So I would say Colfax Street is really almost a dead end because you have the railroad behind. so if any use of this of the subject property in the area that's already B1 there's really no way to go back into the neighborhood and get out right that's not a viable route to get back out you need to turn on Colfax and go back to South Limestone any use of the property is going to require access back to South Limestone and so comparing a restaurant that has lunch and dinner provided to a coffee shop that tends to be more morning, even 40% is before noon or more, the people traffic pattern. You want to just think about the traffic pattern. How are people getting out of here and where are they going? If I'm getting lunch, I might be heading out of town rather than downtown. But the pattern tends to be, again, for a coffee shop, historically, it's on the inbound side. okay typically and a gas station will usually be on the outbound side people tend to get coffee on the way to work and most of our jobs are downtown or a good concentration or uk and then you get gas on the way home that just tends to be the behavior of people and to mr civic or council member civigny's question about mount mullen this is mount mullen street the next street over so there's a uk property here and then this block has the mixed use development that where alfalfa's used to be so thank you for that clarification but he used his time this was my together and i heard giving back to the community too that that sparked my interest about giving back some of the proceeds and these folks trying to come into lexington has chosen lexington to I heard that part too, but you use your own time. Thank you for that answer. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Simpson, I think this is probably for you, or maybe this actually might be staff. Can you take a left out of Colfax to Limestone, or do you have to take a right? So at this point, this is an unrestricted intersection. So both of those traffic movements are available at this time, at that stop sign. Okay. And then I think, Mr. Simpson, you said walk up. So can you actually walk up without a car, without a vehicle then? Yes, you can walk up. There's a substantial patio that's reflected on the development plan as part of our application with tables and chairs. And you can walk up, or if you park in your car to get coffee, you can sit there at the table. there's a substantial area set for the pedestrian, substantial pedestrian traffic that we're going to be serving. So there are parking spots if you want to park and just sit? Plenty of parking to accommodate any kind of rush that's not taken in consideration by any other coffee shop currently in Lexington. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you for honoring my second set of questions. I was just thinking about this as people people were asking about the third versus a half of an acre. And I know in the language up here, it is a little bit confusing. I've looked at it quite a bit, so I didn't know if you all would mind clarifying. So it is all one lot, is that accurate? But half of it is already zoned, or a portion of it is already zoned B1. And then this portion, this zone change portion is for what is now zoned R3. Is that accurate? Yes. Okay. Is that lot, it's all owned by one person, so it's actually fully a lot. Okay, because I think that it's a unique situation. And then I was thinking about the question that I asked about outreach and that Councilmember Lynch inquired about as well. And I just wanted to clarify something that I wasn't sure about. You talked about, Mr. Simpson, you talked about signage on the lot about the zone change hearing. I was wondering if there was any signage about the community meeting on the lot. I know that there are various forms of outreach, so I just wanted to inquire about that just in case that was part of your engagement effort. There wasn't any signage posted on that. Never seen that happen, but that's a good idea for future stuff. But there was a sign posted a couple weeks in advance of the planning commission hearing that this was going to take place. And then a couple weeks in advance of tonight's hearing. So anybody that was walking or driving by would have seen the sign facing Colfax and South Lyme that there was a zone change coming up in a couple weeks. Okay. Okay. I mean, I think we talk about this a lot because even in this discussion, we've tried to figure out how do you reach the people who live in the space? How do you reach the owners? What are the best forms of connecting with people? And so that was just on my mind as I was thinking about, especially in areas where you have a lot of renters or you have a lot of people who are renting maybe even for just six months. How do you connect with them? So thank you for answering that question. It's helpful. