# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - September 14, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 14, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5910 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5910?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-09-14 - **Last revised**: September 14, 2023 - **Length**: 23,367 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on September 14, 2023, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Larry Forester presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed 10 agenda items during the session, ranging from procedural matters to substantive planning and development issues. The meeting included 14 motions and votes on various matters, with several items receiving approval including the meeting minutes, performance bonds and letters of credit, and land subdivision items. Six members of the public provided comments during the audience participation portion of the meeting. The commission also handled postponements and withdrawals of certain items, while receiving informational updates on commission items, staff matters, and upcoming meeting dates for August and September before adjourning. ## Attendance The following members were present at the September 14, 2023 meeting: • Larry Forester • Judy Worth • Janice Meyer • Zach Davis • Ivy Barksdale • Robin Michler • William Wilson • Mike Owens • Bruce Nicol **Absent:** • Headley Bell • Pohl **Late Arrival:** • Bruce Nicol Note: Bruce Nicol arrived late to the meeting but was ultimately present for the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The commission conducted 14 roll call votes during the September 14, 2023 meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **Administrative Items** The commission unanimously approved the August 10, 2023 minutes on a motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by Judy Worth, with 7 ayes and 1 abstention. They also approved performance bonds and letters of credit on a motion by Ivy Barksdale, seconded by Judy Worth, with all 8 members voting in favor. **Postponements** Five development projects were postponed to the October 12, 2023 meeting: - **PLN-MJDP-23-00030**: Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 (motion by Zach Davis, seconded by Ivy Barksdale, 8-0) - **PLN-FRP-23-00019**: Coleman Property (Clarion Convention Center) (motion by Janice Meyer, seconded by William Wilson, 8-0) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00049**: Hamburg Place Farm, Lot 5F (Plaudit Place) (motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Janice Meyer, 8-0) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050**: Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1 (Frankfort Court Storage Facility) (motion by Robin Michler, seconded by William Wilson, 8-0) **PLN-MJDP-18-00004**: Triple Stars Property received an indefinite postponement on a motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Ivy Barksdale, with unanimous approval. **Approved Projects** Four projects received unanimous approval: - **PLN-FRP-23-00025**: Walmac Farm subdivision - **PLN-MJDP-23-00048**: Bluegrass Business Park (Pemberton Farm, Lot 1) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00051**: Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc. - **PLN-MJDP-23-00037**: Newtown Corporation Industrial Park (ABC Storage) with 7 ayes and 1 abstention **Split Decisions** Two projects passed with divided votes: - **PLN-MJDP-23-00032**: Homer C. Ratliff Property adaptive reuse passed 5-3, with conditions requiring electric hookups for food trucks, landscape buffer changes, and shed inspection. A separate finding that the project furthers the comprehensive plan passed 6-2. - **PLN-MJDP-23-00047**: Fox Property, Lot 4 passed 5-3 on a motion by William Wilson, seconded by Bruce Nicol. In both split decisions, Janice Meyer, Zach Davis, and Ivy Barksdale voted against approval. ## Public Comment Six residents addressed the board during the public comment period, focusing on three main development projects [timestamp: 00:00]. **Kingston Hall Project** Tony Barrett requested a one-month postponement for the Kingston Hall project on Unit 1, Lot 8 [timestamp: 00:00]. **Homer C. Ratliff Property** Three speakers raised concerns about an adaptive reuse project for the Homer C. Ratliff Property: • Brandon Gross represented neighbors opposed to the project, citing concerns about increased traffic, noise issues, and potential zoning compliance problems [timestamp: 00:00] • Paul Holland expressed specific concerns about parking shortages and noise impacts that would affect existing tenants in the surrounding area [timestamp: 00:00] • Justin voiced concerns about noise affecting his children and reported the presence of a homeless person on the property [timestamp: 00:00] **Fox Property Development** Two residents addressed issues with a proposed development on Fox Property, Lot 4: • Paula Singer expressed concerns about pedestrian safety in the area and the potential negative impact of drive-through facilities on the neighborhood character [timestamp: 00:00] • Austin Wilkerson raised concerns about traffic congestion that could result from the development and questioned the project's impact on the local flood plain [timestamp: 00:00] The public comments reflected community concerns about traffic, noise, safety, and environmental impacts across multiple development projects under consideration by the board. ## Contested Items Two development projects generated significant debate during the September 14, 2023 meeting, resulting in divided votes and community concerns. **Homer C. Ratliff Property Adaptive Reuse** The proposed adaptive reuse project for the Homer C. Ratliff Property faced considerable opposition among board members, ultimately passing by a narrow 5-3 split vote. The contentious nature of this item suggests fundamental disagreements among members regarding the project's merits, though the specific concerns that led to the division were not detailed in the available materials. The close vote indicates this was one of the more polarizing issues considered during the meeting. **Fox Property, Lot 4 Development** The Fox Property Lot 4 development plan encountered substantial community opposition, with residents raising significant concerns about traffic impacts and pedestrian safety issues. Community members voiced objections to the proposed development, citing potential negative effects on local traffic patterns and risks to pedestrian safety in the area. The level of community engagement and opposition suggests this project has generated considerable public interest and concern among local residents. Both contested items highlight ongoing tensions between development interests and community concerns, with the Homer C. Ratliff project dividing the decision-making body itself, while the Fox Property development faced external pressure from concerned residents. These disputes reflect broader challenges in balancing development goals with community safety and quality of life considerations. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided materials for these contested items.* ## Call to Order Chair Larry Forester called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. [timestamp: 00:00] This agenda item served as the formal opening of the September 14, 2023 meeting, with Chair Forester presiding over the proceedings to begin the session. ## Approval of Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered approval of the minutes from the August 10, 2023 meeting as the second item on the agenda. The discussion involved key speakers Janice Meyer and Judy Worth, who addressed the minutes from the previous meeting. The minutes were presented for the board's review and approval as part of the standard meeting procedures. The minutes from the August 10, 2023 meeting were approved by the board without any noted objections or amendments to the record. ## Performance Bonds and Letters of Credit [timestamp: 00:00] The commission considered agenda item III regarding performance bonds and letters of credit during the meeting. The item was presented as a resolution requiring commission approval. Key speakers on this agenda item included Ivy Barksdale and Judy Worth, who addressed the commission regarding the performance bonds and letters of credit under consideration. The commission ultimately approved the performance bonds and letters of credit as presented. The resolution passed without recorded opposition. *Note: Limited transcript details were available for this agenda item. The specific amounts, project details, or companies involved in the performance bonds and letters of credit were not captured in the available meeting materials.* ## Postponements and Withdrawals [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting addressed several agenda items that required postponement or withdrawal from consideration. Key speakers Tony Barrett and Tom Martin discussed the status of multiple development projects that would not proceed as originally scheduled. The following items were postponed during this session: • **Kingston Hall** - Development project deferred to a future meeting • **Coleman Property** - Property-related matter postponed for additional review • **Triple Stars Property** - Development proposal requiring further consideration • **Hamburg Place Farm** - Farm-related development item delayed • **Wolf Run Industrial Park** - Industrial development project postponed The postponements appeared to be procedural in nature, with items being deferred rather than permanently withdrawn from consideration. Tony Barrett and Tom Martin provided updates on the status of these various properties and development projects, indicating that each would return to the agenda at a later date. No specific reasons were detailed in the available materials for why these particular items required postponement, though such deferrals are common in municipal planning processes when additional information, documentation, or stakeholder input is needed before proceeding with formal consideration. The outcome for all listed items was classified as "deferred," meaning they remain active matters that will be rescheduled for future meetings once any outstanding issues are resolved or additional materials are prepared. ## Land Subdivision Items The Planning Commission reviewed several land subdivision matters during agenda item V [timestamp: 00:00]. Traci Wade served as the primary speaker presenting these items to the commission. The discussion centered on two major subdivision projects: • **Walmac Farm** - A subdivision proposal that was presented for commission consideration • **Bluegrass Business Park** - A commercial subdivision development that was also under review While the extracted data indicates these subdivision items were discussed and ultimately approved by the commission, specific details about the scope, location, number of lots, or particular conditions attached to these approvals were not captured in the available materials. The commission's review of these land subdivision items followed standard procedures for evaluating development proposals, though the specific concerns raised by commissioners or details of the debate were not documented in the provided information. Both subdivision projects received approval from the Planning Commission, allowing the developers to proceed with their respective plans. The approval of these items represents the commission's determination that the proposed subdivisions met applicable zoning requirements and development standards. This agenda item demonstrates the commission's ongoing role in reviewing and approving residential and commercial development within the jurisdiction, ensuring that new subdivisions align with local planning objectives and regulatory requirements. ## Commission Items Chair Larry Forester opened the Commission Items portion of the meeting, announcing that any commission member could present items for discussion at this time [timestamp: 00:00]. No commission members brought forward any items for consideration during this segment of the meeting. The agenda item served as an opportunity for commissioners to raise matters not otherwise scheduled on the agenda, but no additional topics were presented for discussion. This portion of the meeting was informational in nature, with Chair Forester simply providing the opportunity for commission member input before proceeding to other business. ## Staff Items During agenda item VII, staff presented updates on improvement plan progress to the meeting participants [timestamp: 00:00]. Jim Duncan served as the key speaker for this informational item, delivering the staff report on the current status of improvement initiatives. The presentation focused on providing an update regarding the progress of ongoing improvement plans, though specific details about which improvement areas were covered or what metrics were reported were not detailed in the available materials. This agenda item was structured as a discussion item, allowing for potential questions or feedback from meeting participants following the staff presentation. The item concluded as an informational report with no formal action required from the governing body. ## Audience Items During the Audience Items portion of the September 14, 2023 meeting [timestamp: 00:00], citizens were invited to bring planning-related matters before the commission for discussion. Larry Forester was identified as a key speaker during this segment, though the specific details of his presentation or concerns were not provided in the available meeting materials. This agenda item served as an opportunity for public participation, allowing community members to address the commission directly on planning and development issues affecting the area. The session was designated as informational in nature, providing a forum for citizen input rather than formal action items. The commission received the public comments and input during this portion of the meeting, maintaining their standard practice of allowing community engagement on planning-related matters. ## Meeting Dates for August and September [timestamp: 00:00] Larry Forester presented information regarding upcoming meeting dates for August and September. This agenda item served as an informational announcement to inform attendees of the scheduled meetings during these two months. The discussion was brief and focused solely on communicating the meeting schedule to participants. No debate or concerns were raised during this portion of the meeting, as it was purely informational in nature. The outcome of this agenda item was to ensure all meeting participants were aware of the upcoming meeting dates and could plan accordingly for their attendance during the August and September timeframe. ## Adjournment The meeting was formally adjourned by Larry Forester [timestamp: 00:00]. No additional discussion or business was conducted during this agenda item, and the meeting concluded at this point. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (7-0): Approval of the August 10, 2023 minutes - **Motion** — passed (8-0): Approval of performance bonds and letters of credit - **PLN-MJDP-23-00030** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 - **PLN-FRP-23-00019** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Coleman Property (Clarion Convention Center) - **PLN-MJDP-18-00004** — postponed (8-0): Indefinite postponement of Triple Stars Property - **PLN-MJDP-23-00049** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Hamburg Place Farm, Lot 5F (Plaudit Place) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00050** — postponed (8-0): Postponement of Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1 (Frankfort Court Storage Facility) - **PLN-FRP-23-00025** — passed (8-0): Approval of Walmac Farm subdivision - **PLN-MJDP-23-00048** — passed (8-0): Approval of Bluegrass Business Park (Pemberton Farm, Lot 1) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00051** — passed (8-0): Approval of Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc. - **PLN-MJDP-23-00032** — passed (5-3): Approval of Homer C. Ratliff Property adaptive reuse - **PLN-MJDP-23-00032** — passed (6-2): Finding that the Homer C. Ratliff Property adaptive reuse furthers the comprehensive plan - **PLN-MJDP-23-00037** — passed (7-0): Approval of Newtown Corporation Industrial Park (ABC Storage) - **PLN-MJDP-23-00047** — passed (5-3): Approval of Fox Property, Lot 4 --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. We'll be right back. And you don't need the lady Climb up the store instead I'm on Parking mountain wave It's better than the way we can We'll be right back. Thank you. We'll be right back. guitar solo I'm out. Ladies take to cowboys like kids take to clowns They both love them without asking why There's those come on looks and laughter But when it's time for leaving town Seems nobody cares enough to cry Everybody loves cowboys and clowns You're everybody's hero for just a little while But when the goodbyes are said And the spotlight goes dead There's no one left who cares to hang around To love the cowboys and the clowns The Cowboys love candlelight and lacy things on ladies While kids love carousels and funny painted faces But there's... Okay, good afternoon everyone. It is September 14th, 2023 and welcome to the subdivision items meeting. I'd like to get this meeting done as quickly as possible. My 11 year old son's birthday today and he is wanting me to be home. And we got a few members that need to leave, so I'm going to use my excuse for them to leave. First on the agenda for the commissioners, I'd like to get the approval of the August 10th, 2023 minutes. So this floor is open for a motion. Yes, Ms. Meyer? I move for approval of the audience. Thank you. We have a second by Ms. Worth. Yes. Okay. Please vote via Granicus as it becomes available. Okay, that motion passes with one abstention from Mr. Davis. Next on the agenda, we're going to move down to page 8, item C. The floor is open for approval for the performance bonds and letters of credit. Ms. Boxfield. I move to approve the performance bonds and letters of credit. Yes, thank you. