# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - October 12, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 12, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5929 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5929?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-10-12 - **Last revised**: October 12, 2023 - **Length**: 34,968 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **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 October 12, 2023, at 1:36 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Zach Davis presiding as the meeting officer. The commission addressed five agenda items during the session, all of which received approval, including development plans for the Baptist Healthcare Campus, Townley Center, Interstate Park Property, a zoning map amendment for 509 E Main Street, and a public facilities review for Blue Grass Airport. Throughout the meeting, commissioners conducted 16 motions and votes while hearing from 5 public commenters on various agenda items. The session demonstrated active civic engagement with comprehensive review and unanimous approval of all proposed development and zoning matters before the commission. ## Attendance The following members were present at the October 12, 2023 meeting: • Zach Davis • Judy Worth • Janice Meyer • Graham Pohl • Ivy Barksdale • Robin Michler • William Wilson • Mike Owens • Bruce Nicol **Absent:** • Larry Forester No members arrived late to the meeting. Nine of the ten members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on 16 items during the October 12, 2023 meeting, with all nine members present: Zach Davis, Judy Worth, Janice Meyer, Graham Pohl, Ivy Barksdale, Robin Michler, William Wilson, Mike Owens, and Bruce Nicol. **Postponements to November 9, 2023** Six items were unanimously postponed [timestamp: 00:00]: - PLN-FRP-23-00019: Coleman Property (Clarion Convention Center) - Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Janice Meyer - PLN-MJDP-23-00059: Coleman Property (Newtown Pike Hampton Inn & Suites) - Motion by Judy Worth, seconded by William Wilson - PLN-MJDP-23-00064: Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) - Motion by Ivy Barksdale, seconded by Graham Pohl - PLN-MJDP-23-00030: Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 - Motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Mike Owens - PLN-MJDP-23-00058: Kingston Hall, Unit 2, Lot 4 - Motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Janice Meyer - PLN-MJDP-23-00050: Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1 - Motion by Graham Pohl, seconded by Ivy Barksdale **Unanimous Approvals** Nine items passed unanimously (9-0) [timestamp: 00:00]: - Consent agenda items - Motion by William Wilson, seconded by Ivy Barksdale - PLN-FRP-23-00033: Hamburg East, Lots 1 & 2 (Baptist Healthcare Campus) with revised conditions - Motion by William Wilson, seconded by Graham Pohl - PLN-MJDP-23-00055: Sharkey Property (Townley Center) Unit 1, Lot 15 with revised conditions - Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Graham Pohl - PLN-MJDP-23-00060: Interstate Park Property (IVCP Athens South) with revised conditions - Motion by Bruce Nicol, seconded by Graham Pohl - Performance bonds and letters of credit - Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Ivy Barksdale - SRA 2023-1: Amendment to Article 4 for Sureties Renewal - Motion by Judy Worth, seconded by Graham Pohl - PLN-MJDP-23-00052: Zee Faulkner Property with revised conditions - Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Ivy Barksdale - Blue Grass Airport Public Facilities Review compliance finding - Motion by William Wilson, seconded by Ivy Barksdale **Split Vote** PLN-MAR-23-00012: 509 E Main, LLC Zoning Map Amendment passed 6-3 [timestamp: 00:00]. Motion by Bruce Nicol, seconded by William Wilson. Voting yes: Davis, Worth, Meyer, Barksdale, Wilson, Owens. Voting no: Pohl, Michler, Nicol. Approval included revised conditions. **Additional Postponement** The commission also postponed action on PLN-MJDP-23-00052: Zee Faulkner Property Development Plan until after council action - Motion by Mike Owens, seconded by Bruce Nicol, passed unanimously. ## Public Comment Five community members addressed the council regarding the zoning amendment for 509 E Main Street [timestamp: 00:00]. **Bethany Baxter**, representing the Bell Court Neighborhood Association, spoke in opposition to the proposed zoning amendment. She raised concerns about increased traffic impacts, potential changes to the neighborhood's character, and criticized what she described as a lack of meaningful engagement with residents in the Bell Court area. **Dan Elkinson** focused his comments on preserving the historic character of the Bell Court neighborhood. He emphasized the area's residential nature and the importance of maintaining its existing character in the face of proposed development changes. **Trish Smith** addressed traffic and safety concerns related to the proposed development. She specifically highlighted issues with the neighborhood's narrow streets and existing parking problems, expressing worry about how additional commercial activity would exacerbate these conditions. **Marci Deaton**, who lives adjacent to the 509 E Main property, raised concerns about potential noise and odor impacts from the proposed development. She specifically mentioned worries about outdoor patios and commercial kitchen operations that could affect neighboring residents. **Will Kaufman** provided the sole voice of support for the project during public comment. He spoke positively about the proposed development's potential to bring diversity and new opportunities to the area. The public comments revealed a clear divide between neighborhood residents concerned about preserving the existing residential character and managing potential negative impacts, versus supporters who view the development as beneficial for the community. The majority of speakers expressed opposition or concerns about the zoning amendment proposal. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that drew community opposition. **509 E Main, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** The proposed zoning map amendment for 509 E Main, LLC faced substantial opposition from local residents and neighborhood organizations. The Bell Court Neighborhood Association led the opposition, raising several key concerns about the proposed development. The primary objections centered on three main issues: • **Traffic concerns** - Residents expressed worry about increased traffic volume and congestion that would result from the proposed zoning change • **Neighborhood character** - Community members argued that the amendment would negatively impact the existing character and feel of the area • **Lack of community engagement** - The Bell Court Neighborhood Association criticized what they perceived as insufficient outreach and consultation with affected residents prior to the proposal The opposition highlighted broader tensions between development interests and neighborhood preservation, with residents feeling that their concerns had not been adequately addressed in the planning process. The Bell Court Neighborhood Association served as the primary voice for community opposition, organizing residents and presenting their collective concerns to the governing body. The contested nature of this item reflects common challenges in municipal planning, where zoning amendments often create friction between property development rights and existing community interests. The specific outcome of this contested item was not detailed in the available meeting materials. ## PLN-FRP-23-00033: Hamburg East, Lots 1 & 2 (Baptist Healthcare Campus) [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed the final record plat for Hamburg East, Lots 1 & 2, which involves subdividing one existing lot into six separate lots for the Baptist Healthcare Campus development. Tom Martin and Brad Boaz served as key speakers during the discussion of this subdivision proposal. The project represents a significant development for the Baptist Healthcare Campus, requiring the creation of multiple lots from a single parcel to accommodate the planned healthcare facilities. The Subdivision Committee had previously reviewed the application and recommended approval, though they proposed revised conditions for the final plat. The specific details of these revised conditions were discussed during the meeting as part of the commission's consideration of the proposal. The commission ultimately approved PLN-FRP-23-00033, allowing the Hamburg East subdivision to proceed with the creation of the six lots from the original single lot. This approval enables Baptist Healthcare Campus to move forward with their development plans across the newly created parcels. The subdivision represents part of the ongoing expansion and development of healthcare facilities in the area, with the lot configuration designed to support the specific needs of the Baptist Healthcare Campus project. ## PLN-MJDP-23-00055: Sharkey Property (Townley Center) Unit 1, Lot 15 [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed an amendment to the Sharkey Property development at Townley Center Unit 1, Lot 15. The proposed changes included adding building square footage, revising parking circulation patterns, and relocating dumpster facilities on the property. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Dick Murphy, who presented details about the modifications to the existing development plan. The amendments were designed to improve the functionality and layout of the commercial property while maintaining compliance with local zoning requirements. Prior to the commission's review, the Subdivision Committee had already evaluated the proposed changes and recommended approval, contingent upon meeting specific conditions. The committee's positive recommendation provided a foundation for the commission's consideration of the amendment. The commission ultimately approved the amendment for PLN-MJDP-23-00055, allowing the developer to proceed with the proposed modifications to the Sharkey Property. The approval enables the addition of building square footage, implementation of the revised parking circulation plan, and relocation of dumpster facilities as outlined in the amended development proposal. This approval represents a standard review process for development amendments, where proposed changes to existing approved plans are evaluated for compliance with zoning regulations and community standards before receiving final authorization to proceed. ## PLN-MJDP-23-00060: Interstate Park Property (IVCP Athens South) [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed the Interstate Park Property development proposal, designated as IVCP Athens South, during agenda item IV.C. The project involves the development of a stadium and commercial facilities at the Interstate Park Property location. Key speakers during the discussion included Tom Martin and Brad Boaz, who presented details about the proposed development plans. The item was categorized as a discussion item, allowing commissioners to review the project specifications and address any concerns regarding the stadium and commercial development components. Prior to the commission meeting, the Subdivision Committee had already reviewed the proposal and provided their recommendation. The committee recommended approval of the project, but with revised conditions that were presented to the full commission for consideration. The commission ultimately approved the Interstate Park Property development proposal. The approval allows the project to move forward with the stadium and commercial development as outlined in the application, subject to the revised conditions recommended by the Subdivision Committee. This development represents a significant project for the Interstate Park Property area, combining both recreational facilities through the stadium component and commercial development opportunities that could serve the broader community. ## PLN-MAR-23-00012: 509 E Main, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed a zoning map amendment request from 509 E Main, LLC to modify existing conditional zoning restrictions on their property to allow for private club use. Daniel Crum and Nick Nicholson served as key speakers during the discussion of this agenda item. The staff presentation recommended approval of the zoning amendment with revised conditions that would accommodate the requested private club use while maintaining appropriate regulatory oversight. The commission considered the merits of allowing private club operations at the 509 E Main Street location, evaluating how this use would fit within the existing zoning framework and neighborhood context. The discussion focused on the specific conditional zoning modifications needed to enable the private club use while ensuring compatibility with surrounding properties and land uses. Following their review of the staff recommendation and consideration of the proposed revised conditions, the commission voted to approve the zoning map amendment. The approval allows 509 E Main, LLC to proceed with their private club use under the modified conditional zoning restrictions as recommended by staff. This zoning amendment represents a targeted modification to existing conditional zoning rather than a wholesale rezoning of the property, allowing for the specific private club use while maintaining the overall zoning structure for the area. ## PFR 2023-4: Blue Grass Airport Public Facilities Review [timestamp: 00:00] The commission reviewed Public Facilities Review 2023-4 concerning proposed developments at Blue Grass Airport. The review covered plans for constructing two new hangars and expanding the commercial fuel farm facility. Autumn Goderwis presented the staff analysis of the proposed airport improvements. Staff conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the project's compliance with the area's comprehensive plan and determined that the proposed construction meets all applicable planning requirements. The public facilities review process ensures that major infrastructure and facility developments align with local planning goals and regulations. For this airport expansion project, staff found no conflicts with existing comprehensive plan policies or zoning requirements. The commission approved the public facilities review, allowing the Blue Grass Airport project to proceed with the construction of the two new hangars and the expansion of their commercial fuel farm operations. This approval indicates that the proposed developments are consistent with the community's long-term planning objectives and will not adversely impact surrounding areas or conflict with established land use policies. The approval of PFR 2023-4 represents a standard administrative review process where staff recommendations aligned with commission findings, resulting in unanimous approval of the airport's expansion plans. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLN-FRP-23-00019: Coleman Property (Clarion Convention Center) to November 9, 2023 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-23-00059: Coleman Property (Newtown Pike Hampton Inn & Suites) to November 9, 2023 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-23-00064: Belmont Farm (Citation Centre) to November 9, 2023 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-23-00030: Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 to November 9, 2023 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-23-00058: Kingston Hall, Unit 2, Lot 4 to November 9, 2023 - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone PLN-MJDP-23-00050: Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A, Lot 1 to November 9, 2023 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve consent agenda items - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve PLN-FRP-23-00033: Hamburg East, Lots 1 & 2 (Baptist Healthcare Campus) - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-23-00055: Sharkey Property (Townley Center) Unit 1, Lot 15 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-23-00060: Interstate Park Property (IVCP Athens South) - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve performance bonds and letters of credit - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve SRA 2023-1: Amendment to Article 4 for Sureties Renewal - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approve PLN-MJDP-23-00052: Zee Faulkner Property - **Motion** — passed (6-3): Approve PLN-MAR-23-00012: 509 E Main, LLC Zoning Map Amendment - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postpone action on PLN-MJDP-23-00052: Zee Faulkner Property Development Plan until after council action - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Find Blue Grass Airport Public Facilities Review in compliance with the comprehensive plan --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. We are having some difficulties with our computers, so we're going to take just a few minutes to see if staff and IT can resolve that prior to the meeting beginning. Thank you. We'll be right back. And try to manage as best we can. The first item on today's agenda, the October 12th subdivision items, meeting of the planning commission is postponements and withdrawals. Do we have any postponements or withdrawals today? If so, please approach the podium, state your name and who you represent if applicable. Hi, my name is Daniel Rayner, I'm with Thoroughbred Engineering. And items A, PLN, FRP 2300019, Coleman property for postponement, as well as item H, PLN, MJ, DP 2300059, the other Coleman property. Oh, sorry. And you're looking for a postponement of how long? one more month should be good we got to work some things out with planning on some of the conditions all right Mr. Martin which meeting would that be November 9th all right all right is there a motion Mr. Chair I'll move for postponement of plan FRP 23-19 Coleman property until November 9th. Second. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Owens, second by Commissioner Meyer, and we'll just put it to a hand vote. All in favor, raise your hand. That is unanimous. Thank you so much. Are there any other postponements or withdrawals? The other one was item H, PLN, MJDP 23-00059, Coleman property for Hampton Inn. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 23-00059, Coleman property, until November 9th as requested by the applicant. Second. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Worth, seconded by Mr. Wilson. Is there any discussion? If not, we'll put it to a hand vote. All in favor? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Matt Carter with Vision Engineering. If you turn in the agenda to page 9, item K, PLNMJDP 23-64, Belmont Farm Citation Center. I'd like to ask for a one-month postponement to the November 9th hearing. We've got quite a few items we need to work out between now and then. Thank you, Mr. Carters. Is there a motion? I move to postpone PLNMJDP 2364 Belmont Farm until November the 9th. Thank you. Second. Thank you very much. So we have a motion to delay one month by Commissioner Barksdale, seconded by Commissioner Pohl. Any discussion? If not, we will take a hand vote. All of it passes unanimously. All right, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Barrett. Commission, members of the commission, I'm Tony Barrett. Postpone on page 3. It's item 2A, Kingston Hall Unit 1, PLN, MJDP 23-30. That's for one month postponement to November 9th. All righty. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, move to postpone PLN MJDP 2330 for one month. Thank you. Motion, Commissioner Pohl, seconded by Commissioner Owens. Any discussion? If not, please raise your hand to vote in the affirmative. And that's also unanimous. Thank you. Yes, sir. I have a second one on page six. Item G, PLN MJDP 2358, Kingston Hall Unit 2, Lot 4. I ask for another one month postponement to November 9th. All righty. Motion. Mr. Chair, I move for postponement of PLM-MJDP 2358 Kingston Hall to November 9th as requested by the applicant. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Wirth. Motion and seconded by Commissioner Meyer. Is there any discussion? If not, we will vote. All those in favor, please raise your hand. Unanimous as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other postponements or withdrawals? Seeing none. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, staff has an item to your attention. On page four, item C, this is Major Development Plan 23-50, Wolf Run Industrial Park, Block A. staff has met with that applicant to discuss a couple of outstanding issues which they're continuing to work on and they would request a one month postponement. All righty. Do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move to postpone PLNMJDP 2350 for one month. Thank you, Commissioner Polk. Second. Second by Commissioner Parkstale. All in favor, or I'm sorry, any discussion? If none, all in favor, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous as well. Anything else, Mr. Martin? No? Okay. All righty. Thank you very much. At this point, Ms. Wade, is there a consent agenda? Yes, sir, there is. You should have that at your desktop as well. It's a white sheet today. The consent agenda for October 12th, the top. We do have four items that appear on the consent agenda today, and these items can be considered by the Planning Commission with one motion and one vote. They have all been recommended for approval by the subdivision committee, and they do not have any discussion items or waivers associated with them. So I'll read those, and if there's someone present in the audience that wishes to have any of these items removed from the consent agenda, if you will raise your hand and let us know. Thank you. The first item appears on page 3 of our regular agenda. It is item B, PLN MJDP 23-49 for Hamburg Place Farm, Lot 5F on Plotted Place. It's an amended final development plan for property located at 1872 Plotted Place. Anyone present that wishes to have this item removed? Okay. Next item is on page 5, item D of the agenda, PLN MJDP 23-53, Morningside Market. This is also an amended final development plan for 819 National Avenue. It is an adaptive reuse project that's previously been approved, and so the applicant did submit their affidavit that they posted the sign for today's hearing. Is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard? Seeing none. Next item appears on page 6, item F of the agenda, PLN MJDP 23-57 for Jericho Incorporated Professional Office Project, Lot 2, also an amended final development plan for property at 3475 Blazer Parkway. Is there anyone that wishes to have this item heard? Okay. And then our last item for today is on page 8, item J, PLN MJDP 23-61. For web properties, unit 1, block A, outlaw 2, also a final development plan that's amended. And the property address is 2350 Norman Lane. So anyone that wishes to have that item heard. Seeing none, Mr. Davis, we can take all of those together. All righty. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Is there a motion? Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the consent agenda as presented by staff. Thank you. Second by Commissioner Barksdale. Any discussion? Seeing none, we can vote by raising our hand in the affirmative. And that's also unanimous. Thank you so much. without objection we have two very brief items very late in our agenda that we've had requests to move to the beginning of our meeting again i've been told that they're very brief the first is on page 11 under commission items letter b amendment to article 4 for sureties renewal And the second item that folks would like to have heard early is on page 12, letter B, PLN MDP 2319. Without objection, we can move those items to the beginning of our hearing. Mr. Martin, Ms. Wade, which one would you like to begin with? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I was looking at other things. When you moved those, I was just going to have you move them to the end of the last subdivision item before the zone change. Before the zone change. Okay. So we would go in our regular order and then just move those up. All righty. So that, if I'm correct, takes us to page 2, PLN FRP 2333. Yes, sir. And Mr. Martin, before you begin, for the commissioners who are not logged in, is there information in documents on Granicus that we're not able to see, like any letters from citizens or how would you like to handle that? That's a good question. Yes, the staff report related to the findings is available in your stack of paper. So that is also in Granicus. For this case, the plat is also in Granicus, but Mr. Martin will be showing that on the overhead screen and for our viewers. Not until later in our agenda do we have items that have public comment that have been submitted early on, so we'll make sure neither it'll be working for you or we'll make copies. Okay, so there's nothing in Granicus that we don't have in front of us? Not correct. Not for this one. Not for this one. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, moving down to page two, bottom of your agenda, we do have a final record plat, 23-33, Hamburg East, slots one and two. This is the Baptist Health Care Campus. As you all are very much aware, when you see a final record plat in front of you at a hearing, it's because you need to make an action on it. And in this case, they have requested a finding on the access easements. And that's been handed out to you, a brief report on the finding. Now, as you all are no doubt aware, we're out on Polo Club Boulevard, this location, I-75 in the rear of the property. And this is, as I said, the Baptist Health Care campus that is currently under development off of Polo Club. You can see to the left the area of the blue that is a creek and drainage areas and environmentally sensitive areas that are part of the property. And you can see that they have a road system that this plan is creating along with many easements. You see all the markings. You see everything. You just start looking down along these areas. And you can see all these notations. They've done the site work. And so what you're seeing here is a creation of a lot of easements and the lotting for this development. And they're proposing six lots. The parent lot is lot number one, where the main hospital is going to go. And then they're creating out lots that you can see lots up in this area of the plan. And what's interesting, and this does reflect the approved development plan and preliminary subdivision plan on this property, is that they are proposing access off the series, a street system, which is all private. These are all private access easements. And in particular, that one, oh, there you go. I wanted you to see this aerial photo. This is when they were, this photo is they were under construction. And you can see that I-75 is at the top with Polo Club, just like the plat. And you can see the system. You can see the system that has been constructed. And that's what a final record plat does. These things have been built, infrastructure has gone in, and now they're creating them legally on this record plat and creating the easements to reflect the public infrastructure. With that, they need your approval of a finding for their private access easements to provide the access to these lots. So with that, staff has reviewed it, and we're recommending, along with your technical committee and your subdivision committee, approval of this final record plat. Again, you have a findings report that also recommends that you make a finding that this is an appropriate system access through these access easements. There is one condition, it's on page three, that says denote submittal of a 50% infrastructure report. They have submitted that to staff. I don't believe it may not be in your packet today, but those are submitted for your information. They don't require an action on your part, but it's just to inform you where the development is, what stage it's in. And a 50% report is required. They are greatly exceeded the 50% of that site in terms of the necessary infrastructure. We're not talking about buildings and that sort of thing, just infrastructure, both public and private. And this has public sewers, for instance, that they're dedicating as well. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Are there any questions? Thank you, sir. With the applicant, yes, please. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Commissioner and members of the commission. My name is Brad Boaz with CMW, and we appreciate Mr. Martin's presentation. We agree with the points of the conditions and would recommend your approval and would answer any questions you have. Thank you, Mr. Boaz. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. If there's no more questions or discussion, would anyone care to make a motion? Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN FRP 23-33 Hamburg East Lotz and First Baptist Health Care with 11 conditions that have been provided by staff along with the findings that have also been presented by staff. Thank you. Second. And a second from Commissioner Pohl. Is there any discussion? If not, we could take a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. I believe our next item is on page 5. PLN MJDP 2355. Good afternoon. This is for the Sharkey property, Townley Center, Unit 1, Lot 15. We are out. We have Leastown Road out this way. We have Town Center coming into this area. This is Sharkey Way right here. We have Hatter Lane in the rear. At this time, they're wanting to add an addition to the rear of the building here for a new, I believe it's a restaurant that's coming forward. Previously, they're changing the location of the dumpsters with this addition. Because the dumpsters were facing this way now, we're going to face them this way. So with that, we reviewed the plan. You can see this is the old development plan for that area. And then, as I said, the dumpster location was currently coming out the back here to service for these two applicants on the other end of the property. But after reviewing the plan, we came up with a list of conditions. It starts on page five, which are typical sign-offs. Then we just had a couple cleanup, one cleanup condition and one discussion question. Cleanup as far as usable and vegetated open space. And then we had discuss new location of the dumpsters to who it serves. As I said, let me go back. The dumpsters originally were facing towards Drake's and the Starbucks, and so now they rotated it and put it in the rear of the building. So there was some question as to how they served, because now it doesn't look like they quite served them, the Starbucks and Drake's. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you so much. Any questions? Yes, sir. So we're eliminating condition 10 and 11? Right. Those are cleanup. The other ones are just typical sign-offs that we get all the time on our plans. Any other questions? If not, thank you. mr murphy thank you very much i'm dick murphy i'm here today on behalf of anderson communities dennis anderson is with me and uh tony barrett our designer is here somewhere he's there he is behind me and we've got a couple we know the discussion is about the dumpster location and i understand that at the subcommittees there's been some concerns raised about that and we do treat all those concerns very seriously we've looked this over and we want to show you what we've what we've done we do have a couple exhibits to show if you could show those to me go back one if you would or tony if you'd help get the right one first the uh okay this is the we wanted to orient you to the to the area here because that's important and we we do have eyes on the area for safety purposes this right here is walgreens lease Leastown Road is up here. Walgreens is very visible on Leastown Road. This is Town Center Drive coming in. This is Sharky Way and this is Hatter Lane. At the corner of Sharky Way and Town Center is the Starbucks. Next to it is the New Drake's and down here this is the Staybridge Suites Hotel. This is the front along our village type development along Sharky Way. There was A and W was there. That space is now vacant. First Watch is going to take that space starting up here at the corner and working back. They needed a little more space, so we're showing an addition to the property right there. The dumpsters right now are located where the addition is. they're going to be rotated 90 degrees. So you can see they are right there on our plan. Currently they're right here on our plan, just rotated 90 degrees facing the hotel. We wanted to show this to you because the way the design is, we have eyes on the area from a number of different locations. This is a parking area. It is used by Drake's right now. And the good thing about First Watch is they close about 3 o'clock, so First Watch can use it during the day and Drakes can use it in the evening. So we have customers and others going back and forth who have eyes on this area right here. More importantly, we have, if you drive in, this is the main entranceway, off of Hatter Drive, those people driving in or walking in from our residential community. and we have a lot of pedestrian activity from a residential area, can see into this area as well, coming from here to here. The people in the parking lot of the Stay Bridge Inn can see in here. This is all within eyeshot. There's no barriers for vision coming in here. And importantly, too, this is the Stay Bridge Inn. And this is the front door of State Bridge Inn. So all the activity comes in. This is the main entrance into State Bridge Inn. This is the lobby where you stop to register or drop off people in the front. And everybody coming out the front door has a direct view to this area. If we can go to the next slide and go to the other one we had, Tony, if you could direct her to that. We asked Tony, there was some concerns raised about this, and we asked Tony to plot our lighting scheme on the property. What we're showing you here is these red squares are either light poles, this is in the Staybridge parking area, or they're lights which are now or will be placed on the new building or already existing on the sides of the building providing the lighting. We asked Tony to illustrate the lighting scheme and pattern for this property. What we learned was, this is a new poll which we're showing. We learned that we had a deficit in lighting right here. So we will be adding this light, parking lot light, which will help to illuminate this area. We probably need to go back to the one we just had first, if you don't mind doing that. Sorry to keep switching around here because I want to show you the walking path. These dumpsters are used by Starbucks here and Drake's here and will be used by First Watch here. this is the sidewalk going down from town center drive on the rear coming in here does take a turn comes around and comes in here so we have this will be the new sidewalk coming through here but we have a sidewalk going down serving starbucks serving drakes as well coming into the dumpster area which we feel with the addition of a light pole we're going to be adding a light pole right right there, which we don't have now, which was determined by Tony's study that we need one there. By having one there, we'll have both very adequate lighting and the development is set up so that we have eyes on the dumpster area at all times. The, I was told there may be some questions about the circulation pattern for the trucks which will be serving the dumpster. I've got an exhibit on that too. If I can show it, I might as well show it here and go to that one. This is subject, your condition number nine is subject to Division of Waste Management sign-off on the refuse location. But we understand there were some questions raised about that. So this is how the truck comes in to serve. These are existing dumpsters. They come in here. Right now, these dumpsters are facing towards State Bridge Inn right here. So the maneuver will be a little easier for them. They'll come in, take a little back out, and serve these dumpsters. Come back out here. Then they serve this existing dumpster at the State Bridge Inn. So we think the pattern for the truck serving the dumpsters is actually a little bit better. But that's subject to the sign off of the Division of Solid Waste. So that's what we wanted to show you here. We think this is a safe location for the dumpsters. We will increase the lighting out here. It is designed to have eyes on the area at all times during daylight and at night. And we do have pedestrian sidewalks to get down to this area. So that's what I wanted to show you. and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Are there any Commissioner questions? Mr. Mickler. Mr. Murphy, I have one question about the dumpsters shown on that. Just out of curiosity, is it your client's need that you all have, both the dumpsters located at location one and two right there, or is that waste management that asks for both of those dumpster locations? Well, these retailers have different needs. Starbucks has recycling in one of their dumpsters. Wicks has compacting in one of their dumpsters. And we don't know yet at this point what first watch will be having in there. So it's because of different needs of different stores that we have the dumpsters there. I see, thank you. Yes, ma'am. My biggest concern was really the lack of sight from Drake's and Starbucks. You know, when you send your employees out, there's nobody that really has a direct vision to those dumpsters when the employees take the trash out. That was my main concern as far as vision, not necessarily a random person in the parking lot can see, you know, someone at the dumpster. was really my concern was really more from an employee standpoint you know i can't keep an eye on my employees that are going to the dumpster i don't know if there's anything to do about that i can understand that we have some of that issue now they're fed they are here they're facing out this way but it's designed so that the people in the area will see in i understand that and it's It's you're correct that there's not a direct line of vision from Starbucks down here, but we do have a very safe pedestrian area, and with the additional lighting, we think it'll continue to be a safe area. Any other questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you. Thank you. Is there any discussion? amongst the commissioners if not the floor is certainly open for a motion i was going to make one yes ma'am since he made that discussion he was able to explain um we had um talked about planning had talked about uh whoops having um the discussion question changed i'm looking for my notes We had talked about this earlier about having the discussion question change to that they relocate the dumpster to the approval of solid waste and traffic and pedestrian planner. That's up to you all if you want to do that or if you feel like their explanation was able to resolve your discussions on that. i think that um you know i don't think we've answered the question for solid waste i don't i don't recall having heard that in the uh subdivision meeting all right he didn't say anything he wasn't able to come to that meeting so we weren't i don't know i would like to see see it stay on there just to be sure that everything is clear. I was going to open that to you all to make your decision how you want to handle condition number 11. I'm just curious, would you just trying to get all of those departments looking at the same thing, would it in your mind it work if we simplified it to solid waste and pedestrian planner? Since it's, or do you feel traffic is an important part of that? Traffic had spoken at the meeting as far as circulation. They had brought that up at the subdivision, that there was some concerns about the truck being able to make sure that it maneuvered through the parking lot safely. Yes. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that on the plan already, those three entities are sign-offs on the plan. This condition emphasizes the need for them to come together and look together at that situation and that dumpster location. So it kind of reemphasizes the fact that they're already going to sign off on the plan. And that's what our intent is, to make sure they all get together and take a hard look at this. Yes, Mr. Owens. Thanks, Tom. That was going to be my statement or question. It seems like to me that all three of those are there for sign-offs. Anyway, if they're not happy with them, then it doesn't get done. So I'm okay with the way it reads. Mr. Nickler. You just want to change that to resolve? I could very easily change that number 11 to resolve. Did you say we were taking out number 10? I'm sorry? Did I hear number 10 was being removed? No. No. I don't know what I heard there. I'm sorry. I didn't understand. So simply put, yeah, I could go with resolve as far as number 11. You're good with resolve on it? I'm just trying to make sure I'm understanding. So number 11, you're saying to put it resolved because they have to sign off, but that doesn't really bring the attention to make sure that it's not just their checkbox sign-off. You want them to, I don't know, I would think we want them to specifically look at this in signing off, and I don't know if the standard sign-offs is enough. But we're just hoping that all three of them would sit down and look at it together. And if we need to have the applicant attend, have all of us at one time review it. Personally, I think if we change that to resolve, it's giving the attention to the dumpster and who serves it. And all three departments have to approve it or it doesn't go forward. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Well, I have one question, Cheryl, for staff. Just for my understanding, right now in that parking lot, we have a beautiful dumpster for four different entities. And we're, I guess, adding another beautiful dumpster. and is are there any requirements that we're imposing on them that they not share and that they all have their own dumpster or is not here today but as part of the sign offs is one way to reduce the number of dumpsters I believe it's part of waste management as far as what the uses are within the structures as to how much of a dumpster that they're required to have. And it's waste management sign-off as to what is required. Okay. All of these dumpsters exist today. It's just relocating the one dumpster. Yes, all of the dumpsters and the dumpster enclosures exist today. It was that number two on the exhibit that is being relocated. They're all there. So it's not adding or subtracting. It's just rearranging. Thank you. Do we have any other questions or discussion? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of plan MJDB 23-55, Sharkey Property. With the 11 noted conditions, change in number 11 to resolve new location of dumpster and who serves it. Mr. Owens made a motion, is there a second? I'll second it, but I'll also say I'd like to say that given our discussion today, I'd like to think that traffic and solid waste and the other third entity, pedestrian, would really take a good hard look at this. I think that after we've had the, you know, they're pretty aware of it. So I'll second it. Thank you. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we can take a vote. If you are in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. And that's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Tony. I believe our next item on the agenda is on page 7, PLNMJDP 2360. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, moving right along down to the bottom of page 7 to a major development plan 23-60, Interstate Park property, also known as 8th and South. Here it is. We have revised conditions for you on this pretty green paper. They were supposed to put it on orange. They didn't, but we've got it on green for you. This is the much advertised and well-known soccer stadium plan. I know we've all been reading about it and they're moving forward and they've been moving a lot of dirt around. This is the final development plan for that property. So as you can see, here is 8th and Boonesboro Road, I-75, the interchange at this location. They have Dove Run that comes into the property and will be extended through here. They're proposing a competition drive in this location through here to come up. And again, you can see here's the stadium with the parking. And this plan is a final development plan, preliminary subdivision plan. So they're showing us outlot development. And the outlot development totals about 113,000 square feet of development. associated with the stadium, as you can see in these areas. Now, over here, in this area, in this area, they are part of the plan, but there is a note on the plan that states there will be no development of these areas until a final development plan is approved by the Planning Commission, which is very standard. At this time, they're not proposing any development, and they cannot develop anything on those sites until a plan is approved. They can build. All these out, should they get a tenant, should they get someone interested, they can come in and build according to this plan once you approve it and it is certified. This is the area that has been discussed quite a bit, as you all are aware. This is an environmentally sensitive area. There's steep slopes. There's an intermittent stream in that area. So that's a large part of their tree protection area, and they are going to be protecting that area as development proceeds. The stadium itself, let me get the right button, here we go again, sits on the largest lot, of course, and it's got approximately 55,000 square feet associated with it, with the various seating and the boxes and the different buildings and the restrooms and the concession stands with that. And in addition, they have over 1,000 parking spaces proposed with this development. This, of course, is an amended plan, which is why you had the handout given to you. They cleaned it up nicely. There was a matter of just getting the data nice and in a table and concise, that sort of thing, just a few cleanup items. they do have to denote board of adjustment approval for access out here into the AR back into their training facility. This is their training facility right here. It's actually three stories. It's a nice size structure. But they can't cross out into that area without board of adjustment approval. So they're going to have to denote that approval before this plan can be certified. In addition to that, there is another. It's on the back of your green handout. We wanted to make it very clear that Competition Drive, this road right through here, is built during the first phase of development. It's very important that they have both access points off of 8th and Zoologos Road Drive into this development. Going to be a tremendous amount of activity here. A lot of people, a lot of kids, a lot happening. So we have to ensure that we have good, not just public access, but obviously emergency access should it prove necessary. So again, it's important that it be noted that that road is to be completed in conjunction with the stadium construction, the first phase of the development. So we want that clearly denoted on the plan. I know there was some discussion about the sanitary sewer. However, that is being done over the next year with development of the site, and it is anticipated that our facility, our pump station that's across Athens-Winswell Road, will be able to be upgraded and handle their demands during that time period. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Sorry. Sorry. Regarding competition drive, as it comes off from Athens-Boonsboro Road, it looks like it's wider and then it narrows. How many lanes are proposed there? They are going to, I believe. What's the plan for getting people off from Athens-Boonsboro Road? They're going to have a full intersection at that point at this time, and it will be redone once the R-cuts are built. And I believe they'll have a right out and then a left out. They don't have, like, two lanes coming in or two lanes going out? I'll have to have them verify that for you. I think they're anticipating changes with the R-cuts. Mr. Owens. Tom, when you're talking about competition drive being constructed in conjunction with the stadium, does that mean it's going to have a finished coat of asphalt? Everything's going to be done? It will follow the requirements of our engineering manuals and be built in accordance with our standards. we're going to mention this later on in your meeting now that you brought it up they have the ability to bond that final course and they do that to protect the roadway so that may be something they're anticipating doing Mr. Mickler a couple questions about the I guess the parking and the outlot configuration. We've got, I guess, the stadium which has a sizable parking demand and not a small parking lot around it. What's the and it looks like some of those adjacent outlots are set up to share that parking pretty well. What's the sort of building, what is there, what's that building sort of on the northwest sort of side of that? There's like that one rectangular building which looks like it has its own large parking lot there. I'm not aware of any actual client yet. These are just proposals on the plan that shows how they anticipate the development of that site. If they get someone in that wants to change it, they would have to amend it for you, for your approval. But it does have the, you're right, they are proposing larger parking on that particular site compared to the others. And that parking area is starting to, looks like, come close and encroach in on that sort of protection area and that natural area there? Well, yes, but they can't actually get into any kind of protected area or any required setbacks. Once they start moving dirt and putting pavement down, that would be. It seems like a large lot to approve without any sort of concept use or any justification for why that parking lot there is so large. They've projected several uses in the table as you go down the lotting, what they think may locate there. But again, as they could tell you, they don't know for sure. And of course, in the market, that could be subject to change. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, we'll move on to Mr. Boaz. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Again, my name is Brad Boaz with CMW, and to try to piggyback on some of those questions, it is two lanes in, two lanes out, Ms. Meyer, and they both transition to a single lane. so it will be a the main body of competition drive is a three lane road one each way with a center turn lane and then it widens at the intersection and then it can be manipulated to adjust to the arc cut design once that project makes its way down this far 8th and Spoonsboro Road competition drive Mr. Owens will hopefully be built as soon as possible they're actively working on that and hope that we can be paving sometime next spring early summer But we wouldn't have the base course down for a year to be able to put the final course down in time that we want to actually use it. So, yes, we will bond it, as most projects do. Mr. Michler, the larger rectangle building is programmed to be a medical office building, hopefully a sports medicine-type use and similar to go in conjunction with the stadium. No, we don't have a user right now, but we have size that to hopefully attract a practice to that building. And if they come and they fit within that perfect rectangle, then they could build it. But assuming they want to have something else, we'd have to come back to you guys for approval if anything within that plan changes. And the blue that you saw on the plan is actually the detention basin, which is adjacent to the protected area. So correct, we're getting close, but we are staying out of the protected area with the parking lot and all that water would go to the basin, be treated before it's released to the stream. If there's any other questions, I'm happy to take a share. Mr. Nickel. Yes. Mr. Boaz, as we're looking at this development plan, can you kind of walk me through how you thought about bringing the buildings up to the street and put the parking in the rear? Kind of walk me through that process because I understand that's one of our points of focus to build the structures up to the street. So if you walk us through that process, that'd be great. Look at the plan. we had originally when we were looking at the new ordinance and where the buildings and our things were supposed to be located we assumed incorrectly that the interstate and the on-ramp would have been the front yard and so we had pushed originally pushed the building in the field all the way to uh the eighth or the interstate on-ramp but because no run is considered the front yard of this entire project we then added the four out lots to provide that front yard or that those building frontages on on the front on the main facing street and so that's where we came up with the ideas of potentially a restaurant or a bank or retail space to program those four buildings on the east side of doe run and then the stadium is in behind it and then as a result of that then we knew we could take the the stadium off the interstate just a little bit one to provide a buffer to the road but also to get better circulation around the building with the parking so that folks can get in and out hopefully easier being able to access it from three sides. But