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I just got a few questions. And so, and excuse me if you answered them and I missed it already. So when they made the application and it goes in the place builder, does place builder just approve or disapproves, but it also makes a recommendation too, does it not? Yeah, so the place builder is sort of a way to kind of categorize different elements of the comprehensive plan. So within the place builder itself, it builds on the goals and objectives and policies of the entire plan and kind of distills them into various place types. Each of these place types has its own sort of unique characteristics that the applicant proposes. Staff evaluates whether that's accurate, and then we proceed from there. So in this instance, they're proposing that this is a corridor based on its location. Staff agreed with that. And so each specific place type, based on its characteristics, has a number of development types that are recommended. The applicant is free to recommend a zone and a place type or a development type that doesn't necessarily fit within the place builder, but it's something they have to justify. So within the comprehensive plan and the place builder, within the corridor, they're looking at that medium or higher density different types of development types are recommended there. So it is sort of provides context. It kind of frames the argument for the larger comprehensive plan. But the applicant is free to kind of argue against that or just use that as sort of the beginning kind of stepping point. But it sort of frames the conversation on compliance with the comprehensive plan as a whole. Okay. So, you know, and I think the site is just different and unique just from the sheer size of it and the location of it. It's going to be a challenging site to develop. So what did Place Builder say? Did it give a recommendation on what this should be or did it not? Well, so Place Builder doesn't give a recommendation. Okay. It gives us a list, a two page list of development criteria that the staff and the planning commission, ultimately the council in terms of evaluating does this agree with- The comprehensive plan. the plan gives us those those two pages of development criteria that we're looking for so you're on a corridor you're a medium density development in that situation these are the things that will meet the comprehensive plan so parking should be to the rear the site should be pedestrian oriented it should have a higher intensity use and a higher density use on the corridor because We're intensifying our corridors. But it doesn't take feasibility and highest and best use into consideration. That's a great question. Those are real estate concerns, not specifically planning, long-range planning concerns. So, again, our long-range plan talks about intensifying our corridors, but it doesn't say something like you should do that so that the property owner gets the most money, right? It's not, that's not how land use planning is framed. It's not about the economic return. Okay, so let me ask about the corridor study. So the corridor study is, correct me if I'm wrong, is still in process. We're still doing models and. The Imagine Nicholasville Road study is adopted. We've moved on to some implementation tasks related to that. Are we doing any implementation tasks down on this section of the corridor? The MPO is doing a study related to potential BRT. Okay. So I guess the point is that it's still a work in progress. that whole corridor, the challenges, addressing the needs and figuring out what the best use of the land down in certain areas of that corridor is still in process. Well the land use and the transportation planning for the corridor is finished and it's been adopted so it produced a plan that Mr. Crum presented that showed the nodes where intensification should occur including this site. So what information are we going to get from the study that's currently underway? The current study is again the MPO and the transportation cabinet and they're evaluating the they're analyzing the ridership of current Lex Tran buses along Nicholasville Road and whether that would generate enough ridership now and in the future for bus rapid transit. That's more of a transportation element, not the land use piece right now. I think y'all used more of my time than I did. I mean, but you were asking questions. Vice Mayor, you want me to wait and come back in after you? No, go ahead. Okay. Well, I'll go another three minutes then, or five minutes. And I'll try to be brief. I won't go the whole time. So, okay. Okay. So in regards to the traffic study, so what triggers the traffic study? Does the application presented to us gives us enough information to say you need to have a traffic study, or is the onus on the developer or the petitioner to? No, the zoning ordinance establishes a criteria for a traffic study. So Article 6 talks about how to rezone property, and in addition to that, it says if your projected land use, your planned land use, will generate 100 trips in the either a.m. or p.m. peak hour, then you do need to do a traffic study. And that's in or out. Okay. So they looked at a manual, the ITE manual, and said in general, coffee shops across the country, this is a model, it's an average, will generate so many trips per hour. And our coffee shop, I guess, won't generate 100 trips per hour, so it doesn't need a full-blown traffic study. And then what they did is just provide an estimate of, based on the ITE manual, again, they've not told us how many actual customers they anticipate having in a day for the site. They've just told us what the transportation manual says might occur for any given coffee shop. Okay. Well, that makes sense. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I have a question for staff, and this is just kind of a, for me to have a better understanding of sort of the process by which you go through assessing petitions. So I'm counting somewhere around 20, I don't know if objections is the right word, but sort of issues that led to the disapproval recommendation. And I know it's not a math equation, or maybe it is, I don't know. But you're saying it's not a math equation. So at what point do you look at an application and let's say it falls in line with goals and objectives and comp plan and all these sort of other criteria, and then let's say there are like two or three things that fall outside of that? Like how do you all make your decision in terms of saying those three aren't going to be enough to prevent this from being an approval recommendation? yeah so as noted by mr simpson kind of earlier when we're looking at these these goals objectives it's not a check every single one of these off but rather it's a culmination of things so when staff makes a recommendation that is the entirety of the planning staff that is getting together reviewing these applications in line with best practices with a comprehensive plan and so really some of these aspects for instance there's development criteria that say you need to park behind a building. Weighing that versus creating vehicular conflicts at an intersection, it's sort of, they are all important and they all build towards these goals and objectives, but it really is sort of a case-by-case basis, and sometimes there could be just several small items that staff is still recommending approval, and in instances where there are several small items, staff will recommend a postponement if these can be worked through, if these are not large, substantial issues that staff feels like would make this zone and use inappropriate here. But it really is context dependent on the application as a whole. So in this case, with this number of objections, did you all ever get to a point where you could go to the petitioner and say, like, hey, we have these issues. Can you make any changes or adjustments in sort of your plans with it? Or is it just from the sheer volume of it, it was going to be disapproved? So just as kind of a clarification on how we got here. So this process has sort of played out over kind of a larger span of time. So this application was originally entered at the end of 2022. So there's been some postponements and kind of opportunities for some changes to be made. However, with the location of the property, staff found that the applicant's proposal just was not appropriate. So the expanded drive-through facilities at this location, that zoning and proposal of this location, wasn't appropriate. and the applicant really never provided any update or changes to the fundamental original plan that staff kind of reviewed at the onset to now. Okay, thank you. And I have a couple of questions for Mr. Simpson, and they are really follow-ups to some of the questions my colleagues had. So the traffic study, it sounds like due to the sort of the estimate of the volume of traffic for a coffee shop, you all were not required to do traffic studies. Is that correct? That's correct. Do you all ever do things to kind of as part of your due diligence or as a part of trying to address potential issues that the community or the planning commission or the council might have? Would you all have been able to look at this area and see the sheer volume of traffic and the mixed kind of traffic and the complications with the road design, would you all ever in this situation say let's do a traffic study anyway, even though we're not required to, just to see what we're looking at? If the facts justified it, absolutely, whether we were required to do so or not. In this instance, the initial examination was, are we going to be adding more traffic than what we could currently use if we were to reopen the RVs? The answer to that, we'll be having less traffic. Two of the features we looked at were what's the current situation if the Arby's were to reopen? We don't need a zone change. We just start operations with the drive-through. What would be the impact on existing pedestrians along South Limestone? Because there's a lot of students that walk up and down South Limestone in front of the Arby's. Those people are currently at risk and would be at significant risk if RVs reopened and there's nothing that could be done to stop that. And likewise, there would be no pedestrian connectivity to the largest parking lot. And in this end of the UK campus, serving students, you know, the 389 car parking facility with a pedestrian connection, there's nothing there now. Nothing can be required to be built there. So that was looked at, and that's why we made these improvements. We shut off the access. We could have kept the access to South Line, but we cut that off for safety reasons, and we put in that pedestrian sidewalk for safety reasons, and we're reducing the overall traffic. And as Brandon has shared with you, the majority of the traffic comes after 11 o'clock. Now, you know, the undisputed facts are Arby's generates more traffic. So the traffic study, in terms of what we did, is going to recommend, highly likely, the improvements that we already did. Any increase in density, even if we increase the density like the staff wants, you're not going to stop people from using their cars to get there. You're going to have to build a bigger garage, and you're going to have to have more accommodation to accommodate that density with more cars coming in. and you're still going to have the traffic at that site. And what we're stating is, from the outset at the Planning Commission up until tonight, no one has shown that we're going to increase traffic with our development. We're decreasing traffic, and we're improving significant pedestrian public safety for the students at the University of Kentucky who walk on limestone and who have to get from that parking lot. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Yes. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I just have one question for the planning staff. I see that Sellers Alley is perpendicular to Colfax. Is that a vehicular route? Do people typically drive on Sellers Alley or not? I'm not entirely sure. When I went and so we're referring to this section back here, I believe? Right, it's perpendicular to Colfax and then goes to Mont. Mullins Street and then goes to Prawl Street. So it kind of runs behind there. Yes. So anecdotally, when I went to post signs numerous times at the property, it didn't. I saw gates at, I believe, some portion. I believe the right-hand side of that. I didn't really explore that any further. It didn't particularly look too feasible to drive the car. And so instead I opted to make the ride out on the limestone, which is generally what the projected traffic for much of this would be. I just wondered if people typically use that alley to drive down to get through the neighborhood or if no vehicles are supposed to be in that alley. I didn't know. I've dribbled. Do people typically use it as a street? Yes, I used it a few days ago. Thank you. Thank you. And then I have one, just one more question for Mr. Simpson. We talked a couple of times, a couple of my colleagues talked about the community engagement piece. And I understand that's not a requirement, but that's a recommendation from planning to have that public engagement piece. You all sent out notices to property owners there. As you well know, that area is mostly renters and mostly student renters. Did you all ever have discussions among your team that you should do a different kind of outreach to reach the people that actually live there and not just the people who own it who don't live there and are not directly impacted by that development? You know, we had discussions. My experience in being involved in these cases that the renters typically don't show up, but to any meeting that I've ever tried to conduct with folks where I've done that before. If there is a concern, the posting of the signs conspicuously both on Colfax and the South Limestone that describes what's going to take place and when, which we've done that twice, tips people off to say what's going on, would at least generate a call to the planning staff about what's happening, or to me because my name and address and phone number on the application that goes out. And it's not hidden, but we haven't received anything, which is not unusual, but it's not, you know, usually people, if they get concerned about it, somebody will call and then the word spreads and we respond. Mr. Vice Mayor, it was unofficial, but when our construction team and myself walked the site six months ago, we talked to the fire department next door we actually the fire department asked us if they could use the building arby's building as a fire training facility before we tore it down so we agreed to that with the landowner and then i walked up and down and talked to the community members but again it was unofficial i was wearing kind of what i'm wearing today with the dutch bros logo i said how would you guys feel if a dutch bros came to town there was a couple college students that were from oregon excited about it but nobody was really but it was unofficial so i never entered it in the record but just to give you a little bit of context we do reach out to our community but oftentimes it is hard to get hold of them so unofficial but wanted to provide that context for you thank you very much are there any more questions from council for either petitioners or staff all right at this point we're going to close this hearing and council will We'll deliberate. I'm sorry. I could ask the council to recommend who was I asked to do this role for the post-sum. I'm sorry. We have a public comment process that you participated in earlier. Well, it appears to me that you don't allow the public to respond to any kind of, You give the staff the ability to respond. You give the developers and their side the ability to respond. But you don't have any process recognizing the public to let them tell you what they have concluded from this whole hearing. Well, that's what the public comments section in which you participated is about. Yes, but that was all before I heard all the arguments. That is correct, Ms. Bean. and we don't have a mechanism or process for additional comment from the public. Well, that's not my fault. I'm asking you to recognize