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Worth. Thank you. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Next on the item, agenda item three, postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I'm Tony Barrett. Here on behalf of page three, item B, it's PLN, MJDP, 2330, Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8. We're asking for a one-month postponement. Okay, and that's the October 12th meeting? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you, Mr. Barrett. Do we have any discussions for Mr. Barrett? Seeing none, the floor is open for a motion. Yes, sir, Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I move for a one-month postponement of PLN-MJDP 2330 to our October 12th meeting. Thank you, sir. I have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you, sir. All right, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, staff has several items to bring to your attention today. The first item is on page two of your agenda. It is a final subdivision plan, 23-19, the Coleman property, also known as the Clarion Convention Center. The applicant has requested a one-month postponement on that plan. They're facing some interesting challenges on that. That's the hotel site with a lot of structures on it and how best to subdivide it and redevelop it is the question they're grappling with. Okay, thank you Mr. Martin. And commissioners have any questions on that request? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Ms. Meyer? Mr. Chair, I move for postponement to the October 12th meeting of PLN FRP 2319. Pullman property as requested by the applicant. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, sir. Please vote via Granicus. A second by Mr. Wilson. Yes, yes. You look like Bill. There we go. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the next item is on the top of page three. It is a development plan. This is major development plan 18-04. It's also known as DP 2004-153, triple stars property. As you all are aware, when you look at your agenda, this plan has been postponed multiple times, approximately ten times before this body. The staff has always had success by email with these applicants, and the last two times, the applicant was out of the country. This past time, we got no response to any emails that we sent. So we have not been able to communicate with them, and they are not here today. Staff would, we recommended to the applicant on several occasions an indefinite postponement. They can bring that back with a written request when they're ready to proceed. And that simplifies everybody's jobs and following the plan and keeping track of things. And it's, so what we are recommending to you today would be an indefinite postponement on this plan. Okay, thank you, sir. Any discussion to that request? If not, the floor is open for an indefinite postponement. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir, Mr. Owens? I'll move for an indefinite postponement on Plan MJDP 18-4, triple star properties. Thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Thank you. Motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chairman, moving right along at the bottom of page six. This is item G, Major development plan 23-49, Hamburg Place Farm, lot 5F on Plotted Place. The applicant has requested a one month postponement on this plan. They're still working on a circulation problem on that site. Okay, thank you. And that's a recommendation to postpone until October 12th meeting. So the floor is open for a motion. Ms. Worth? Mr. Chair, I move for postponement until October 12th, the appeal in MJDP 2349 is requested by the applicant. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Ms. Meyer. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, On page 7, there's one more item staff would bring to your attention. This is item H. It is a major development plan, 23-50, Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1. This is located out on Frankfort Court. The applicant has requested a one-month postponement on this plan. There are numerous conditions and issues with this plan that staff continues to work with the applicant on. Okay, thank you. So we have a recommendation for a one-month postponement to the October 12th meeting. And the floor is open for a motion. Yes, Mr. Michler. Yeah, I move for a one-month postponement to the October 12th meeting on PLN MJDP-23-50, the Wolf Run Industrial Park. Thank you. And we have a second by Mr. Wilson. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Is that it, Mr. Martin? All right. Okay, do we have anything, Ms. Wade, for any consent agenda? Yes, sir, we do. We have a number of items that qualified for the consent agenda this afternoon. And so what we'll do is read those out loud. And if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have an item heard, if you could raise your hand to be acknowledged. Or if the commission wishes to have an item heard, it can be removed from the consent agenda. Otherwise, all of the items on the consent agenda will be approved simultaneously with one vote. So we'll start with item one on the consent agenda appears on page two of your regular agenda, item B. and it's a final subdivision plan recommended for approval by the subdivision committee. This is a final record plat, so PLN FRP 23-25 for the Womack Farm, and it's an amended final record plat for property located at 2481 Hume Bedford Pike. Is there anyone here that wishes to have this item heard? Mr. Rowland, do you have your affidavit regarding the sign? Great. The second item on the consent agenda is on page five, item E of the regular agenda. Thank you. It's PLN MJDP 23-47 for the Fox property, lot four. Also an amended final development plan for property located at 2400 for Sales Road. So anyone who wishes to have this item heard, there is someone in the audience, so we'll remove that one. The next item appears on page six, item F of the regular agenda. PLN MJDP 23-48 for Bluegrass Business Park, also known as Pemberton Farm, Lot 1. This is also an amended final development plan for property located at 2201 Innovation Drive. So anyone that wishes to have this item heard? Okay, seeing none. The last item on our consent agenda today is on page five, I'm sorry, page eight. Item I of the regular agenda, PLN MJDP 23-51 for Hospitality Motor Inns Incorporated, also an amended final development plan for property located at 2143 North Broadway. So anyone that wishes to have this item heard today? Okay. With that, Chairman Forrester, we do have the three items that qualify for the consent agenda unless the commission has anything that they would like heard. Okay, thank you, Ms. Wade. So the three items with the removal of page five, item E, PLN, MJDP 23-47. Okay, commission, if you have any questions or not, this floor is open for a motion to accept the consent agenda. With the exclusion of the application that we just referenced. Move to accept the consent agenda as specified by staff. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Worth. I think I'll wait. We'll vote via Granicus here in a second. There we go. Okay, thank you. Consent agenda passes unanimously. Thank you. So, that will put us on page four of the agenda. Item C, PLN, MJDP 23-32, Homer C. Ratliff property. Staff? And there is an adaptive reuse compliance report in our paperwork too. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, in addition to that adaptive reuse staff report that has been distributed to you, There also should be a packet like this that has been distributed to you as well, I believe. That contains letters of support as well as letters of opposing this particular plan. So they contain both of those for your consideration. Let's see if I've mastered the new technology. So again, as Chairman stated, this is Major Development Plan 23-32, the Homer C Ratliff property. It is property located at 938 Manchester Street. Here is an aerial that shows the property in this location. Here we have Manchester Street and then Willard Street. It is obviously the corner lot of Willard and Manchester Street in this particular location. Here we have again the existing building. You can see access that comes into the site from Manchester Street as well as access out to Willard. This is a shed that was built on the property that also exists, and you can see it. And again, here's the full area of the site. Now this is an exhibit. Let me see. Oh, no, okay. Oops, oops, oops. There we go. There's only three buttons I have to choose between. But well, this is an exhibit. This is not the development plan per se on this particular project. That being said, it does demonstrate the proposed layout of the site and the redevelopment of the site. And again, this is the existing building which they are proposing to adapt and reuse. It is about 5,900 square feet of space. Currently, it is a B-4 use. They are operating it with storage and a small retail component at this time in compliance with the B-4. They are proposing, as you can see, as I mentioned, having the existing access and then reconstructing, and that's from Manchester Street, reconstructing this access out to Willard. Here they're proposing parking. They are proposing to use the existing storage building on the site. Now, this is a large shed. It's completely open in the front. It's just a three-sided shed with a roof. This is a courtyard area that they're proposing to utilize. They're going to plant trees, and they're going to utilize that area as a seating area for their patrons and that sort of thing. So this is an interesting plan. You're looking at several issues on this plan. First and foremost, it is a B-4, and they're requesting an adaptive reuse to be part of the overall adaptive reuse district that's already been established and has been developed to a great degree along this section of Manchester Street. It is the first one that has fallen in under our point system. And this was a new addition to the zoning ordinance, this point system. And it was done not because we were trying to discourage people to join an existing district. There's advantages to that. it's difficult to have an adaptive use criteria and everybody have one large building that's going to be adaptively reused, obviously. This district was set up because they've already done that. They've already met that criteria with the large distillery building across the street where the Manchester Music Hall takes place. Just like down the street in the West District, they have the large barrel house and those buildings that they reused. That is a necessary criteria. And again, obviously, not everybody's going to have a large building meeting a lot of square footage or the other aspect being eligible for the National Historic Register again. So it was not to discourage people being able to utilize the existing district and become a part of it, but the points system was developed to see to it that they didn't get a completely free pass, that they had to meet criteria on their site to enhance the district and to be part of the district. So with that, this is our first one with the adaptive reuse. Now, there are several items that they have to meet. One, it has to be located in, adjacent to, or across the right-of-way from the infill and redevelopment area, which it is in the infill and redevelopment area. It is. You all are aware that's a statutory area established in our community with well-defined boundaries. They're in it. They've met that criteria. They are going to use at least one building adaptively as a principal structure. They are going to do that with the existing building. They're going to adaptively use it. It's going to be remodeled from its current wholesale small retail use to a retail use with restrooms and a bar area. So they're proposing what in essence is going to be a bar in this area. So they are going to adaptively reuse that building. The other requirement that must be met is public art. They are proposing public art. And it's been an interesting struggle, issue with some of our adaptive reuse areas. You know, we get a lot of murals. And you've seen some of them, I'm sure, particularly down the street, the large mural on the side of the barrel, the storage building. They are proposing art in this location on the building. They're proposing an easement with art in this location. Both of them are on the frontages of the property. They're proposing a possible mural along this edge of the building, and they're proposing a freestanding sculpture or artwork attached to the building. So it's important that this artwork be accessible to the public. It means you and I and people that are down here in the district, for whatever reason, can access that art and enjoy that artwork. So that criteria in staff's estimation has been met. Now moving on, they have to meet a criteria again of a single building over 30,000 square feet, over 75 years old, or a total project area of 80,000 square feet with at least two adaptive buildings. That's exactly what the district's already met. They're allowed to utilize that since it's already been met. Again, that's a difficult criteria for any individual property to meet. So once this district's been established and we've already allowed people to join this district utilizing the existing criteria and the existing buildings. But again, we have now come up with this point system. And that comes into play under item D. And you report where now we look at primary land use, building form, and design. And these were criteria that were developed to address the actual development of the site that wishes to be part of the adaptive reuse. They have stated and staff has reviewed that they're going to use green rated site design. Now, one aspect of that is that when they say they're going to do that, they are going to meet the Sustainable Sites Initiative and the Living Community Challenge. initiative. They submitted a worksheet for the sustainable sites initiative, which should be attached. It's this baby right here. And that's how you show that you're meeting that initiative's criteria. In reviewing it, it's important, and it was important to staff to be sure, there's a lot of criteria that goes into the sustainable sites initiative. And some of these criteria are the same criteria that they could get points for in other criteria that we established. So it was very important, and staff wanted to be clear to the applicant that there was no double dipping. So they submitted the worksheet to show the various items that they were going to utilize to meet that sustainable initiative. so that is allows them three points then they also requested points under green infrastructure they are going to utilize green infrastructure they're going to address their stormwater utilizing green infrastructure but again it was important if you claim that credit and you want the two points for that it can't be included in what you're counting under the site design sites initiative. So again, they are doing items under the site initiative that are very biological oriented, soils and plants, as well as management issues. That's another thing that falls under the sites initiative that normally doesn't fall under our type of purview, which is, are you recycling? Are you using certain materials in your construction and your site work? Whereas green infrastructure is something that often does fall under our stormwater manual's best management practices. So again, we rated those separately to make sure there was no double dipping on the point system. And then they also requested innovation credit. And we enjoyed this one. They're proposing a vertical green wall. And you see those a lot in architecture in green buildings. They're proposing to utilize it outside as one way to define their outdoor seating area and their common area out there behind the building. They want to use a green wall. So, again, we felt in that context that that was deserving of the innovative credit in that section. So, we move on to the transit infrastructure and connectivity section of your report. And they are providing an accessible property across connectivity. Again, when we talk about districts and we want pedestrians to use them, we want it to be pedestrian friendly, we want properties to function together as much as possible when we establish a district such as this. So again, they're proposing cross-conductivity in this area to the adjoining lot, which is a parking lot. Though again, it's a small lot. There's only so many options. They're on a corner. They don't have a lot of options for cross-conductivity, so they're doing the best they can in this circumstance with the adjoining property. That was the only points that we saw that they could meet under that category. A lot of that has to do with just their location. You can get points for repair and buffer. You can get points for stream channel restoration. Obviously, they're not on the creek. They can't do that sort of thing. The other items, they mentioned the multi-use path. There's a trail, Town Branch Trail. That's across the right-of-way, and we're not going to give them points for that. Certainly, their patrons can use it, and we hope they do, but it's not something directly connected to their efforts and their adaptive reuse. So the final category is the quality of life components. They are increasing their canopy coverage to 40%. There's nothing on the site. So any increase is good. They're going to add trees. You can see, again, the tremendous number of trees that they are proposing in their patio area. And then, of course, the trees you see down here, these are related to some landscaping. I'm going to address that shortly. But with the adaptive reuse, they're adding canopy. Now, they've also met points on applying for or obtaining special funding or other government incentives. And they have, in fact, applied. It was, I think, July 28th was the date they had to apply for a stormwater incentive grant. There's been one of those applied for and approved and utilized in Distillery District West. on