we do have no more than a single bay of parking along Doe Run in any location to try to adhere to the new ordinance. Any other questions? Jim? At the subdivision committee meeting, there was a discussion or brief discussion about the buffer, the screening that's along the front of the I-75. And I think I requested that we might look at widening that. has there been any talk with the staff about doing that and putting in significant size trees? Because the scale of the project. I looked at the, beyond just meeting the ordinance before your question, so I went back and looked. And yes, the closest a parking space gets to the property line is 10 feet. But if you average all the way down from the far south all the way up to near the Speedway gas station, And it actually averages 24.9 feet of buffer between the parking lot and the right-of-way line because the right-of-way property line jogs and is not linear parallel. But then if you go from our new parking spaces to the road, it actually is 67.5 feet of green space between the parking lot and where a vehicle would travel just to the shoulder, not even to their driveway. So we do feel like, one, we've obviously met the requirement, and two, because of, you know, fortunately the kind of nonlinear nature of the property line, we're hopefully, in our opinion, far exceeding what is required. And so we do have, you know, with the new ordinance, pretty strict requirements on landscaping, both adjacent to the parking lot and within the parking lot. So we're going to have double the landscaping we would have had, you know, six months ago or a year ago if we had brought this. And so to answer your question specifically, no, we don't have anything that we're adding, but we do feel like, again, looking into it, we do have a significant buffer to the right of way. And there'll be obviously a lot of landscaping that's required to go in here, and we'll go in here to make hopefully as pleasant a parking lot as possible. I know it's an oxymoron, but we hope so. So are you saying that you would, because of the scale of the project, putting in the typical tree that's required seems a little small to me. It doesn't get the impact that I would like to see there. Well, and one of the risks of going from an inch and three quarters to a two or three or even a four inch tree is how successful those can be being transplanted and surviving. surviving. And so we have obviously a much better chance with a smaller tree and a smaller root ball to survive the initial year or so of growth so that it can grow into a nice mature tree. So I do want to hesitate to recommend going much larger than the two inch caliper because of, and Mr. Mickler may be able to speak on this, just the likelihood of survival in a condition between a parking lot and an interstate. That probably has more to do with how badly they mess up the soil. than the inch caliber of the tree. Sir. Mr. Boaz, it was just mentioned scale of this. Refresh my memory. What's the stadium seating? We're asking for 5,250 seats. Okay. And then what about the parking? in the property that is just the stadium there's 1204 spaces which is that's the same that's the stadium and then a note is that there is shared parking amongst all the all these outlaws so when the stadium's not going obviously that parking lot can be used for any of the outlaws and then but there would certainly be policing on our side to protect spaces for those businesses when there is a you said 1200 for the stadium yes sir will they be other parking for the other buildings there's other parking for those other buildings what what will the total parking be uh let me see if i have a total i don't think i have a total in our stats but okay well 80 150 leads me to So it's like 1,480. I mean. 1,480. Okay. Leads me to the other question. It's more for the staff and Tom. I'm not sure if CMW was involved at the prior location when there was talk as to the prior location for the stadium. But there was discussion as far as the surface parking versus the structure. And it seemed like there was a lot of leaning towards this parking structure. Was that ever considered here? Not the staff. Okay. Okay. We did have a parking demand mitigation study performed with the new plan, and part of that is having drop-off spaces, so there are areas for drop-off and pick-up. We do plan to reserve spaces for ride-share programs. We did add on this plan a designated location for a bus stop, so try to encourage other uses than just a family or a single person driving a parking. has CMW been involved from the beginning at even at the prior location? Are you talking about the new town or downtown? Yeah. We did not, we were not involved in new town. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Boas? If not, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this particular item? If not, do we have any commissioner discussion or questions? Or, as always, the floor is open for a motion. Yes, sir, Mr. Nickel. Whenever you are ready, I can make a motion. I think we're ready. All right, everybody's ready. Perfect. I'm going to make a motion to recommend approval of PLNMJDP 23-00060, the interstate park property, citing the staff's recommendations and revised conditions on the green sheet. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Polk. Is there any discussion to the motion? if not we can put it to a vote all in favor please raise your hand and that is unanimous thank you so much i believe the next item on our agenda is on page nine performance bonds and letters of credit and we should have our memorandum in front of us Do we have any questions or discussion? If not, the floor is open. Yes, sir. I move to approve the performance bonds and letters of credit as included with our agenda. Thank you. Seconded by Commissioner Barksdale. Any discussion? If not, we will put that to a vote. All in favor, please raise your hand. And that is also, I believe, unanimous. I couldn't see Mike. Yep, okay. Gotcha. So moving to zoning items, here is where we are. Yes, sir. We're going to jump to a couple of items late in the agenda in front of the zoning items? Yes, sir. Is that? Yep. The two we discussed. If you're ready. Yes, sir. Yeah, please proceed. So if I could direct your attention to page 11, to item B under commission items. This is an amendment to Article 4 for sureties renewal. This is an amendment to Article 4 of your land subdivision regulations, and we've handed out a report to you on this. This is an amendment that the Division of Engineering requested that you initiate to the land subdivision regulations specifically to update the surety process. Now, back in 2004, they amended them to address the amounts and how they were updated in terms of the amounts. Because what we found back then, we had a lot of old sureties that couldn't cover the cost when they were called, which is what you do here, what you just did. Was you just call some sureties or you released some sureties? Well, what engineering has asked with this is basically to amend the language in Article 4 where they're deleting a lot of redundant language. Because in the subregs for years, this is how it read, there was Reduction 1, Surety Reduction 2, Surety Reduction 3, Surety Reduction 4. and they all had their own paragraph and a lot of language. And basically what engineering has done has rewritten the regs. They've deleted a lot of that unnecessary language and just substituted some concise newer sentences that match the actual process and how they operate with the contractors and the builders on sureties. And it complies as well with the manuals and the process that they follow in the engineering manuals. So it doesn't impact the sureties themselves. It doesn't impact the amounts. It doesn't impact the quality of the work that the contractors are doing. It just simplifies the language to match the actual practices with the surety release process. And what they do is they go out and they inspect, but the contractors are the ones, the developers, they ask for a reduction. They say, we've done X amount of work. We'd like a surety reduction. Engineering goes out. They take a look. They go, yes. They reduce the surety. And there's a process where it gets down to the final amount. And there's always a punch list. And at the end of it, they have to do a punch list, satisfy all the requirements before the surety is released. And that's released by you, by your action that you just took, why you get this report every month. So none of that's changed. They've just strengthened the language and made it more straightforward in the Landsat Division regulations. So your staff is recommending approval of this, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions or discussion for Mr. Martin? Seeing none, thank you very much. Do we have any discussion amongst ourselves, or is there any public comment on this item? If not, we will move to discussion amongst ourselves and any questions we may have, and the floor is also open for a motion. Commissioner Wirth. I don't know that I'm back in business. I move for approval of PFR 2023-4, no, sorry, SRA 2023-1 to accept the amendment to Article 4 for sureties renewal. Thank you. So motion by Commissioner Worth, second by Commissioner Pohl. Any discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. And that is unanimous. Thank you. As I say, we have a staff item on page 12. If you look, we also have revised conditions or listed conditions on a lavender sheet of paper. This is Burke Hockensmith and Maggard, lot one, for Goodwill Industries of Kentucky. Thank you. Okay. This plan was originally submitted as a minor development plan, but we had this portion of the property, which is where the Goodwill is located. This is Georgetown Road. We have the McDonald's on Georgetown Road and we have Houchins at the corner of Sandersville and then this is a proposed Goodwill. We had this property rezoned and they did a preliminary development plan and they were supposed to come back with a final development plan. They changed engineers in the middle, so final development plan was never submitted. So when they came in, they submitted a minor development plan for making a, quote, amendment, but we didn't have a minor or major development plan, final development plan to be amended. So the staff has brought this to you as a major development plan for the property, for goodwill industries. They were just wanting to make a few changes to the parking area and the drop-off for Goodwill items. So you can see we have a list of conditions. The first nine are sign-offs from our different governmental agencies. We had a few cleanup conditions simply as the height of the building, the drop-off canopy. and we want to revise the title to final development plan and remove minor. As I said, they submitted it as a minor development plan, and we want to remove that, remove the purpose of amendment note. When they submitted this, they had deleted several notes. We want to make sure we add those notes back because we always like to carry the information from the previous plan forward, and these might not affect their lot specifically, but if somebody comes in to amend another portion of the development plan, they do affect those. They added some construction practices, and we can remove that. Tree inventory statistics need to be shown on the plan. Addition of boundaries of property and solid lines with the bearings and distances. And so with that, we would like to also ask that this plan be taken back in front of the technical committee since it has not been reviewed by them or the subdivision committee. We want to have their review on the plan. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you so much. Do we have any questions? Any comments? If not, thank you. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dick Murphy representing Goodwill Industries of Kentucky And with me today are John Eller and Mark Daniel, who are both vice presidents of Goodwill. We agree with staff conditions, and we just want to thank the staff for working this through with us through the change in engineers. Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Murphy? If not, thank you. Is there anyone present today who would like to speak on this particular application or change? Seeing none. Do we have any commissioner discussion? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair, move to approve PLNMDMNDP 2319 with the revised conditions 1 through 21. Thank you, Commissioner Pohl. Commissioner Barksdale seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of this motion, please raise your hand. And we are unanimous. Thank you so much. That would bring us, I believe, does that bring us to 509 East Main? Am I correct in our agenda? We had had discussion at the beginning of our meeting about taking a five-minute recess at this point to assess our computers. Is that still necessary? We're down. We have. They were about to fix ours and walked out. I don't know if somebody has their cell phone. Okay, we will take a five-minute recess. Thank you. ¶¶ Reconvene. Reconvene. And we are now on page 10. PLN, MAR 2312, 509 East Main. Daniel. Okay. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. Just wanted to let you know the documents that I handed out. We had received a significant amount of public comment in written form. So in front of you are the letters we've received both in support and opposition to the request. There should be 63 letters of opposition and 15 letters of support that have been provided to you. Staff has also provided the supplemental staff report, which is the most recent. It's the one that was emailed out last night, as well as the copy of the original postponement staff report that preceded it. So you should have everything in front of you. Apologies for the technical inconvenience there. But moving on to staff's presentation. Here we have the request for MAR2312, a request by 509 East Main, LLC. and it is to modify existing conditional zoning restrictions that are present at the property at 509 East Main Street. This property is 0.485 acres in size, and the applicant is coming before you today to modify restrictions that were placed at the time of the rezoning back in 1990. With respect to the screen you see in front of you, normally you see place builder criteria when reviewing a zone change, a discussion of place type, development type, zone, et cetera. Because this is a conditional zoning restriction, it has its own very specific criteria. So staff will not be going into the place builder and then those aspects of the comprehensive plan like a normal rezoning would. So we will address those specific criteria that you will be addressing today a little bit later on in the presentation. But as far as public engagement, the applicant has conducted three separate meetings with members of the Belcourt Neighborhood Association. Staff was present for two of those meetings. These meetings, the applicants proposed or presented their proposal and then answered questions from the neighborhood regarding the timeline, addressed concerns or heard concerns from the neighborhood regarding parking, hours of operation, and other use-specific requirements. So to just go ahead and dive into the request, here we have a screen that shows the location of the subject property. So located in the center of the screen, located on the intersection of Forest Avenue and East Main Street. So this is Main Street as you're headed out of town. Midland Avenue is located here. And the subject properties are just a little bit past that, immediately adjoining the Belcourt neighborhood. Here we have a view of the zoning of the subject properties. So the subject property itself is shown in the center of the screen in white. There's kind of a variety of zoning that's present in this area. This orange color that you're seeing on your screen to the east of the site is R2 zoning that is present in most of the Belcourt neighborhoods. This is existing R2. The Belcourt neighborhood also has spots of R4. Those represent some of the higher density residential components of the neighborhood as well. In the immediate vicinity on the other side of Main Street, you have a wider range of commercial zones. So here you have B1 zoning located on East Main Street here, professional offices, downtown zoning in this lightish reddish color here that represents downtown business frame zoning that allows for kind of a larger amount of uses, as well as small pockets of B4 located on the northern portion of the site. So really this is sort of the intersection of where the residential components of some of these significant neighborhoods are meeting this extension of the downtown frame. So this Main Street corridor where it's adjoining some of these historic residential areas. The hatchings that you'll see on the maps here indicate historic overlays. So the subject property and the surrounding Belcourt neighborhood are part of an H1 historic overlay. As a result, any changes in the property have to have historic preservation review and approval. There is also across Main Street, the Aylesford neighborhood or H1 area also is represented as well. So this is sort of the intersection of several historic areas with major downtown core. The subject property itself was also zoned R4 prior to 1990 when it was rezoned to a restricted B1 in order to accommodate a proposed antique store use. So the structure that you see here with the subject property in the center of the screen is an existing structure that was at one point a single family residence, was converted to multiple uses, including a fraternity house, an antique store, an art gallery, and now the applicant is proposing to change those uses again. This aerial kind of shows the layout and the relationship of this property between the various aspects of the neighborhood. So to the east, once again, we have the Belcourt area, largely single family with kind of a mix around the edges of some higher density residential uses. The actual Belcourt home and park is located here. And then across Main Street, you have a variety of uses, whether that's office uses, restaurant, multifamily. We have law offices located further to the northwest, along with an existing funeral home. There is an existing church here located at the intersection of Belcourt and East Main. So kind of a variety of uses ranging from office, residential, restaurant, assembly, kind of a mix of uses present on this East Main corridor. Here we have some views of the subject property. So this is the view from East Main. So this is where the primary pedestrian entrance to the site is. Here we have the view from Forest. So this is where the vehicular use areas are accessed. The site does not currently have that direct vehicular access to Maine. So this is where the deliveries for the site are made as well as the parking areas. Here we have a view looking as you're headed out of town on Main Street. So you're looking at a four-lane total arterial. Here is the view on Main Street as you're going back into town. So there are two lights in quick succession there at Forest and then just further up. But once again, a four-lane major arterial roadway. Here we have the view on Forest. So Forest is the intersecting road there where the property has that side street frontage. It is a considerably narrower road with limited parking. There's no parking available on the side of the street that's directly adjoining the subject property. And that's the route that would take you further into the Belcourt neighborhood. So here we have the development plan for the property. Due to this being within an H1 overlay, there really isn't any large material changes to the site. So you've got the existing structure, which is approximately 10,000 square feet in size between the first, second, and third floors. The existing parking areas that have served the Crossgate Gallery and other corresponding uses in the past. There is existing landscaping that was required at the time of the 1990 zone change, but the applicant isn't proposing any physical change to the structure at this time. This is a request to really modify the use and expand the uses that are allowable at this particular location. So the applicant is seeking to establish a private club use at this location. The private club has a specific definition in our ordinance. It talks about uses that provide a social, educational, or recreational service to their members. This can have kind of multiple components to it. So staff has historically allowed these uses to provide for their members event space, allowed them to serve food on site to host events, recreational, and other types of uses, but limited to their membership base only. So this is a group of individuals that, for whatever common purpose, are getting together and have a membership and are utilizing these facilities. Some examples, just to kind of give some context to how these play out. The left is a picture of the Signature Club. This is over in Lansdowne. Originally, this was a club that was kind of oriented around swimming, and it was an athletic club. It has banquet facilities for its members. It has restaurant space for its members, and it serves food and drink to its members. A country club is included in this same type of definition. So once again, individuals paying this membership fee to become members of this particular club organized around one particular concept. And it allows