me to do this. Not going to. Pardon? I'm not going to, Ms. Bean. Give me a good reason. Give me a good legal reason that you're not going to. Ms. Bean, this is not part of the process that we do this is the own change hearing. Okay. Okay. And you're prepared, is the law department prepared to stand behind him on that? Absolutely. Good, good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Bean. All right, so council members are free to sign in for discussion. Council member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I said it before, I think this property is kind of difficult and kind of falls outside of the systems that we have in place. Since we don't take every factor into consideration. I know there's some concern about adding the drive through, but the fact that that property has been sitting vacant for five years and there's an opportunity, a willing and able operator that's willing to put that property in service. I'm inclined to support the application. I do know that there are some concerns about the traffic conditions. I know there's concerns about the situation on Nicholasville Road, period. But I just wonder who is going to step up and do something with this property. the university hasn't showed interest in it, if other businesses haven't found it feasible or affordable to do something there, I'm just concerned that we're turning away potential jobs, opportunities, and a resource in our community. So that's my thought. We're getting started. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to say that I concur with Council Member James Brown. I know that when the comprehensive plan was when the inception of it and its purpose. However, it just seems as though Lexington is becoming an area that is not welcoming to businesses making it its home. And that to me is extremely concerning because we want businesses to say, hey, Lexington is a place for me. And the comprehensive plan, in my opinion, is being used as a sword to say, hey, it's for the haves and not for the have-nots. So that's why I concur. I want to give businesses an opportunity to succeed. And by saying no, this is saying not giving them an opportunity whatsoever. And that's not what I think Lexington is about. So there we go. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Fogel. Thank you, Vice Mayor. After listening to testimony and watching neighborhoods being gentrified and hearing that the residents did not have a say-so, there's so many different ways that you could contact people in that neighborhood by posting, going door to door canvassing, letting them know. It is so important for communication and for residents to have a stake in this. Lexington LFUCG should have looked at that lot and say, hey, we need some affordable housing in this area to keep folk that were brought up in this neighborhood. I have watched our neighborhoods shrink just time after time. And so, yes, we do need businesses. However, I am really disappointed that people were not at the table. Therefore, I just have the belief that more could have been done to notify the residents in that Prawl Town area. And I'm still just looking at that traffic and the safety of the students walking across that traffic. It does appear that with the owner saying that they would give back to the community, I'm conflicted. If you're going to give back to the community, then why didn't you notify the community so that they could have an input? So that's my statement, and that's my statement. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Number one, Mr. Simpson, and I want to say I appreciate your argument about how this lot could be used. It is a really challenging space in some ways, but it has a lot of opportunity in others. We're talking about a portion of a lot that's zoned B1 and a portion that's zoned R3. There are a lot of different ways that it could be used with intention. And I do want to say to Dutch Brothers, I appreciate your interest in our community and your investment. I believe that you do have a location opening here already. That's right. Which I love your social responsibility model that you've shared. But what I do want to say is that I care very much about pedestrian safety and transportation options. To me, when I look at a double drive through in this location, it really does seem more aligned with a low density suburban use. And I deal with a lot of different travelers in this corridor. People on foot, people on bike, the potential of a BRT, which is really exciting, and people in vehicles. So my concerns are about the intensification of use when it comes to vehicular traffic, pushed up against so many pedestrians and against the needs of a neighborhood. And so I have to say it's challenging for me to support the development for those reasons in addition to concerns I do have about traffic backups and idling traffic in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. And I do really want to see this lot used in the way that is best, and I know that that's a tough proposition. So I have to say, I don't know if I'll be able to support this development as such, But I do appreciate the vision that you've shared and I know that your company is very popular. So thank you, Vice Mayor, those are my remarks for now. Thank you. Looking at the