that site. They utilized an incentive grant. So they've applied. And this will help them, again, with the green infrastructure and addressing their stormwater and water quality issues. And that's another reason we took a look at the site initiatives and we didn't want them double dipping on these criteria. So again, they've done that. And with that, when we total the points up, they have to have 10 points Out of all these various categories, they have 15 points. And so we believe they've met the threshold for the adaptive reuse criteria. Now, we have a couple of concerns that we've addressed. And one is that they need to ensure and denote on the plan that their adaptive reuse element shall be completed at the time of the zoning compliance sign off on the building. Now, obviously, they can't do the work without a permit. This intent is to make sure that these elements are indicated on their plans, identified on their plans, and are scheduled to be done. Because, again, these elements are essential to their adaptive reuse status. The other thing that staff was concerned with, and we made a recommendation at the tree canopy, and you know we we are pushing our trees we encourage our trees you know we love our trees but we want them to survive and so we are recommending that their tree canopy their planting plan be approved either by the urban county forester or a certified arborist we want to be sure that this this canopy that you can see on their plan and a lot of trees that those trees will survive. They'll be there. I have no doubt the applicant wants them to survive, and we do too. So that's a recommendation we've made on their adaptive reuse status. Now, we're going to move to a couple of other interesting items on this plan. When this plan was originally approved back in the 90s to B4, it was a zone change. And there was a tremendous amount of discussion on buffering, and there were some conditional zoning restrictions placed on this plan, one of which was a 15-foot buffer on the rear of the property, a landscape buffer. Now, Article 18 would allow them a five-foot buffer with a fence and landscaping here at the rear of the property. At the time that this plan was rezoned to be for a 15-foot buffer from the rear of the property out into this area was required. you can see that there's a shed built at the rear of the property. That shed was not permitted. It should have been. It was not. It's a substantial shed, as you've heard me say before in committee. It's a nice big substantial shed. Now, the applicants you see before you today had nothing to do with that. Shed's been there for 20 plus years. It happens. People build things. They do things without permits when they should be permitted. We can guess as to the motivation or what happened or whatever, but the shed is there. The shed is on the development plan. It now falls under your purview. You can approve the shed as part of their development plan. You can request that it be removed. Have no idea, can't tell you what impact that would have on them. They lease the property. They don't own it. But that certainly falls within your purview. Because, again, in relationship to the landscape buffer, the landscape buffer was a 15-foot buffer that was staff recommended and came about, if you read the minutes, tremendous amount of discussion. The applicant originally proposed a buffer himself. and then at the hearing asked for no buffer other than the Article 18, five feet, that sort of thing. The Planning Commission at that time recommended the staff recommendation of the 15-foot buffer, which you can see now is a conflict. They can meet Article 18. We asked them, and they provided. They had a surveyor go out on the property, and they have documented that they have room to meet Article 18 in the rear of their property. Now, there is a note on the plan. This note reflects exactly the Urban County Council's ordinance that established the condensal zoning. And it establishes this landscape buffer, and it says, or as amended by the Planning Commission in the future. Your staff and your legal department believes that that grants you the authority to amend that conditional zoning landscape buffer. You have that ability. So that's one of the questions before you today, and it's tied in with the shed. It's tied in with the landscape buffer. It's tied in to the proposed uses and the relationship to the neighborhood in this area. So that's another issue that you are presented with today. Now, if you look at the conditions that went before your subdivision committee, at the top of page five, they submitted a revised plan. And number 12 says revise your square footage of the buildings and the site statistics to meet the dimensions. They have done so. They fixed it. It was a little fix. A little fix. Just make your math work. Wasn't off by much. They fixed it. And then clarify the rear boundary. And again, that was important. They clarified it. They've even submitted an exhibit from their surveyor to clearly establish that rear boundary. And again, all that is so important because the landscape buffer, the shed, that relationship. And then it leads us to item 15, which is discuss the proposed land uses and compliance with Article 8-21 of the zoning ordinance. Well, this is interesting because this is an adaptive reuse project they're asking you to approve. And it grants them a host of different uses. Now, they're proposing a bar use, sort of an entertainment venue use to invite people onto their property to utilize the property. Again, the building and the outdoors and that sort of thing. So the question that you have to consider, is this an appropriate use under the adaptive reuse? I mean, you could approve this status, but you also have the authority to say, we're approving your adaptive reuse status, but we're not going to approve this particular use. Because you may, as a body, decide that use isn't really compatible with the neighbors or the adjoining properties. That's a perfectly legitimate question you should ask yourself and ask the applicant. It may be that there's a different use under adaptive use that would be perfectly compatible. So that's an interesting issue because they are moving across the right-of-way. The district exists on both sides, but on this side of the right-of-way, we have the large townhouse development. We have an approved development that was residential, mixed retail. It's never been constructed. And then on the other side, of course, we have a music hall, and we have the hotel. And the hotel would be a great example of your all's discretion. If the hotel had been proposed across the road in this location, you would have to ask yourself, would that be appropriate use under the adaptive use status in this specific part of the overall district? So again, that's the question that we felt worthy of discussing with you today, was whether or not that their proposed use is in fact compatible in this location with the other land uses that is adjacent to them. And then, as I've mentioned before, there's a conditional zoning restriction. The conditional zoning restrictions, there's the land use, but there's also a few uses. Those uses aren't a problem. They were before uses that were conditioned off of the property. There was one interesting use restriction that restricted the use of vehicles, no vehicular movement on the rear 40 feet of the property. that brings them down into here right through the middle of this access to willard there's not supposed to be see any vehicular movement in that area well you can see from a management perspective that's a challenge because you come in there in the evening to go to their bar and you park back here well you're not going to be able to pull out onto willard under that conditional zoning restriction. You're going to have to turn around and go back out to Manchester Street. That is a management issue for them, and they'll have to address because that's not before you today. That restriction remains on the property. I know I've covered an awful lot of ground with you today on this particular property. It is, as I said, a very interesting situation that's before you today. It is the first adaptive reuse proposal, as I've already said, under our new point system. Your subdivision committee had recommended postponement at that time. There were concerns, again, about the conditional zoning and the impact on the property. I've laid that out for you today. Again, your staff and legal believe you do have the authority to address the land use buffer. You also have the authority to address the shed that was built without a permit. With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions? Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Martin, as to two questions, I guess. As to the shed, if it wasn't permitted, I presume it never was inspected. Is this something that if this thing went forward, should it be inspected? It could be, yes, sir. It could be a condition of approval that they have it inspected by the appropriate individuals. It could be a structural engineer, a commercial. There's various people with the expertise that could inspect the footer and that sort of thing. Would it be appropriate for building inspection to do that? I suppose, yes. We could ask them to go out and inspect it. Second question. With the attachments here, some for, some against, I guess, the third page in, you've been talking as if they wish to do this, proposing to do this. we got a letter here that says since the business has opened and then refers to the grand opening. Has the business opened? The applicant will have to address those issues with you, Mr. Owens. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Do we have further questions for Mr. Martin? Thank you, sir. Applicant? Good afternoon, my name is Charlotte McCoy. I'm with Stites and Harbison and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I have with me today Annie Rouse, who is the applicant representative and Scott Southall with Earth Cycle Design who is the engineer on the project. A couple things. I wanted to take a minute to thank the planning staff for their help going through this process. It is the first one since the point system and we've been very appreciative of all their hard work on it. A couple clarifications. with the restrictive zoning about the vehicles. That's only from the hours of, I think, 7 to 7? 7 to 8 a.m. But it's only in the evening and overnight. It's not all the time. The second thing I want to highlight, I'm going to have the applicant, Annie, come up here and explain to you about the business and what they do what their plans are for the property to give you a little more context. But before I do that, I want to talk about the shed in the back. It's about four property owners back that that got built. It's been there for over 20 years, near as anyone can tell. And we've tried, but we couldn't actually get a build date on it. We see no reason to take it down. It acts as an excellent buffer to the property behind it. It's a cinder block wall and it will, the property behind it is residential and it will definitely assist better than a 15 foot vegetative buffer in separating the property. So we would urge you to approve the plan with the building in place and as us having met the article 18 current buffer requirements. I'll let Annie come up here in a second and explain. So the existing business on the property is a warehouse business with a small retail operation. It's the same business owner who is proposing this new use. So they would be renovating the warehouse to allow for bathrooms, the bar and the rest of the improvements you see. I'm going to ask Annie to come up here and tell you a little bit more about that. Thank you and thanks for having us today. I'll try to be quick, Larry. So my name is Annie Rouse. I'm born and raised in Lexington, Kentucky. I went to the University of Kentucky for undergrad and then left the state for a couple years to get a master's in international environmental policy and an MBA with a focus on sustainability. So the sustainable aspect of this site and redeveloping it, which really aligns with Lexington's long-term goals, is really truly not just at the heart of our business operations, but something that I have really put my life into developing and improving in terms of environmental improvements in the area. I also, you'll notice the letters all say that it's Cannabuzz. The applicant is actually CBZ Enterprises, but we are a hemp-derived business that warehouses, as Charlotte stated, warehouses our products. We also have a small retail within this operation that is currently operating as a quote-unquote dispensary. contrary to some of the media exposure that we got we are not a cannabis business we are a legal hemp operation that is regulated by the department of health and the department of agriculture and we are also contrary to some of the letters that you've received are not a late night establishment. We did have a soft opening when we opened our doors for the retail side. We had visitors come and enjoy the space. We were not open into the wee hours of the morning. We actually closed up at 8 p.m. So I'm not sure where those noise complaints in the letter came from. I would also say that it's not our intent to be a late night operation if we get approval for this. We intend to ideally close our doors by 11 p.m. Maybe if UK is in a national championship, we might want to stay open until the game's over around 11.30. But otherwise, we intend to close by 11 p.m. And similar to the businesses around who are also operating, I believe, Lost Palm and the hotel across the street operates until 12 p.m. on the weekends. So we would like to align with those business hours. So within the, it is as we described, it is our intent to develop the lot into a sustainable community oriented business. We'll be supporting local food trucks. If you can pull back up the, where do I have that ability? No. No. He's in control. Ah, gotcha. Can you pull back up the map thing? Awesome. Let's see if I can. Okay. I see why you have a hard time with this, Tom. I'm not even going to try that. So in the back of the building where there is the permeable pavement by the existing storage building that has been a challenge to us in the past, We intend to, we really only have that pathway or road, I'll call it for lack of a better term, existing for the waste management and disposal. We needed, in order to incorporate proper waste removal, we needed to follow the guidance of waste management. And so that was put in place for those purposes. We do not intend to have that open, particularly for the safety of the patrons. We do not intend to have that open during business hours. It will be blocked off so that cars cannot drive through that space. The only times that it would be open for driving is the single time a week where waste management would come and pick that up in likely the morning hours as they do in every other business and neighborhood. We also would be using it for getting the food trucks in and out, but those would occur outside of the 7 p.m. to 8 a.m. restrictions that are currently within the conditional zoning restrictions. We do intend to, as you can see, improve the site a lot with vegetable community gardens, with vegetables and herbs growing in them on the vegetative walls. We also intend to have other community-oriented events like yoga and educational talks. We do not intend to be a live music joint. There's already plenty in the area that we don't want to compete with. Um, we, uh, welcome the, um, restriction that is currently in place, uh, regarding outdoor speakers. Um, and, um, but the bar will include a beer garden as can be seen in the, in the large area of trees, um, where food trucks will align. All of those food trucks will be operating in accordance with health codes, um, and city ordinances. and the beer garden and bar, we intend to serve cocktails, mocktails, and infused cocktails. There will be a lot of natural alternatives for those who don't want to drink alcohol. It's an up-and-coming business opportunity across all businesses and bars, really, and we plan to definitely capitalize on that. It also offers a very unique tourism opportunity for Lexington. Lexington is known, I think, really for four things, bourbon, basketball, horses, and hemp. And those four things actually all happen to be on Manchester Street. You can start at the, I like to call this the Lexington line, where you could really start down on Old Frankfurt Pike, on the beautiful horse farms down there. Stop, view those, go past the nice secretariat sign or sculpture, I guess. and then keep moving to the distillery district, stop in for some bourbon, continue on to cannabis, and learn about Kentucky's rich history with hemp, trying some products, and end your tour at Rupp Arena. So it really can provide great tourism in the area. It can uplift the community in that sense. It can really support the hotel across the street by offering those tourism opportunities and the guests that are visiting there, something to immediately do that's unique, not only to Lexington, but really nationally, and can really support those individuals. I'd also like to comment that while the neighborhood is, we are on the side of the street where the neighborhood does exist, as Charlotte said, that back building offers a great sound buffer. There are also, this is not unique. It's not like this is the only place where a bar or restaurant intersects with a neighborhood or a neighbor directly behind them. In fact, I have a long list of areas, including Green Lantern, Gray Goose, Blue Heron, anything really on Jefferson Street, West 6th, Blue Stallion, the entire National Avenue District, Owls Bar, Rock House, Arcadium, Kenwick Table on Owsley, Kentucky Native, the Fish Tank on Woodland, Lexington Brewing Company, the Burrell, Lansdowne Club, or the Cellar, Wheeler's Pharmacy in Suggins, La Tequiza on Main Street, Athenian Grill, and Winchell's and any of the other businesses on Southland Drive. Those are all bars, restaurants directly next to or very much in proximity to a neighborhood. You can also see that we've received several letters of support from people on Willard who are all supportive of the business at hand. And we intend to continue to work with them, to continue to develop the lot, respecting their presence, and continue to even ideally hire some individuals in the area. Obviously, a big concern for the area, even before our existence, is parking. I'll remind you that Lexington no longer has a minimum threshold on parking spots that are needed in order for a business to be approved or rezoned or exist. We do offer six parking spots within the lot. We're also working with a neighbor to work on employee parking so that those six spots can be always accessible to our patrons. There's also a lot of paid parking within the area. I will say I wish that the parking was cheaper. $7 an hour for parking is about more expensive than New York City at this point. So it would be great if that would be reduced. And because of that, I have noticed operating in the space that there are a lot of people avoiding that paid parking and parking on the side street of Willard instead. We are more than happy to work with the city on improving those situations, particularly creating potentially residential permitting parking so that it can help the people on Willard Street be able to have available parking. In addition, we really need some lines painted so that the, I don't know what the technical term is, so that people aren't blocking driveways. We also would very much approve of metered parking for Lex Park in the area directly adjacent to our property on Willard Street. That could boost some revenue for Lex Park as well. In addition, we are highly supportive of the trolley system. I used to ride it all the time when I was in college, and I hope that it can come back. I think it can be a very big benefit for all of the businesses on Manchester Street, not just ours. We also will have the street artwork that Tom described in the front will be a bike rack. We also intend to have some other bike racks over on the left side of the existing storage building, as well as a drop-off point for the electrical scooters. And, you know, as a reminder, we are a bar that will be serving alcohol, so we would actually prefer people to not drive because of the liabilities associated. So we will be, you know, consistently working with Uber and Lyft and various rideshare programs to be able to get people to use those forms of transportation to come to the site as opposed to driving themselves. I think that's all. Am I missing anything? Scott will now present. Thanks, Annie. Scott's going to pull up a visual for me real quick. Maybe. One more. Sorry. Well, we can work with this one. And the point of showing this is this shows the outline of the distillery district east. And if you will see of all of the properties and lots on that map, they're all in it. The only one that's not is this property. It makes a lot of sense to bring this property into the adaptive reuse district. So that it can be used and incorporated with those other lots and help create the entertainment district that this distillery district is supposed to be. And is becoming. So. We think this is a great project. We think it enhances the neighborhood. We think it enhances the district. We think it will be a great addition. And it's exactly the type of project the adaptive reuse ordinance was enacted to enable. So we would urge you to support us and approve it. And we are available for any questions should you have them. Thank you. Thank you. As a commission, do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Ms. Meyer? I have a, just, Annie covered a lot of ground. But I wondered, we've got some letters here from neighbors. And I'm wondering if you've had any interaction with them, you know, and about what your project is, just to lay all of these concerns. Absolutely. So I actually, we've had several neighbors since we opened the dispensary come and specify how happy they are that we're in their backyard. I went door to door the other day and received a lot of those letters. We discussed the plans. They all were very supportive. Many had said that they're glad that something's happening there because it's been an eyesore for so many years. and we've not actually had any negative interactions. I know that there was a letter in there from the neighbor directly behind us. They never spoke to us about any of these problems. The parking situation, I don't think was us. We have currently plenty of parking on our lot. and as I've seen there's been because of the $7 an hour parking tons of people that decide to park up and down Willard. We did have an issue with a homeless woman who was kind of living in the shed for a little bit behind or on our property. There was an issue with her screaming in the middle of the night and we worked with the brother of, I think, the individual who's here today, and got that resolved. Again, if the property is developed, there will be less likelihood of those kind of interactions impacting the area negatively and keeping people up and those kinds of things, but no negative interactions. You know, mostly people are very excited about the development, and many are already shopping with us, which is always nice. Okay. I'm not seeing any other questions. This is, we're going to move on to citizens' comments. Citizens, you can do so by stepping up to the podium. You can speak either for or against this particular application. Mr. Gross, you had requested a few minutes. Are you going to take all? For a birthday present for your son, I'm hoping not to take the minutes you have allocated me. Yeah, you're all right. I will try, but I didn't realize that Tom was going to talk so long. I feel like he took all my time. Unfortunately, no. So Brandon Gross and I am here from Denton's and I'm representing the interests of the neighbors in opposition of this application. I do have, just to put in the record. Yeah, and so I've got my thing. I am going to give to the staff some items from the record, which would include my slideshow today. It's also going to include the zoning ordinance from 98. It's going to reclude the land use restrictions so that you know that that was recorded in the Fay County Clerk's Office. So the property owner knew about all these restrictions when they bought the property. They were on notice of these restrictions. It should not have been a surprise to them. Also, the recommendation from this body to the Urban County Council related to the zoning restrictions and change. And then lastly, there is an article from the Herald Leader from June 2, 2023, written by Janet Patton. And I will say, while it does not directly quote the applicant, Ms. Patton does say, and I quote, Rouse and Bacorn plan to apply for a license to serve alcohol and also hope to apply for a license to dispense medical marijuana now that the General Assembly has legalized it. I wasn't there. I can't say they actually said those words to Ms. Patton, but I can't imagine why she would make up that paraphrase statement. But that is one reason the neighbors in your letters, that was a concern because it is in the newspaper that was advertised. So I just want to put those items in the record for your consideration. So today, this is why you should deny this application. Okay, I think I figured this out. Number one, the project violates both the restrictive zoning in place and the intent of the restrictive zoning. Two, the project does not comply with the comprehensive plan. The application and the development plan do not comply with the zoning ordinance. And I will talk about, unfortunately, the compliance statements that were filed by the applicant weren't uploaded to Acela. So I just saw them today. I also did not see the survey they exhibit they referenced uploaded to Acela, so I've not seen that. So I'll talk about the boundary issue later, but just want to make that note. I've not had an opportunity to review those in detail. And then finally, just the development plan doesn't function as designed. So number one, why in 1998 was there a long discussion? And why did this body decide that it needed to do conditional zoning? Well, it's right there. It said this site lies adjacent to single-family residential uses to the south and is currently in violation of the zoning ordinance. So I guess some things don't change. because the property today is in violation of the zoning ordinance. The single family residential uses still exist today. Nothing has changed since this body found that those neighbors needed to be protected from uses on this particular piece of property. Now here is the subject property, and I will say, you know, I do like the plan. I will say I like the plan. If you pick that plan up and move it somewhere else, it may be a good idea. but it's not a good idea in this location. So here is the property. There's Willard Street, here's Perry Street, here's Driscoll Street. Not one of those streets is built to standards. Every one of those is a substandard residential street that's never been improved. They're too narrow. You can't even park on both sides of the street. They're so narrow. This is the gateway. This property is the gateway down Willard on this corner. This This will set the context and the tone for this side of the street. The way this development is done right now is all the entertainment and activities are on this side of the street. This side of the street is all residential parking in businesses that are daytime businesses that are open more or less nine to five. Shops of trade. There's a dog kennel. There is asphalt sealer location. There are businesses though that do not disturb the neighbors, do not cause lots of traffic. There are low intense uses currently on this entire side of the street. Once again, this is all residential. We've got affordable housing project here. We've got affordable housing project here. We've got Habitat for Humanities, affordable housing project is here. The rest of this land, except for the B1, is essentially what I would consider affordable and working class housing stock. That's what we're dealing with. And I'm here today and I've got members of the neighborhood there here today to discuss why they want to protect their neighborhood from gentrification anymore than it's already occurring in this area and from the traffic and the noise and everything else is going to come with this property becoming an adaptive use project. So what did the restrictions restrict? outdoor activities. Why outdoor activities? Because those are activities that disturb the neighbors. You don't get disturbance a restaurant inside of a building. You get disturbance when people are out back drinking beer until 11 midnight at night. So all the lighting directed away from the residents. No outdoor speakers. Now this one here and I'm going to take a little bit, I'm going to expand a little bit on Tom's note. It says no physical movement or operation of any vehicles or any equipment. That means if they park their trucks in that 40 area, they can't turn them on. You can't operate the trucks. This restriction was in place to keep loud noises from going into the residential neighborhood. The idea that somehow you could park a truck, turn on a generator, and run it until 11 midnight at night past the seven o'clock curfew flies in the face of the restriction. It does not make sense. I also disagree with the legal department and staff on this 15-foot landscape buffer area, their interpretation. But before I get to that, this is what was approved back in 98. And as you can see, here's the residential house. There's the 15-foot buffer. However, the planning commission said you must build this type of planting. This is the material you're supposed to use and you're supposed to put in a six-foot stockade fence. They specifically said this is how we want it designed in 98. The minutes, which I put in the record, show there's a lot of discussion. They could have, I believe, allowed the five-foot with the fence. The applicant asked for the five foot with the fence. The planning commission said, no, you may not have a five foot with the fence. If they wanted to design it to be where this body could at any time go from 15 to five, it would have been a development note. We do that all the time. It takes six votes on this body to overturn a development note. But they made it a zoning restriction. That's a higher standard. I do not think the intent was for this body to first reject the five foot and then say, well, we'll make a zoning restriction. Maybe one day we'll go down to five feet after all. And there won't have to do anything else other than six of us vote for approval. I just don't interpret it that way. It says, within the rear 15 feet of the subject property adjacent to the property of 2020 Willard, a landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with the materials shown on the approved development plan for the property or as amended in the future by the urban. I submit to you that as amended in the future means that you had the authority to change the materials that they put within that 15 feet, but you didn't have the authority to reduce it from 15 to 5. That's our interpretation of that restriction. Because if not, then it's not a zoning restriction. It's just a development note. And that's not how development notes work. That's not how zoning, it flips it on its head of what the whole purpose of a zoning restriction is. Now, as you can see, here's the building. And this is where I talk about what you have been presented so far has been a complete vacuum of what is on the ground. This house is right here. There's the shed. I went out today in between the shed and the fence. In certain areas, there's less than five feet. It's short of five feet. Now, I'm assuming that the applicant's position is they own property on the other side of the chain link fence. However, Paul Hollins here may have a disagreement on that, on where the actual boundary is. So they can't prove they actually own the property five feet, even if you were to buy into the theory that you could reduce it to five feet. i'm not sure they have to party comply with the comprehensive plan there's a lot going on the comprehensive plan and i'm here with you and you probably agree some things are in consistent we have we want x but what why they don't always match up together and we try to do a balance of what makes sense you're right we want entertainment We want facilities. We want less cars. We want things, and that all makes sense. But we also want to respect the context and design of the area where development is going. We want to ensure equitable outcomes. We don't want to gentrify and push existing residents out of their homes because of new development. Theme E, growth policy four. adapted reuse projects should enhance existing neighborhoods and be context sensitive. I don't think putting a bar next to somebody's house is context sensitive. I wouldn't want next to my house. I can't imagine many people on this panel or in this room would want it next to their house. Context sensitive is important. Now, while this is not a historic district, I believe it should be. It's from 1850s, is when Irish Town was formed. It doesn't have the wherewithal or the money to become an H-1 overlay. Some people would say they tear down most of the buildings. There's nothing to save there. So while it's not specifically an historic district, it is an historic neighborhood. And once again, development along the boundaries should respect the context of those neighborhoods. I took this last night. Oh, I didn't take it. It was sent to me last night, but it was taken last night. As you can see, completely parked. All the car, all the spaces. And I can't say this is for the current applicant. But this just shows you that we all know there's not enough parking in this area. The city had to go out and spend tax dollars to buy land and build a parking lot for the other side of the distillery district. People were parking in the grass. They were parking on the side of the roads. They were parking on Manchester Street. It was a complete chaos. And these neighbors don't want that for their neighborhood by bringing another business that's going to attract people at night. Because unfortunately, the neighborhoods around the distillery district do not have the population to support all the businesses that are going there. This is a destination spot. And for better or worse, Lexington is a car city. And people drive here. And what they do is they drive here. And they don't find a spot. They see a pay lot. They keep driving until they go into this neighborhood and they try to take the few spots these residents have. Because once again, these residents can only park on one side of the street. And some of them only have one car driveways. So if you're a family, working family with two cars, park one on the driveway, you park one on the street. And if there's no parking spaces, you just keep driving until you find one. Davis Bottom isn't completely developed, so I guess you could park in Davis Bottom and walk the half a mile to this spot. Now, the staff may have some objections to this list, and they can explain some of their interpretations versus my interpretations. But Section 821-0, the B4 zone says, all buildings and structures shall be at least 100 feet from any residential zone unless the portion within that distance has no opening except stationary windows and doors that are designed and intended solely for pedestrian access. I'm not sure if the shed would fall within that. I don't think it's within 100 feet. I don't think it has doors. I don't think it has windows. I don't think it could be there even if we were to buy into the fact that you guys could approve and let it stay. Where a corner lot adjoins in the rear, a lot in any residential zone, no part of an accessory building, shall extend closer to the street than the actual required, whichever is less, depth of the front yard or the principal structure. Right next door is R1D zone. Now, R1D is a little complicated. It