recommendations from planning commission and planning staff, for me there are a multitude of reasons that they listed for disapproval. So it wasn't just one single thing. And so I personally, like Councilmember Legree, I don't have a problem with Dutch Brothers at all. It's the combination of this use and this location that gives me a lot of pause. It does not fulfill the intent of the density that we're looking for. It is very car centric in a place, in an area that is very walkable, very bikeable. and in my estimation does not need any more car traffic. There is a very big safety issue with the number of, the amount of pedestrian traffic, bike traffic there. I mean, that's one of the busiest corridors on UK's campus, where two roads combine. There are several unsignalized intersections, and there are tons and tons of kids walking back and forth. forth, and there's plenty of rush hour traffic both ways, you know, several times a day. One of the arguments that I heard from the petitioner was talking about how small this lot size is. So I understand that it's a half acre, and in the context of the whole city, it does not seem like a lot. But we do have to apply these same standards and guidelines for all developments, no matter what their size is. We don't have an exception clause in here that says if you're under an acre, half an acre, you don't have to have the same rules or the same guidelines governing you. So I see a lot of issues with it, honestly. I have no problem getting a Dutch Brothers or two or three in Lexington, but this particular kind of use with this kind of drive-through, I think, belongs somewhere else in Lexington. So I will not be supporting this zone change either. Council Member Civigni. Thank you, Chair. I want to tell you guys as well that I really do appreciate your presentation. I have a little bit of a concern that if we move forward to approve this, I don't know exactly how the, they still have to get their site plan approved, correct? And we just had an experience with a coffee shop that didn't get their site plan approved after we approved it, if I recall. So I'm concerned about that. But I do think that the use is similar to its being used now. I don't see a huge change except for a more maybe modern drive-through business. And I do think that they recognize that there's going to be a fair amount of walk-up traffic. I don't know that they'll forever use two lanes of drive-through traffic. Like if it becomes a more bike-centric and walk-centric facility, they may end up changing probably the way that is. So I do tend to support this use just because I don't think it's that far from the use that it's being used as now. And that's basically it. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. and I'll add my voice to the other voices that appreciate you looking at Lexington and wanting to be here. I'm glad Councilmember Savigny brought that up about the other coffee shop and the site plan and going back to the Planning Commission. So the Planning Commission, when they reviewed this zone change, are they allowed to take the development plan into consideration where we're not and we're just focused on the land use? Do they look at it through a different lens? I just want to make sure the vice mayor is acknowledging whether he wants me to reply. Okay. So when the planning commission evaluates its own change, they consider the development plan right beside it in the same hearing, mostly because the development plan is a depiction of how the applicant intends to use the zone that they're proposing. So they have to prove that they can meet the zoning requirements of that zone. And then it's also used to show, in some ways, compliance with the development criteria that are part of the comprehensive plan and the zoning question. When the Planning Commission recommends disapproval of a zone change to you, but you overturn that, the development plan gets reactivated and redocketed for the Planning Commission's consideration. And they now know what the council's decision is and that the zone is in place. And so they evaluate it based on that information, but still applying to the best of the ability. again on that preliminary development plan, the zoning, the development criteria that's in play for a zone change. I just was wondering because I share that same concern because I think it's a real concern. The other thing I'll say too, and I won't keep beating this drum, but density. Density. Whatever use other than this, if it's residential or if it's some other business that draws greater density, then we will have the neighbors here. They would be objecting to it, it'd be challenging and it'd be hard to justify something more dense and a more intense use in that area. That's one of the reasons that I'm supportive of this application. I think our folks at the fire department would use this business, they would go get coffee. I think the folks in the neighborhoods would patronize it as well. And as we, I know it's important that we take steps and work to make our community more pedestrian and cyclist friendly. But at the same time, we have to send a message that we're open for business and looking to create opportunity. And thinking about that space and what else could be there. I think it's limited on the option, so like I said before, I'm supportive of the plan. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gray. Vice Mayor Wu, may I have permission to ask Planning a question? Sure. Thank you, kind sir. Hello, Planning. The question that I wanted to ask to you is, what are the requirements of notification for notice? So the zoning ordinance in Article 6 establishes that notice requirement. We send property owners within 500 feet of the subject property a letter that indicates the requested change and then the time of the public hearing for the Planning Commission. And that occurs at least 21 days in advance of the public hearing. Our staff tries to get those sent out at least five or six weeks ahead just to provide the neighbors, property owners, and residents the ability to participate in the public hearing. For a year, our staff went above that at the request of the council and provided notice as well to occupants, but that is not part of our zoning ordinance currently. So this application did fall within that pilot project. And so everyone was notified, basically? Of this application. Okay, just making sure. And also, isn't it publicized in the newspaper as well? Yes, ma'am. So in addition to the mailed notification that is sent out, it's kind of a three-tiered approach to notice. We post a sign on the property 14 days in advance of the hearing. and then there's a legal ad placed in the newspaper at least seven, between seven and, I think, 21 days. We usually aim for about ten days ahead of the public hearing, and that's reiterated on our website as well. So it's on, so there's the sign, it's in the newspaper, postages are sent out via the mail, and it's on your website. Yes. Thank you. Hold on, I'm going to stop the proceedings for a minute. We have a council member that has left the room. Let's take a look. Let's do a- Let's take a 10 minute break. Okay, we're going to do a 10 minute recess. Yeah, we still need to do it. We still need to do it. Are we good? Okay. Yeah, we're good. Yeah, I'm going to check with legal if a council member has left the chambers during zone change proceedings? Well, you had 11 people here, and you need a minimum of 10. So I think that I'm okay with it if you want to proceed. Okay, but is Council Member Reynolds still eligible to vote on the item in that she's left the- I believe so, I think it's okay. Okay. I would, yeah. Okay. Council Member Legree. Vice Mayor, I have a motion unless other colleagues have statements to make. Any other comments? Okay, thank you. Go ahead, please. And if law wants to clarify what various votes mean in relation to this motion, they are free to do so because I know it can be confusing. But I move to adopt the findings of fact as stated in the recommendation of the Planning Commission in support of disapproval of zone map amendment request PLN MAR 2200015 Dutch Brothers LLC from a planned neighborhood R3 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 0.2916 net acres located at 507 South Limestone, so moved. Do we have a second? Council Member Sheehan seconds. Any discussion on this motion? Please sign in. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Could you go over how we vote on this just because it becomes the double negative. If you're for what the Planning Commission did, you vote yes. If you're not, then you'd vote no. So there's a motion that's been made to adopt the Planning Commission's findings, which were to disapprove the zone change. So you would need eight votes to approve the zone change because that would overturn the Planning Commission. You don't need eight votes to adopt this motion because you're going with what the Planning Commission said, making that clear first, okay? Because you asked that question, Vice Mayor. So if you have a majority of the members here tonight that want to adopt this motion, then we will go to the ordinance and you would vote no. Is that your question, Council Member Langer? I just want to make sure because it gets kind of, because if you vote yes with this motion, then you are approving what the Planning Commission did to disapprove. Yes. And then you will vote no with the ordinance. Yes. Correct. Any other questions or comments? Council Member Civigni? Yeah. And then could I follow that up with if we, if, so if, how many of us are there? There's 11. Yes. So if six of us voted no, it just, it denies that motion. And then we would have to have different findings to change the, to change the. That is correct. So we'd have to do another thing after that. Yes. Got it. Thank you. Any other comments on this motion? Okay, let's bring up a roll call vote. Council member Gray? No. Council member Legree? Yes. Council member Lynch? Yes. Council member Menares? No. Council member Reynolds? No. Councilmember Sevigny? No. Councilmember Sheehan? Yes. Vice Mayor Wu? Yes. And Councilmember James Brown? No. And Councilmember Fogle? Yes. Councilmember Ellinger? No. All right, looks like we're 6-5 and that motion fails. So at this point, I will need to entertain a motion for an alternate finding effect. I just want to make a note that I'm happy to assist with that in doing the findings, but we might need a brief recess to do that. And I was going to ask just for a brief recess. that we could because obviously the next step is to do that. I don't know that it will pass, but at least we, I don't know actually what happens if we do it and it doesn't pass. But five minutes, ten minutes? Let's do five minutes recess. Thank you. Vigny has a motion. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor. Don't promote me. All right. I move to approve a zone map amendment request, PLN MAR220015 Dutch Brothers LLC from a planned neighborhood R3 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for .2916 net acres located at 507 South Limestone based on the following findings of fact. The requested zone change to the neighborhood business B1 zone is in agreement with the 200,018 comprehensive plan for the following reasons. One requested zone change will allow for redevelopment of a now vacant property by continuing a similar commercial use that existed on the property since 1997. This continuation will help eliminate the adverse impact of that vacant space and ensure that the character of the neighborhood will not change. This supports theme A, goal 2, to support infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area as a strategic component of growth and theme A, goal 3, to provide well-designed neighborhoods and communities. Number 2, zone change will allow connectivity and pedestrians safely because the nature of the land use will attract less vehicular use per day than the previous commercial use that existed on the property. This supports theme A, goal 3, objective B, to strive for positive and safe social interaction including connections for pedestrians and various modes of transportation. three the proposed commercial area will activate underutilized parcel along the major corridor which supports growth policy number nine e-gr9-4 the development will accommodate pedestrian traffic and is walkable from the adjoining neighborhood as well as the university of kentucky which supports growth policy number 10 egr10-2 the development will orient the building along the south limestone road frontage and proposed pedestrian paths will allow for safe and direct pedestrian and multimodal connections with support connectivity policies number one and number two dco-1 dco-2 so moved we have a motion and we have a second from council member ellinger is there a discussion i'd like to just speak to that for a moment and i'd like to just ask law to that explain to us the quantity of vote that's needed and what it means and then what would happen afterwards or if it doesn't pass. So for this motion, you're seeking to overturn the Planning Commission, so you will need at least eight votes to do that. If you don't have eight votes to do that, you can't overturn the Planning Commission, and therefore you don't have no consensus the Planning Commission's recommendations will become final as of May 24th, Which is for disapproval. So just one more piece of clarity then, if this motion fails, we don't go on to vote on the underlying ordinance? Well, they have to give it a second reading. That's correct, yeah. Okay, so if this motion fails, there's not another vote after this, okay. If this motion passes with eight votes, are we still voting on the underlying ordinance after that? If the motion passes, what's going to have to happen then is one, you will need to do a motion to amend the ordinance, which I've already given to Councilor Savigny. Then you will need to, and all that does is just change as amended language, that's it for the title. Then you will need to make a motion to suspend the council rules and read that twice. Does that make sense? Anything else, Council Member Sevigny? Council Member Ellinger? Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I guess could you repeat the way if you vote, because it's going to be opposite what you did last time, if you want to be consistent. Yes. So you would vote. If you're going to approve this, you're going to vote yes. And then on the ordinance, when it comes around as amended, you're going to vote yes because the ordinance is a zone change. Make sense? Everybody clear? Can I repeat that? If we weren't changing our positions, we were voting the opposite. I'm assuming that if you're going to change a position at some point, if you're not changing your position, then on the motion. If you want the zone change, you vote yes on this motion. You need at least eight people to do it. If you get eight people to do it, you'll also vote yes on the ordinance. Previously, it was the opposite because you were wanting to not have the zone changed. Does that make sense? Everybody with me? Okay. All right. Any other discussion on this motion? All right, let's do a roll call vote. Council Member Gray? Yes. Council Member Legree? No. Council Member Lynch? No. Council Member Menares? Yes. Council Member Reynolds? Yes. Council Member Sevigny? Yes. Council Member Sheehan? No. Vice Mayor Wu? No. Councilmember James Brown? Yes. Councilmember Ellinger? Yes. Councilmember Fogle? No. Is this a part-time job? All right, so absent of eight yes votes, that motion fails. So, sorry. So because the motion failed, there's really no more action to take tonight. You can adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Okay. Motion to adjourn. Without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.