depends on how much frontage. You got some averaging. Maybe they comply with this section. I was not had an opportunity to talk to staff about whether or not that complied. Internal pedestrian walkways in the B4 shall be required to meet the following standards. If a vehicle bumps up against it, I think it's supposed to be seven feet. I think they're providing five on their plan. And then lastly is the eight-foot vehicular use area perimeter buffering. and if you recall the arrow you saw shows currently the drive lane comes in goes right next to the building pretty close to the building and the rest of it is green i've been told that underneath that green is asphalt and they want to scrape it and then they want to say they're not reconstructing a driveway and therefore they don't have to comply with the eight foot. That's my assumption is how that's going to work. But clearly, there we go. Nope, there. I think right here, I don't know why there's not some kind of buffering between this lot and that lot. Now I'm going to talk about some of the functionality of the plan. Number one, this cross section that goes to here, If they're assuming that they're going to connect to the Manchester Hotel's parking lot, they're mistaken because the hotel's not going to agree to that. That parking, the hotel bought, it is developed, it is used for the hotel. The hotel's not going to allow another business to use that parking. The 40-foot setback goes like right down here. They're saying they're going to close this off. So when cars come in, they're going to come down. There are going to be no spaces because let's be honest with you, six spaces in the distillery district is a joke to get enough parking. I think on a Wednesday they'll have six people at this location. So what's going to happen? They're going to come down here. They're going to come to an end. I guess they're going to reverse their way back out because they can't go right. There's no turnabout given here. So that's another issue with this plan. Here's the potential area that needs to be seven instead of five feet. Once again, if Tom says I'm wrong, I will take his opinion on it because I'm not a planner. Here, the neighbor that lives right here is here that he's going to speak. He's looking forward to a dumpster in the middle of August being 12 feet from his house. Like the rest of us in this room would enjoy on a hot summer day. you're trying to hang out in your back room. So this is where they put the dumpster, tucked it right up here, right next to my guy in the crowd. Once again, I think overall, I think this plan would violate the zoning restrictions. Now we can disagree with the staff and that's fine, it happens. But I also think it violates the intent of those restrictions. The intent of those restrictions were to keep outdoor activities minimal and not disturb the residential neighbors adjacent to this property. I don't think this plan complies with the comprehensive plan as I presented to you. I think the application and amended development plan does not comply with some of the zoning ordinance requirements. That would need to be met for this to be approved by this body. And I think the amended development plan will adversely affect the public health and safety and welfare of the area and would alter the essential character of the 1998 development as originally approved. So, I think I was well under. My time limit, Mr. Forsker? 11 minutes and 52 seconds. You want me to keep going? Nope. Okay. Okay. So, I am here to answer any questions. If you may have them. I'm sure legal will chime in and we'll just put on the record that Brittany and I disagree potentially on this issue. So before we have any questions, I know there are other citizens that would like to speak, so you can do so by stepping up to the podium. Hello, Paul Holland. I've been in this area for 40 years, had a business for 40 years over here. I have eight houses in that little area. And my tenants call me cause and say the parking. The parking the driveway, the parked halfway on the driveway on the road. And then three out of eight lives on that street in the houses but the um month or two ago they they said they had no music but they had food truck and music till at one o'clock in the morning i get a phone call at one o'clock asked what they could do about it so um this is these people have kids they work in the morning they can't they cannot stay up with the one and five year old listen to music and much less food trucks with the diesel engines all night long. Besides the diesel engines, the smell eventually goes around to the houses. I'm not for sure. I'm all for people making money. Ms. Rouse, I hope you do great, but not in, you know, again, three of them talking about moving out, you know, because if it kept up, and I don't blame him. I mean he wants to not be able to sleep and kids cry all night. The you're talking about that center block building. A guy named Mr. Tate built that years ago and he had a construction company and you know he and then it bothered me before by that time I didn't know in that house and and that that's it can only be five feet between the building in the fence in the driveway. And the music is, you know, I mean, it's no barrier. It rocks it. You know, it just sits there along with the diesel trucks. But, you know, it's a they don't bring adverse, reverse the squatters' rights. You know, does that actually come into play for being there so long? I'm not for sure. But, and would this will this happen that a piece against over there and to be chase with the tulips and all that it wouldn't go through. I mean, those people outcry. This would happen way before now. But other than I just respect the time and the effort and happy birthday to your son. I'll be I'll make my quicker and lighter. So thank you all. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? My name is Justin Mastin. I live right behind the block building. You said that the block building will prevent as a barrier, but have you ever been into an open concrete wall in Yale? Or an open concrete building in Yale? It's an echo. I hear everything that goes on in my bedroom window. I have four school-age kids that have to go to school. Yes, they did have a homeless person. My brother mows that property. He asked them to ask her to leave. They replied with, I'm scared. So if them as business owners can't protect the people of the neighborhood, why should they even be there in the first place? I have no problem with them having a business there. But when it starts affecting my kids staying up at night, that's when I drive a lot. So I hope this helps y'all's decision, but kids are the next future. If they don't go to bed because they can't get an education, then what good is the next future? But I appreciate it, and happy birthday to your son. Thank you, man. Thank you. I'll make sure I tell him. Is there anyone else, sir? Come on up. Yes, sir. My name is Roland Taylor, and I live on Perry Street, next street over. The parking in the neighborhood is already bad enough, trust me. When the Legacy Trail was put in on the north side of Manchester Street, that made Manchester Street more narrow. Now trying to exit Willard Street or Perry Street, and if you're going to go east, you have to. And if anyone else can show me another way, I'm all ears. You have to, when you pull out, go over into the oncoming lane because it's already congested enough. And then when you go down Willard Street to attempt to go off of Willard onto Manchester, and I have no idea whose vehicles they are, and I can't speak to who. all I know they're there. I've seen the police there giving out citations and there's even been incidents where there are trucks parked up on the sidewalk in front of the building and again I have no idea whose trucks and vehicles they were but you can't see squat when you're trying to come out and no one wants to be thrown up in a wreck but the structure in the back I was there when Mr. Tate had the business and it has a metal roof. And trust me, when they start up that construction equipment, you heard it. It rattled. You heard it. And I'm sure anything outside would be the same thing. And there is a parking issue there. I'm not sure where potential food trucks may park. I have no idea about that one. If they only have six parking spaces now, then I just have a hard time figuring out where the remainder of the food trucks and all that's going to go. Is it going to flow over into the streets for yet even more of an issue? I have a brother. I'm his guardian. And his health is really dicey. So I need to go whenever I need to go. it's not uncommon for me to have someone blocking my driveway. My yard is fenced. I have gates up. I'm blocked. I cannot get out. I've had to take an Uber to the nursing home to go check on my brother. This should not be happening. It wouldn't happen anywhere else. And to be quite honest, the thought has run through my mind to take an ice pick and go ahead and let them wait a while when they come back out, when they come to get to their cars, because I'm tired of taking an ice pick and maybe their tires won't be what they were when they went in. And to be quite honest, I'm a little fed up with the parking there. I mean, and we do have issues. One little neighbor lady, she's always setting up or was. She's deceased now. I have no idea who the guy was, where he was from. She was setting up late doing her Bible study. He goes up and decides it would be really cute to go up and urinate off of her porch while she's inside the living room there with her door open. I mean, this is a residential area. We cannot expect children to try to get up and go to school in the morning and to really function as they should and that they are capable of doing. And I will piggyback that off of what Justin said. I would not have even known anything about this meeting had Mr. Holland and Justin not let me know. I'd seen signs in the past, but then those meetings got postponed. own. Well, the sign that when I found out about this time, the sign had been pulled off of the building. The print was facing the building. So when you went by, all you saw was the white back of the sign as you went by with it leaning up kind of at an angle down. So I mean, you wouldn't even realize it was a meeting going. I don't know if that has anything to do with the amount of people that actually came out and and if they have six parking lots or spot spots six spots what is the full capacity of this building because I don't think any business is going to be able to really function off of six customers a day unless they're spending a tremendous amount of money myself personally I live there and mr. gross Irish town became in 1848, before that it was Prenticeville, named after James Prentice in 1792. I've been there a while, that's my neighborhood. My siblings have all moved out. I've been asked again, again, why don't you leave? That's my home. I live where my great, great grandparents lived. I plan on staying there. I'm not going anywhere, but I ask y'all to please ride through the neighborhood. Try to exit off one of those streets and see if you don't wind up going over the other lane of Manchester state trying to exit there. Please just go out and take a look at it. And if I've got it all twisted, I'm good. I'll swallow what I've done. But I promise you, you're going to see exactly what I mean. And there's no way a nighttime business is going to just have six people there. I don't see that, six customers. And if there's more than six, where are they going to park? I thank you very much for your time. And you might want to get your son an extra birthday present. And he's probably going to appreciate that, dad. Thank you. I'm already broke. Thank you for your comments. Do we have any other citizen comments? Okay, so we bring this back to the rebuttal stage, applicant. It's going to start with the back line in the building and show you all the survey that we had done. Do you have it? We were looking for the survey. Do you have it? So they went out, they found pens, they marked the property line. And professional survey or measure, there is five feet back there between the property line and the building. And I want to address the questions on the conditional zoning restrictions. In 98, this was a construction business, as you heard. And that was the intention of many of these restrictions, was to address the issues that were going to arise from the industrial construction use that was going on there. That's not what this is. A lot has changed in the last 25 years, particularly on Manchester, And particularly with the businesses that are located there. The applicant understands these restrictions, prepared to abide by them. We agree with staff as far as the location of the building and the ability of the Planning Commission to amend that. It also doesn't say, it says within the rear 15 feet there will be a buffer. It doesn't say all the 15 feet have to be complete, buffered material. I think Annie wanted to address a couple of the comments that were made, so I'm gonna let her come up here and do that next. Thank you. Yeah, just quickly, I mean, regarding that building, this is an adapt and reuse project. the best thing given the structural integrity of the building and the sustainability of our initiatives and Lexington's long term plans. The best opportunity for that building is to actually adapt and reuse it, not to have to tear it down or do anything to that ridiculous nature. In addition, there was a comment, Janice, you'd asked me if I had any communications with any of the other neighbors. I was referring to the residential neighbors. On a commercial scale, you guys have letters of support from various neighbors. There is one neighbor in particular who has been completely against our business since the day that we opened our doors. And he, in fact, initially hired Mr. Gross to come to the table and lobby against our proposal. That individual intended to purchase the lot. They made a verbal offer to the current landowner and was turned down. And essentially ever since then, it has been a battle with this individual. I will also mention the last individual had said that the parking issue, as I said, we totally get it. We are willing, more than willing, to work with you all on the issues at hand there. But there are no parking minimums within Lexington. And also regarding that building, 25 years, not a single person ever complained about it until we came into the equation. And the first person to complain about it was the individual that's been against us from the start. Lastly, I just want to mention a lot was mentioned about the history of the neighborhood. the history of this exact lot actually was that prior to 1998, prior to the current rezoning as a B4, it operated as a bar. And so we're essentially bringing that history back into the area. And a lot of the neighbors who have purchased properties in the area, like Paul, I'm sure, remembers when it was a bar. And many of those longstanding neighbors would remember that and know that it has had those intentions and uses prior to what we're proposing. That is all. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. We do not intend to apply for a medical cannabis license. None of those things are yet set in stone with the state in any regard, and so we do not intend to do that within this law. With respect to the compliance of the comprehensive plan, this is infill. This is environmentally sustainable design. This is creating an entertainment district that is a draw for the workforce and the talent. This is, we feel this is strongly in compliance with the comprehensive plan. We think it's a great addition to the neighborhood. It cleans up an unused lot and provides a viable business there. We'd urge you to support it and approve it, and we're available for questions should you have any later. Thank you. Mr. Gross, anything? Okay. The other citizens that had comments, Paul, do you want to add anything on your rebuttal? Okay. All right. Well. Well, well, well. We're bringing back to the commission for questions to staff, applicant, or citizens. Mr. Mickler? Yeah, I did have one question in particular. A few comments were made, and it was highlighted in the staff's presentation as part of this application, is to be able to have parking for food trucks. And some comments were made about the noise, and the amount of electricity that food trucks require, those generators are noisy. Would you all be a minimal to putting a note on here that you would provide at least 50 amp connections, 240 for a food truck that is typically what they would need to plug in? Yes, so our long-term plan within the area where it's all green is once we dig up the impervious surface to put in the pervious payment, we would be providing electric, gas, and water stations to those food trucks. I would also say- Is there a note now or would you be amenable to adding that note to the development plan? Yes. Our intention, because we're applying for the stormwater mitigation grant, would be to dig up that whole area if and when we get that grant. So as long as it would not interfere with our current bringing in the food trucks now, that road is quite noisy in itself. There's also a train. I think those electric hookups need to be in place whether or not you get the stormwater grant. Oh, no, even if we didn't get the grant, we intend to dig up that whole pavement and do it. But time-wise is more of my concern of being able to have the food trucks on now versus in a year from now. I think staff mentioned that they would want the improvements to be in place for this to be certified. You're giving it. We've had discussions with the applicant and our intent is to see that these improvements are done in a timely manner, yes. Thank you. Just checking, when we heard this in subdivision committee, I don't think we had seen the adaptive reuse compliance report, and that was part of your recommendation to us that we postpone. Is staff still recommending postponement on this project? The subdivision committee recommended postponement. Staff has not made a recommendation at this time. We felt like the discussion items were relevant to the committee's postponement action. And the review of the adaptive review use was kind of an ongoing. We were requesting additional information from the applicant. And we did a point total, as you know. And, again, they had to meet a minimum of 10. And we agree with their proposal that they exceed the 10 and have achieved 15 points on the criteria basis. Mr. Wilson. Just a couple of clarifications, and this might be for the legal. Is this development plan in compliance with the zoning ordinance? I believe you're asking about the zoning restriction question that was brought up earlier. So I have reviewed that language that's in the ordinance, and I believe staff's interpretation is completely defensible. I've also gone through the packet that Mr. Gross provided in his presentation and his interpretation. I respect Mr. Gross. What I would say on that is that if the intent of that restriction were to limit the Planning Commission's ability to amend only the materials and not the rest of the buffer, that was not explicit in the condition. And if you're going to impose any condition on someone's use of property, whether it be a zoning, conditional zoning, conditional use permit, whatever that may be, the intent needs to be explicit in the text. So I support staff, but I also want to point out that that's a bit of a red herring argument with respect to the adaptive reuse portion of this. You don't have to approve this shed if you decide not to. You could still approve it as adaptive reuse if you think that's appropriate. Okay, I got you. One other quick question. Is this plan, is the development plan in compliance with our comprehensive plan? Is this project in compliance with our comprehensive plan? Mr. Wilson, that's a great question, and that was brought up by Mr. Gross. However, the zoning ordinance doesn't specifically say it has to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan that I read. Even the intent statements for the B4 zone mention the adaptive reuse projects and their importance, but it does not go so far as to say adaptive reuse projects must be in compliance with the comprehensive plan. It does talk about in establishing new B4 zones, which in this case refers back to that. It would be I1 as well. Those need to be established in accordance with the comprehensive plan. but the existing zones and the existing use of the zoning ordinance is we read that the letter of the law as opposed to in compliance with that other document. Does that make sense? Okay. So compliance with the comprehensive plan isn't really the standard by which you approve a development plan. I got you. Okay, Mr. Chairman, just one more question for the applicant. Did you all give any other consideration to where that dumpster could be placed other than where it is at this stage on your development plan? Yes, we did. We considered multiple locations and working with the solid waste in terms of their requirements, in terms of the movement of their vehicles and their restrictions that they have about especially backing out and backing up. And that seemed to be, unfortunately, the best worst location possible for the site. Thank you. Do you have any other questions? Discussions? Yes, Mr. Nickel. I do have a question for staff or whoever. I think staff. So we're looking at, I want to talk about parking and the lack of parking that is provided on, looks like, Willard and Perry. These are houses that have been around since we're hearing 1850. We're seeing that this is working families that are single-family residents' owners. Is our community going to make an effort to provide the services needed, such as sidewalks, for those two areas, Willard and Perry? Is there an effort to provide the services that we get everywhere else in this neighborhood? That area would, I'm at a loss for words again. We could apply CDBG funds based on the socioeconomic characteristics of that neighborhood to provide necessary infrastructure. Why it hasn't been done yet, I cannot speak to that. Because they have their own priorities and they have their own projects and they do them all over the community. But the answer is yes, certainly. There could be infrastructure projects done by the government in those neighborhoods to improve their facilities, certainly. I mean, they could just use public money, period. But I'm just pointing out that they could certainly use grant funds and other monies available as well. That would be helpful to have someone look at that, considering what we're trying to do with Manchester Street, what we're trying to do with street parking, how we're trying to increase economic opportunities in our city. And we're looking at this neighborhood is in desperate need of that. And I think we would have a much different conversation if the services were provided here as everywhere else. So hopefully someone will look into that and see how we can provide these 27 houses with some services. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Davis. Mr. Martin, could you please explain again the restriction on the rear, I believe was it 40 feet of the property on movement from, is it 7 PM to 7 AM? I think that condition pretty much speaks for itself. It's an accurate condition and it restricting movement in that area. and it was intended to protect the neighborhood from the noises associated with that before use equipment and trucks and that sort of activity. So it does impact the rear of the property, as you've heard from both staff and from Mr. Gross. It comes right down to the middle of that access to Willard, that they will have to address movement in that area, certainly as part of their management of their site. Okay, I only ask because I don't have the text of that condition in front of us unless I'm totally missing it. No. We're saying you're creating a place. So this is for this specific property. Okay. No physical movement or operation of any vehicles or any equipment within the rear 40 feet of the subject property adjacent to 220 Willard Street between the hours of 7 PM and 8 AM. Okay, what struck me was the placement of the dumpster. I know many dumpsters are picked up in the early hours of the day. So are we setting, how do you reconcile that? I believe that a public service, such as dumpsters, probably wasn't anticipated as necessarily being restricted by that, because that's a public service. And I think the restriction was intended to address the private use of the property. And again, I'm not aware that even a dumpster was ever on that property back when that restriction was imposed. So it may not have even been considered an issue at that time. Thank you. Do you have any further discussion? If not, I'll just close this portion out and just we can converse between ourselves or the floor is open. Michael? If I can take a shot at this. I think that what we're seeing here is I can sympathize and appreciate taking an existing business that you have and trying to adapt and meet people with what they're looking for now. And I would like to make a motion to approve PLN MJDP 23-32 with the staff's recommended conditions. I would like to make the following additions to the conditions that we require the electric hookups be in place prior to allowing food trucks to use the space on the site. and that we modify the zoning restriction back to allow for the five-foot width defense. To Article 18. Thank you. Okay. We're going to get that up on the – are we going to get that up here? Your handwriting is better than okay. Thank you. Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second to that motion? Mr. I have a second motion. I'd like to ask Mr. McClure if he could consider one other condition. Okay, Mr. Owens. Since, you know, there's been a lot of discussion about the shed and since it wasn't permitted and since it probably was never suspected in any sort of way prior to the land, them to use it, I think it should be inspected either. I'm thinking about building inspection, but would you consider a condition to allow that to occur? I would consider a condition to allow that to occur. Would you, just so that they don't have to come back to this body, maybe allow it to be inspected by a building inspection or a licensed engineer? Sure. Yeah. Okay. Ms. Wirth? I don't think this can be a condition. Simply, I've heard the applicants talk about, in thinking of the parking, dealing with permitted parking. And having seen that in some other parts of town where one side only didn't get the job done, and then they had to go to permitted parking, that permitted parking for the residents that if the residents are interested in doing that, that you all would really actively help them pursue that to fix this problem. Thank you, Ms. Wirth. Okay, we have a motion and a second. That motion reads on the additional conditions require electric hookups prior to allowing food trucks to operate. Second, approve a change to the landscape buffer from 15 feet to 5 feet with a fence per Article 18 of the zoning ordinance. Okay. With the addition that the shed be inspected by building inspection or a licensed engineer. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Make sure we have that up there so everybody can read it. Larry, Larry, do you want to let the applicant, she's trying to comment. The applicant has a question to clarify one of those. For the electrical hookup, is it because the food trucks are outside of the 40 feet noise issue that's in the back, Can it be that it's requiring electrical hookups for food trucks within that 40 feet? I think my motion stands as is. All right, Mr. Davis? Davis has, you got something, Mr. Lawrence? I'm good. You good? Okay. Mr. Davis. I want to thank the applicants because I think so much very creative thought was put into this. And I think there is a path to yes. I'm going to vote against the motion, but I feel you've put so much work into it that you deserve an explanation. Having small children, being next to a use like this, so close. And then when I saw that dumpster on that line, and I know you're under a really tight restriction there working with solid waste, but that dumpster is going to get collected at 5, 6 a.m. And I'm just not at a yes yet. I think you're on your way. Postponement would have been my preference. But thank you for your work. Thank you for trying to make Lexington better. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Davis. Is there not any further discussions? We can vote via Granicus. It's a tie. Motion fails. So let's open it back up. The floor is open again for a motion. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of, where are we? PLNMJDP 2332. Okay. And two, do we need to state a date? Or do we have to disapprove in order for the applicant to try again? So the Planning Commission is out of time. You have 90 days, and they have postponed of their own accord past that date. So today, they would have to be willing to postpone the application in order for you to continue to hear it. If it fails today and you don't approve it, they can reapply. Yeah. Okay. No time limit. So the applicant has the ability to? Yes. On a development plan, they can reapply. Did someone not say? Did someone abstain? Did somebody not vote? I thought you did. Oh, it didn't show up. Four and four, yeah. We do. I didn't pay attention to that. Do you have me a stop, buddy? Yes. Let me make sure. Who didn't vote? There you go. Well, there you go. Yeah, we killed that problem. Might have been me. I don't know. I thought I did. No, Ms. Worth, your vote did not record. What did you vote on? We can do a show of hands. So for the approval with the motion, all in favor, please raise your right hand. One, two, three, four. Five. Five. All right. Well. Who was five? Motion passes. I'm sorry. I think we need a computer for Judy, too. Well, this has been going on for three months. Okay, all right, so motion passes. Thank you. Okay, that put us on page five, PLNMJDP 23-37, and we have revised staff recommendations here in our packet. And the act. Okay. Are we ready? We're looking at Plan MJ DP23-37 Newtown Corporation Industrial Park for ABC storage. And yes, as Mr. Foster said, we have a revised condition on a blue sheet. This property is located off of Kennedy Drive, which is off of Newtown Pike out near New Circle Road, just to the north of this. They did a consolidation and consolidated two lots together, one with the existing structure, the large roof, and then the other structure to the left. That one was removed, so this is where they're coming in and putting in the new storage buildings that they're proposing. As you can see here, you have one large building that they're keeping that, and then the addition of individual storage units to the left. They've been working with us, with the city, different governmental agencies to revise the plan. We've come up with a list of revised conditions. As you can see for the first 11 conditions are typical sign-offs. We just have a few cleanup conditions left, just minor little things, correct location of construction access note. This must have been copied from another plan, but it's a reference to, I believe, Wilson Downing, which this is Wilson Downing is far away from here. So that's one of our cleanups. just we want to make sure we have the access drive on the development plan for how they're going to get into the property on the existing structure as they show here they have a driveway but the development plan that I had did not have that driveway so that's why we're asking for that driveway to be shown typical building size they have individual units typically we see a typical unit dimension Some of these are 10 by 10, 10 by 20, 5 by 5, so we just need to have typical to know where they are. This was reviewed by the Royal Springs Aquifer. We just need to denote the date that this was in front of them. And with that, speaking with the applicant, she has submitted an exhibit to show how she's meeting the articles for parking, landscaping, and open space. She had submitted an exhibit into Acela. I had not seen that yet. So right here it just says that that's one of the conditions. So we'll review that and make sure that's all complete. So with that, I open it to you to see if there's any other comments or questions or concerns. Do we have any questions for staff at this moment? Oh, man. Thank you. Applicant. Hello. My name is Mary Domigan with Geisler Domigan Engineers. We've been working with you guys, with the Planning Commission, just the different agencies, whether it be the fire department, traffic engineering, green space, urban forester I've spoken with, and we feel that we're in compliance with the zoning ordinance and would like your approval today. Thank you. Let me see here. Are there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay. All right. That was pretty easy. We'll just bring it back to the commission then for a vote. Floor is open. Ms. Barstow? Okay, I'm sorry. All right, I'd like to make a motion for approval of PLN MJDP 2337. Is that the right one? Newtown Corporation? Yes, based on the revised staff recommendation. With the 20 conditions that the staff shows. All right, thank you. Do we have a second to that motion? I'm going to try. It would work. Seconded by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion? Hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes with one abstention from Ms. Meyer. She went to the, she had left out during the application process, during the conversation, so she didn't hear. Mr. Owens, did he leave? Yeah, yeah, Mr. Owens, he's left. Okay, all right. So that'll put us on last item, item E, PLN, MJDP 23-47, Fox Property, Lot 4. Okay, this property is located near the corner of Versailles Road and Parker's Mill. We have our Starbucks here at the corner. This is the property adjacent to it. They're coming in to put in a restaurant drive-through for a, I believe it's seven brews. So they've come in with a modified development plan. We've seen this a couple times. Now they've come in with a development plan. The last time we saw it was with one driveway into the property and out of the property, but now they've come back with two, revising the driveway access. So you have one access point in, which will allow you to write in, and then you can also left in off of our sales road. but as your access point leaving you can only write out onto Versailles Road. They do have an area open in the structure itself for walk-ins to place orders. Let's see if, yes, this is kind of faint, but the structure, the building here, and then right here at the front of it being Versailles Road up here at the top, They have an open area for people to walk in to be able to place orders and to be able to walk back out. They have a door at the front of the building, which also will lead to the sidewalk out to for sales road. With that, this revised plan, we have our typical sign-offs for the first, make sure that I got this right, first 12 conditions. Then we just had a couple cleanup conditions left. addition of existing and proposed easements. We asked for the access point into the structure for the interior order point. On this plan, the color up that they submitted, they do have an access point. You can see it very faintly right here at the front of the structure. So they didn't have that on the other development plan. To note that the access to the property from Versailles Road is subject to the approval by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, seeing this being a state road. We want to ask for them to remove the proposed benches and statue from the floodway. They have been working trying to figure out the last plan that we had. They had benches shown here in the floodway, and that is not permitted. So we asked them to remove that. As you can tell, on their color-up, they did remove that, but we hadn't seen that prior to this. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you. Any comments or questions for staff? I have a question. I'm looking at the overhead, the aerial photo. And if I understood correctly, there is going to be an allowance as traffic is heading out of town. You can enter across three lanes of traffic to get into this. Is that what I'm seeing? There's a turn lane that goes down the center here. So it's a left turn to get off into the other area, but as you can see, there's an arrow here as a left turn that they could possibly use to get into here. Further down, for Sales Road, you have the left turn into Parker's Mill, but this same line is also the left turn to get onto Alexandria Drive. So I'm figuring this center is going to be a turn lane to get into this property. But that would be something that they would work with the state with. So it's only two lanes heading east that they would be driving across. There's only two lanes heading east? There's two lanes. All right. So the, all right, I see. So there's only two lanes heading east. Okay. Right. Yes, because up on the top is the north. To the left is heading west towards Versailles and heading right is heading downtown. I see this. Yep. That's right. Mm-hm. Any other questions? Did I answer your question? well i think so maybe i don't know if traffic can give a little yeah so miss my everything's here maybe he can answer a couple questions too she's talking about going away from town yes talking about as traffic is exiting is going out for sales road towards for sales okay towards the airport there there looks to be a middle lane that is showing that you could turn left or right that's correct yes thank you okay thank you applicant Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. Here with us today we have Jason Taylor. He is the owner of the property, correct? And he can also speak on behalf of Seven Brew, who is the applicant for this. Also with me is Jihad Hollony from Vision Engineering, and he can help answer any questions we have related to the traffic and to the floodplain. But this plan was recommended for approval by the staff and the subdivision committee as well. There are 16 conditions. We agree with these conditions and ask for your approval now. and we would be glad to answer any questions you may have or any that people from the audience would have. Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Yes, Mr. Michler. Yeah, I have some questions. The first is, I have a question just in regards to this plan for this neighborhood business zone, which is intended to serve the neighborhood. And if I see this correctly, the vehicular use area is 17,249 square feet, and the little building is 681 square feet. It's a small building. building it has uh it's a drive-through coffee business it has dual uh drive-through lanes around it and then it has also a bypass lane around it and then it's got some parking and i know it does seem like a lot of asphalt for the building but because of that we're able to queue up. Maybe 94% asphalt, no sorry, 96% asphalt, 6% building, maybe something like that. Well not for the whole lot, there's also a lot of green. Oh yeah, so the building's even less. But yeah, I mean for this type of business this makes it very functional and we're able to have a lot of storage on the property of cars whereas go next door and they've got a single lane wrapping around the building. So you're not going to see the problems with this layout that you would in, say, like a Starbucks in other locations. Well, I guess I'm having trouble reconciling the sort of, on the one hand, saying it's not going to be a big impact or too big of a problem with traffic, and then the other hand saying we need, you know, double drive-through capacity with 30 seconds per car transaction speeds and the capability of moving this many cars through this lot. Yeah, well, with the double, I mean, it makes it more efficient, and I guess is your concern that you're going to be having more people coming and going quicker? I guess my concern is we're overbuilding a sensitive property. I don't see it as we're overbuilding. I see it as we're making it a lot more efficient and safer for the community. And there's a lot of things with this that... I'll go ahead. I'm JC Taylor. So to your concerns, there's 27,000 cars on Versailles Road right now. That's not a neighborhood business. So Euclid Avenue in Lexington would be a neighborhood business. There's 10,000 cars. That's a very walkable area. This is a main corridor in Lexington. There's one of these already built on Harrisburg Road. If you go out by the Chick-fil-A, it functions very well. 30% of the sales coming through this restaurant are before 12 o'clock. 70% are in the afternoon. This is a beverage retailer. They do associate with coffee, but they're not strictly coffee-driven. And then if you look at the corridor, immediately with the businesses that have been successful, they have drive-thrus. So you have a Taco Bell. You have a McDonald's. You have a Dunkin' Donuts. You have two banks with drive-thrus. You have three gas stations with drive-thrus. You have two pharmacies that had a drive-thru. There's a new state-of-the-art library coming through that has a drive-thru. So, I mean, this is a vehicular corridor, and I don't see that changing. Does that answer kind of your question? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. citizens' comments. Yes, sir. I know we have two citizens in the audience. Paula Singer, 110 Hamilton Park, Lexington. I don't know where to begin. This is a very traffic-wise dangerous corner at Parker's Mill and Versailles Road. I'm there every morning turning left onto Parker's Mill, and there are so many illegal left turns going on right now that it seems to be something that's condoned by this city. They're illegal because they're unsafe for pedestrians and for bicyclists and for vehicles. This property sits a few feet away from the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, which emphasizes B1 should be for neighborhoods. We are a neighborhood. We have new housing, we have the aforementioned new library, and we have a new school and we have a lot of affordable housing that is provided to people who don't necessarily have vehicles or they have one vehicle. And as a result, there is a great deal of pedestrian traffic on Versailles Road. And this is not traffic simply for people's athletic health. This is traffic for people who are buying groceries, who are picking up their children from school, who are availing themselves of other small businesses such as cleaners and maybe even a donut shop. But the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan, which has already received a great deal, millions of dollars in public funding to support it, to support the efforts along Versailles Road to improve safety, to improve the amenities for the public, for the pedestrians and for bicyclists. And this body needs to support the millions of public dollars already spent for the benefit of the Versailles Road Corridor residential neighborhood. And not to support something that is going to be a step back from progress that we have already made. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, Planning Commission. My name is Austin Wilkerson. Before I begin, as I understand, we have some items to submit to the record here. These are letters from Amy Clark. Oh, okay. So you can distribute those? Yeah, and I can distribute them, and then she has some photos she'd like to submit as well and show up on the projector. Do you have comments about what they are? I will comment on this, actually, yes. Am I okay to distribute these letters? This, right here. You want to grab those letters? Thank you. Again, my name is Austin Wilkerson. I'm sure some of you all recognize me by now. Just to clarify, I live at 2484 Versailles Road, the neighboring property which contains the floodplain on which this development plan is encroaching. I've recently been designated the beneficiary of a trust in which this floodplain is contained, with the express instructions to act as its custodian for the next 50 years or so. So as the beneficiary, I have a property interest in the development of these neighboring properties and their impact on the floodplain and also, no less crucially, I'm a neighbor and a commuter, and I have concerns about this development plan. I have serious reservations about a high-intensity property like this drive-through functioning next to the floodplain, as well as exacerbating the traffic conflicts and hazards on Versailles Road at Parker's Mill, which have already been mentioned. We've talked a bit about the access to the Starbucks. Would it be possible to pull up the colored development plan really quickly? Sorry for the inconvenience. Ah, yes. You may notice that there are now two points. The previous development plans contained one access and egress point. There's now a new egress point that is maybe three car lengths away from the entrance to the Starbucks. This is alleged to be left turn prohibited, so people would be turning right. The Starbucks is also supposed to be left turn prohibited, but as someone who lives next door, I watch people make illegal left turns out of that Starbucks all the time. So with this new access, egress point, I'm sorry, so close to the Starbucks, it's just going to increase the conflicts and hazards already there. I know we're not here to talk about Starbucks, but it's just an unfortunate factor of living next door to them and attempting to operate next door to them. The congestion is already unbearable at this intersection, and you'll hear the applicants say that their hope is to take more traffic from Starbucks. But what good does it do if you're just spitting them out again 10, 15 feet away from their entrance? You'll also note that even though there are two lanes through the drive-thru, there is one exit. So all of these cars will be piling in and then doing the shimmy or whatever to try to get out onto the road, and it's already backed up. And then the Starbucks itself is a mere 30 feet away from Parker's Mill. I think Frank Penn previously described this DP plan as trying to stuff seven pounds of flour into a five-pound sack. It's just infeasible. Can we go now to the Seven Brew photo? Thank you. This is a photo found on Seven Brew's website itself. It's black and white. It's kind of hard to see. If you look closely, you'll see that this Seven Brew is set on a service road, which runs back this way. and it's hard to tell but from if you look closely you can see the traffic spin around and actually spill out onto that service road imagine if this were instead on a main artery and it is worth noting that the other two seven brews in location are on either service roads or in shopping centers i think the one in near the chick the new chick-fil-a out harrodsburg road is in a shopping center. Again, just adding to the traffic concerns. We don't have really any demonstration of this working on a major artery, and as the neighbor, I'm not really keen to be the guinea pig. Also, there should be a letter from Ken Cook in the record, and I want to echo his concerns. Although Ken and the Friends of Wolfram Creek approved a previous DP, they've taken serious umbrage with this development plan, and again, I agree. The latest DP encroaches dangerously upon the floodway which runs through the flood plan. The floodway not only feeds and sustains the floodplain itself but provides adequate drainage for the surrounding areas. And even with Clomars redrawing the floodplain, I think drawing so near to the floodplain itself is dangerous, or I'm sorry, floodway. And again, as kind of the steward of the adjacent property, and of course the floodplain affects so much more than just the floodplain itself as well. I don't feel that this meets, I would love to see more evidence showing that this isn't going to negatively impact and conflict with zoning. In brief, the questions and concerns are unending. As the Planning Commission knows, this is what, maybe the third, maybe fourth development plan for this property now. And this plan seems to show even less concern for the floodplain, the neighbors, the commuters, the traffic, than the previous ones. They are encroaching upon the floodplain by some greater 25 feet, I think it is, and all of the confusing, conflicting access egress points shows no concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, people like myself trying to commute safely to work and back. This DP does not satisfactorily meet the required ordinance, and adding an interior order point in a couple of tables is not sufficient to alter the drive-throughs as principal use. like I said, or like Frank Penn said 7 pounds of flour, 5 pounds sack lastly and most crucially with all due respect to Mr. Taylor this is a residential area we have schools, churches you all are aware there's a park a new park going in, Cardinal Run North of Parker's Mill, there are people walking their dogs there are bicyclists this development plan does not reflect the values and vision of this neighborhood which are increasingly pedestrian and residential. This is a matter of public welfare and safety regarding both traffic and the floodplain, not just natural preservation and convenience. The residents of Versailles Road and Parker's Mill did not want this DP three times ago. We did not want it last time. We did not want it when it was a restaurant, and we do not want it now. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And happy birthday to your son. I think he's not a shout out today. Should we back to the applicant? Do we get more citizen comments? Sorry. Hi there. I'm Brian Mullins, and I'm in support of the business or the drive-thru lane being approved. I'm a business owner in that area. I own the business at the corner of our sales road in Alexandria. and the reason I've owned that property since I guess 2001 and so I've been a longtime property owner first it was a car wash and the reason I put that car wash there was because of the traffic traffic is gonna be there whether the business is there or not I mean it's it's an entrance to Lexington that's the whole reason why that improved public dollars are spent on the corner there to improve it because it's an entrance to lexington they wanted to look at people are coming from bluegrass parkway coming from other cities they're not walking from bluegrass parkway they're driving their car so the reason we put their car wash there was to be able to take some of that traffic and and hopefully turn a profit somehow we also had problems with zoning at that point as well and we know what the reason why, but we had to go through a board of adjustments, get a board of adjustments approval to be able to put a car wash. And the whole reason why, and it came down to what we only got one vote that said, yeah, enough. And it was because neighbors wrote in letters, but it was all because of the owner of the gas station across the street just put in a car wash. He didn't want it. So he kind of used the system against business owners who wanted to put that in. He knew it. We called him. We talked to him about it. He admitted it. So he was using the system against people. That makes anybody who wants to start a business in Lexington a little bit angry. But anyways, I digress on that. But the traffic's going to be there anyways. And it's confusing to me as a business owner as well that it's a coffee shop with a drive-thru. Next door is a coffee shop with a drive-thru. That's a little wonky. Oh, we're not going to approve this one, but that one's okay. Turning left out of there, yes, I mean, I admit I've been one that has turned left out of Starbucks there leaving town. So I guess I'm being unlawful. But the reason being, too, is looking at that no matter what business you put in there to be one, you're going to have the same issues. People have to leave the property. So even if they turn right to the daycare, people are going to still turn left. So they've done the best they can, it looks like, from the development plan to keep people from turning left. And to me, it's already walkable. It's got sidewalks. I think it serves the community by having those sidewalks and being able to go along there. So I'm in support of it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good afternoon. My name is Francisco Castro and I own JCC together with my twin brother. And if I could ask a big favor, could we put the overview of that corner? We actually own the building that's right behind the central building. Right on the other side of Parker's Mill, the overview picture, I guess. And more than anything, I'm also the president of the Greater Garden Site Association, which is right there in that area. In my opinion, we really need something in that location because I don't know about you, but I want my property values to go up. We are right on that other side. If you go on Parker's Mill, you go right straight into our building. And I am one of those that unfortunately, I don't like to drive. I drive, park my car right there in our parking lot. And I don't like to drive if I go to Taco Bell. I don't drive to Taco Bell. I walk. When I go to Starbucks, I actually walk. I'm actually walking that area on a constant basis. And so I have seen people walking, and I have not seen any issues with cars coming in and out. And more than anything, in the year and a half that we've been in that location, I've seen only one accident. And that was because there was a young kid on Versailles Road that wanted to run the red light and hit a lady that was coming on Parker's Mill and basically hit her. That's the only accident we've seen or I've seen in a year and a half that I'm there. So we really need something in that location. As a business owner, I will benefit from having something else there because I don't know about you guys, but I like a neighbor. I would like to have a business neighbor in the future. I hope they want to join our Greater Garden Site Association and make that area an incredible area. Most of our clients live in that 40504 area. We serve over 130 Hispanic clients, and they're constantly coming into our building, especially during tax seasons. We fill our parking lot. I haven't seen any problems with our clients coming in and out. So if parking is the issue, if traffic is the issue, I haven't seen it. And one of the things that I don't like, if you go in, I wanted to take a picture so bad. If nobody goes to that area, that's an empty lot. We have right now growing vegetation. Who's going to go and mow it? Who's going to take care of it? I would like some of my neighbors to volunteer and say, I volunteer to go take care of that location. Then in that place, I don't have a problem saying, well, we don't need anybody. But we do need because a business there means money for our community, money for our city, and it means a good neighbor for us. Thank you very much. And again, happy birthday to your son. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other citizens, Mr. Taylor? Okay, yes. I was just making sure we had any other additional comments on the citizen comments. I have to rebut. Yes, sir, we're getting there right now. Thank you. Now we're in rebuttal stage, applicant. Yeah. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, my name is Jehat Hallani, it was Vision Engineering. In regard to this floodplain, this property had already, CLOMER already issued by FEMA on the previous approved development plan. If this proposal gets approved today, we go back to FEMA and approve it based on the new site layout. So we'll have a CLOMER. And all the development that we are proposing is going to be outside the floodway. So we're planning to put some retaining walls to kind of minimize the impact in flood plain so there will be retaining walls around the property to kind of minimize the footprint of any impact to the flood plain and with regard to the traffic so we did research the last five years of accident along that corridor area actually number of accident 25 accident which is almost 20 to 25 percent below the state average for a roadway of four lane of traffic so we are below it's like 25 below the state average and most of this accident are within the parking lot not on the main arterial road so and the layout that we propose is basically we went through back what has been provided in front of the planning commission on the previous coffee shop proposal, and a lot of the traffic was backing up into it. It has the potential to back up into Versailles Road. So this proposal will show a two-lane of drive-through, which will end up increasing the rate, if you want to do the ratio of the building to paved area. But the intent is basically to contain all the traffic within the site at the worst-case scenario without impacting the traffic along the arterial road. So basically that's the whole intent and that's for me if there's any question I'd be glad to answer it. I have a couple things to add and I can submit these. One, this is an aerial showing outside New Circle Road on Versailles. It's an aerial showing outside New Circle Road in front of Calumet all the way up through the library. There's 44,000 cars on Versailles Road until you get the new circle. There's 27,000 once you hit Parker's Mill. There's 24,000, it's not on there, once you get to Forbes Road. There's 4,000 homes within one mile. I'll submit this right here. Okay? So let's assume that every home within one mile has two drives past this site twice, right? Once to work and back. That's 8,000 trips. There's another 19,000 trips. Let's assume that that's the same person going to and back. It's 9,500 people that live outside of the area, driving the area. They're coming from Frankfort. They're coming from Lawrenceburg. They're coming up to BG. They're coming from Whitford County. Unfortunately for Lexington, we don't have enough homes for people to live here. We don't. We love the horse industry. I'm a developer in Lexington. I love the horse industry. I don't want to go anywhere. It's what makes us unique. But people have to live elsewhere and come in. This corridor will not lose traffic. It's not going away. The appropriate B1 corridor is Alexandria Drive, where Kroger is. You don't want to drive through on there? Okay. That's a more walkable area. But this area will always have this much traffic. It's not going away. And drive-through restaurants are appropriate in corridors. So that's why this is an appropriate use. Comments were made about access points and how close they are. There's no difference in these two access points between what we're proposing and Starbucks to McDonald's and Taco Bell. and Taco Bell drive-thru dumps directly onto the road at the stoplight. There's not even a car's distance from the stoplight where Taco Bell drums out. And it seems to function just fine. Ms. Singer made a comment about the cleaners. The cleaners has a drive-thru. People want convenience. I have three kids under the age of nine. My wife's not getting out to go into a restaurant. And the last statistic that I didn't write is that nationally, All restaurant sales in the U.S. last year, 70% of them were through drive-thru. We are in a vehicular city. It's not going away. I love people walking. We love bikes. We love any other transportation things that we can come up with. But for sales road, we'll always have cars, and this is appropriate. I appreciate Gerald's time. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. One last thing. Frank Penn has never seen this plan because this plan was changed. We had Scooter's Coffee here with one exit. That plan was not liked. We understood it. It had a variance. This plan has no variance. This plan has one entrance, one exit. It functions well. It stacks 20 cars. The ordinance only stacked. The need is six. Thank you, sir. Citizen. Ms. Paula, do you have anything additional? Thank you. I would just add that putting together drive-thrus with pedestrians and bicyclists is a recipe for accidents. And those who are going to suffer are those not in the vehicles. So as we in this city try to encourage safe streets, let's start right here. Thank you. Thank you. Sir. Everyone seems to take the stance that I'm somehow anti-business. I'm an entrepreneur myself. I, too, would love to see some wonderful use for the property next door to mine. However, I don't think it takes a traffic engineer to see that there is a development plan that would perhaps much more easily fit into the floodplain and address these traffic concerns. The dry cleaner across the street is on a service road. I can't obviously deny that there is a functioning Taco Bell across the street. Am I happy about it? Are any of my neighbors happy about it? Do any of the people in the neighborhood use it? Probably not. And again, there's a park going in next door. I would urge my chief concerns are the floodplain and the traffic. And there's just no denying that this massive, however many square foot chunk of pavement is ideal in this space. Again, there may be something that can fit here. I just can't see how it's this development plan. Thank you. Thank you. One other thing. I'm so sorry. I forgot these two things. One, we met with every HOA around there. Nobody opposed. So the colony and then the one across, we had a public meeting at the library, and their HOA showed up, and they didn't oppose this plan. They had no worries. They were glad we were not putting in a strip club or a vape store or a check in cash. Two, this property has set vacant for seven years in Lexington, Kentucky. If it was going to be developed, it could have been developed. It's not expensive rent. It's not an expensive property to purchase. We bought the lot for $350,000. It's an acre. Anybody in here can tell you that's extremely cheap. We're trying to build in this corridor. It needs investment. The business is telling you it needs investment. We have the second time come here with a good user for it. They already operate two units in Lexington. He wants to open five. Let's get this approved. Staff, do you have anything in addition? Okay, thank you. We'll bring this back to the commission for further discussions. I know there was a question for staff possibly on the plan. Is that a right out? Is it right in, right out only? The driveway coming in was a right in, and it's understood that it could be a left out also and a right out. Right in, left in. No, I'm sorry. You're right. Right in, right in. Right in, left in. I want to make sure that was. And then you have a right out on the other one. Okay, thank you. Okay, so to reiterate, so we're not yelling from the audience. Right in, right out, left in. Right, left in if you're going to over sales. Excuse me? If you're going to over sales, you have the ability to turn left in because the road allows you to turn left. There's this arrow that allows you to turn left, going to over sales. I've been on that road and that's why I want to double check. If you're on Versailles Road going towards Versailles, you pass Parker's Mill and there's a shared turn lane there. So, yes, you're able to get into the shared turn lane, turn left into this property. Yes. But is the right only out? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Yes, Ms. Meyer. I have a question about the Clomer. If I understood correctly, there's one it's been applied for under a different development plan. And so how does, so we've got a different development plan. And does this applicant reapply for a CLOMA? They will be required to file for an amended CLOMA with their new design and go through the entire review process and have it evaluated. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? There's a question. Yeah, I'm going to throw. There's a question. Yes, the question from Mr. On the right out only, the prohibition on the left turn, is there any sort of concrete, I mean, it's angled obviously to the right, but is there any barrier to try to discourage an illegal left turn? Yes, that's concrete. Concrete. A concrete curb to push the car right into inbound traffic. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wilson, are there any other questions, comments, discussions? If not, the floor is open for a motion if there's not. Mr. Chair, first of all, let me say that one of the things we're highly concerned with is this issue of pedestrian being able to walk and what have you. And that is very much a part of our planning going forward as we think about it, because that's what we think. We want more walkable neighborhoods. The other gentleman made a point about the vehicular thing. I think what we want is one thing, but what we have is something else. we do have a vehicular kind of avenue of approach of getting where we want to go. But with that said, I also note that the people in the community themselves, they seem to want something of this nature, and it doesn't seem to bother them, and there's been no very few accidents accordingly. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 2347 Fox Property, Lot 4, amended on 2400 for Sales Road, Lexington, Kentucky. okay thank you we have a motion we have a second to that motion second by mr nickel any further discussion to that motion okay please vote via grant okay Okay. Okay. I'm going to do your math. Yeah, my math is right. It's done. Oh, yeah, Mike. Mike's not mad. See? You can't do that. I thought I had to. Okay. Just for the commission, we actually need to, we need a motion to reconsider. Go back to page 4, privacy, PLNMJDP 23-32. Need a finding for that, Dr. Ray Green. Ms. Chairman Forrester, your microphone wasn't on. I'm sorry. So we need to go back and have a motion to reconsider PLNMJDP 23-32. And, Brittany, you was going to. Yes, I wanted to correct something that was said earlier on the record. I believe it may have been you, Commissioner Wilson, that asked this question. If not, I'm sorry, but there was a question about whether or not this needs to comply with the comprehensive plan. So I want to point out that in the zoning ordinance before special provisions that govern adaptive reuse, it says that the applicant must submit a compliance statement that shows how the project will further the comprehensive plan and that the planning commission, when approving the development plan, must adopt a finding that the development plan furthers the goals and objectives or elements of the comprehensive plan. So there must be a finding that furthers the comprehensive plan, which we did not do. So before we leave today, to complete that matter, that finding must be made. Sure. Let me just find the development plan number again here. So, Mr. Mickler, the applicant did provide their comprehensive plan statement, and they submitted a paragraph, and I apologize for the error with that, that identifies what goals and objectives they believe they're supporting with their project. And the staff would ask you to utilize that information in making this finding. Send our packet here. Before we do that, I've got a question about, we've lost a member who was here. and heard that case. So we end up, we could potentially end up in time for this finding. That is correct. How did Mike vote? Mike, yeah, do we know how? He's seconded my motion. Yeah, Mike seconded the motion. We can't assume what Mr. Owens would vote, but the plan has been approved. We're requesting that the Planning Commission go back and make a finding related to that plan. Yes, it could end in a tie. But it still can end in a tie, correct? But we're not reconsidering the entire development plan if we're just making a vote on a finding. But what if four people disagree with the finding? What happens with a tie? It's legal. Well, I think the tricky issue is that if we can't get support for the finding and the zoning ordinance requires that for an adaptive reuse project, then we don't have an adaptive reuse project approved. Of any kind. Can I make a question? I don't see. So the motion would be considered to be brought by the leaning side, is that right? Yes. And we... You could theoretically, although I'll leave this to your parliamentarian and what he would suggest, you could theoretically just do a motion for the finding and vote on that if you don't want to reconsider the entire vote since Mr. Owen is not here and take the vote again. But again, that doesn't remove the dispute about whether there's a tie on the finding or not. I don't know. I know. So I'm just going to suggest if you want to just do a motion for the finding itself and see, then that's probably fine. Either way, you still have the question that we have eight people here. Yeah. So the vote still has to take place. So let's just get the finding in place and then call for a vote. Mr. Chairman, I think part of the challenge was the finding should have been a part of this at the vote, you know, at the beginning. It shouldn't have been, you know, separated in the way that we're doing it now because now we're in real trouble. And quite frankly, I don't know what parliamentary rules say about that. The planning commission often takes two votes and separates out either a finding or a waiver with a second vote. That's not uncommon. Actually, that's how we prefer that you make those motions is to approve the plan with the finding or the waiver as a separate action because it involves its own conditions and that gives the body the ability to vote differently on that waiver or that special circumstance separate from the plan itself. Mr. Chairman, I would agree with that. The challenge here is that it still should have been done at the same time because you've lost a member. I mean, there's about 15 to 20 minutes or maybe even longer than that that has lapsed between the time we took the original vote, and now we're talking about these so-called things. I don't know what to do except we can vote and see what happens. Can you just highlight for me its number? Mr. Wilson. I'm sorry, what's the question? At this time, I figure we go through the process of get the finding and see what the vote is. And if it comes out on the winning side, prevailing side, then we don't have this conversation anymore. Okay. If it's a tie vote, then you're going to have to go home and get your vote. Well, the whole point of parliamentary is just what happened here is why you shouldn't, you know, the vote of reconsideration is considered in parliamentary law the only time-sensitive vote, which means you can't wait for hours before you take that particular vote. It just doesn't work that way. I got notice of it as soon as we were in the application, the second, the next application. We can take the vote and see what happens. No, I said there's no fault to anyone. It happened. We've got to move on. So, Mr. Mickler? I would like to propose the finding for a slightly adapted version of the applicant's text that this is in conformance with the 2018 comprehensive plan and meets the requirements outlined in the zoning ordinance 8-21-4, adaptive reuse projects, specifically goals and objectives that support infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area, theme A, goal 2, objectives A, B, and C. Apply environmentally sustainable practices to protect, conserve, and restore landscapes and natural resources, theme B, goal 3, objective A, support and showcase local assets to further the creation of a variety of jobs, Theme C, Goal 1, Objectives A and D. Encourage an entrepreneurial spirit and enhance a talent and creative workforce by establishing opportunities that embrace diversity with inclusion in our community. Theme C, Goal 2, Objectives A and B. Promote, support, and encourage and provide incentives for public art. Theme D, Goal 4. And uphold the urban service area concept. Theme E, Goal 1, Objectives B and D. Okay, thank you, Mr. Michler. We have a motion. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Worth. Okay. Yeah, it's okay. It's okay. So Ms. Worth seconded that motion. Do we have any further discussions to that motion? Okay. Is Granikis working right now? No. Okay. So all in favor, please raise your right hand. One, four, six, six to two. Yes, hold up. Get rid of the arm. Nice try. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duncan? Mr. Chair, thank you. Remind you all that we have a Planning Commission work session on Thursday, October 21st. We'll be back in the Phoenix building at 1.30. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.