them to have that restaurant space or provide food, drink to their members along with office space, along with meeting space, etc. So it really blends together kind of a couple different uses that are also permitted in the B-1 zone in banquet facilities, restaurants, food preparation, etc. So that's just to give you kind of an idea of the type of uses that the applicant is kind of looking to establish. In this case, instead of being a club organized around swimming or golf, this is a social club organized around art based on the applicant's letter of justification. Where this comes into play, the current conditional zoning restrictions that were installed at the time of the 1990 rezoning do not allow for private social clubs. The only permitted uses that were allowed at this site are shown on the screen in front of you here. It was really limited to essentially antique stores. So this is retail sale of merchandise, which is limited only to fabrics, furnishings, fixtures, glassware in China, gifts, antiques, and books, and dwelling units. There is one existing dwelling unit located on the third floor of this particular structure. So really this was conditional zoning that was established to fit exactly one particular use. This language was developed by the applicant at that time in conjunction with the neighborhood and had the support of the neighborhood in order to kind of bring this forward. This is not typically how staff handles conditional zoning restrictions today. Truly they should be more targeted in what they are prohibiting. because the uses in the B1 zone, especially the permitted uses, have already generally been found to be appropriate. So there really needs to be a specific tie or other adverse impact that's being identified, rather than limiting the use to only a particular subset of uses, which is essentially what happened in 1990. This conditional zoning that occurred at that time also limited several other aspects of the site, including where merchandise can be displayed, screening, and signage. The applicant is proposing to retain items B, C, and D that are shown on your screen now, however, are looking to expand the uses at A as the applicant opines that they are no longer appropriate. So the findings for amending conditional zoning restrictions. So I mentioned earlier in the presentation that as opposed to utilizing place builder, the mechanisms for changing and amending conditional zoning restrictions are you have to have a finding that there has been a major change of an economic, physical, or social nature on the subject property that wasn't anticipated at the time that the condition was placed and that makes the condition inappropriate or improper. So the applicant within their letter of justification have been trying to build a case as to why the conditions that limited this essentially only to antique stores and related retail sales, is now no longer appropriate. To do so, they are making an economic argument. The applicant, within their letter of justification and supplemental letter of justification, kind of touch on a variety of the different industries that are mentioned between booksellers, antique sales, furniture sales, and the like, but the kind of overarching message behind this is that There's been significant changes in the kind of retail landscape since 1990 with the advent of online shopping as well as sort of industry-wide trends. So here are some graphics that were provided within the sources linked to by the applicant. This speaks to the kind of furniture sales and furniture stores. So the graphic on your left here shows the number of furniture store, brick and mortar stores that over the period of 1990 when this conditional zoning restriction was applied. And it goes up to 2018. But essentially what you are seeing is a market drop from a peak in 2005 going down to 2018 of about 25% drop in the total amount of brick and mortar stores. This is sort of being correlated by the applicants with the increase in online sales, as well as on the graph on the right, you can see that as consumer spending is increasing over time within these industries, the profits that are being seen by these actual, or the amount of sales that is actually occurring at these furniture stores and related stores is plateauing. So essentially, these industries are growing. However, these independent brick-and-mortar stores, whether they're bookstores, furniture stores, art galleries, etc., have been declining over the past 30 years as a result of online sales, other larger international firms being involved, and the like. So the applicant is making an economic argument as for why solely supporting this 10,000-square-foot building using antique and art sales is no longer financially feasible for them. Staff found that their economic information that they provided was sufficient to meet that aspect of the criteria. The applicant also provided a list of proposed conditional zoning restrictions. The aspects that have been altered from the original approval are shown in item A. B, C, and D have been left exactly as they were in the original 1990 approval. The applicant has expanded it, so this would include the applicant's proposed use, which is a private club, but also includes some other uses that they thought would be appropriate in the vicinity while still protecting the character of the Belcourt area. So you've got a list of 17 uses here, ranging from professional services, schools, restaurants, proposed private clubs, and some other uses as well. Well, staff reviewed this particular list of conditional zoning restrictions and really wanted to address a couple different components. So if the applicant wishes to reduce the number of proposed uses on site, staff is not opposed to that. However, we wanted to make sure what is being removed or prohibited is consistent and is not causing issues with equity. So staff, in our review, have proposed a different list of conditional zoning restrictions. One of the changes was made was we eliminated number 16, a form-based project. This site is not large enough to accommodate a form-based project, and so it is not applicable here. And then added in a number of uses here, mainly targeted towards kind of equity. So when we are having the applicant is proposing uses that include medical service or include residential components or include sort of this gathering space or residential space, We need to make sure that this is being targeted towards all members of the community, not just the affluent or not just the individuals that are able. So staff found that the nursing homes, personal care facilities, assisting living facilities, rehabilitation homes, and day shelters to be substantially similar to the other uses already proposed by the applicant. So we wanted to make sure that there wasn't an equity issue being created by discriminating against those particular uses when similar uses were also being provided. There was some aspect of consistency here. The applicant was proposing to allow for the retail sale of merchandise, but had left off the retail sale of food products. If there's going to be commercial kitchen facilities here, if there's going to be retail sales permitted, then retail sale of food products is substantially similar. The applicant is proposing this list of proposed uses. we need to make sure that accessory parking areas are included in that because anything that is not included on this list the way the applicant has formatted it would be excluded from being able to be utilized on site. So that is sort of a just a clarity additional use. With respect to the applicant's proposed private club use, staff found that it's substantially similar to uses that are permitted in the B1. And so the private club is similar to restaurant space, to office space, to other assembly uses such as what are found at places of religious assembly. So the activities that would be taking place on site are substantially similar. It's already a permitted use in the B-1 that doesn't require any additional approval in most contexts. And so staff finds the inclusion of the applicant's proposed use to be appropriate at this location as well. Staff is recommending that the existing conditions regarding the signage, landscaping, and prohibition on outside storage remains, but staff is recommending approval. We found that there has been a significant change in the retail trends for the very limited industries that were permitted under that initial conditional zoning restrictions, and that these represent a major economic change that wasn't anticipated at the time of the original rezoning. These current conditional zoning restrictions unreasonably restrict the utilization of the subject property and the ability to maintain the historic structure that is on site. And so based on that, staff is recommending that the proposed uses of the property be the list that was included as the staff alternative. So it's that same list of 21 uses with the corresponding three criteria that were kept over from the 1990 rezoning. Staff finds that these restrictions are appropriate and necessary to allow for reasonable utilization of the property while also protecting the character of the Belcourt area as well as the Main Street corridor. So this, as always, is made subject to approval and certification of the corresponding development plan that will be discussed next by staff. But at this time, I would be happy to entertain any questions you have about staff regarding the zoning component of this particular case. Thank you, Mr. Crum. Do we have any questions? Mr. Bickler. Oh, you can go ahead. Yeah, I have a couple questions. Sure. The first one is a question about the approach. Typically, when we see conditions on a zone, it's about what we feel is inappropriate in in a zone and this property instead has these very limited uses deemed allowed, why is staff following in their recommendation that same format instead of flipping it back to the way that we would usually do a zone? Yeah, that was really, so you are correct. Typically, it is reversed with kind of how the site was originally handled, as well as to provide some consistency and clarity to the neighborhood when looking, you know, basically looking at a list of, if I'll go back here, looking at a list of uses. These are the uses that are permissible. it gives you an idea of everything the site can be used for without having to necessarily look at the zoning ordinance. So when you're looking at the number of permitted uses versus the number of overall uses in the B1 zone, a list of flipping and prohibiting only certain uses, it would be kind of a similar size. So this was really more of a clarity thing. It really doesn't matter as far as the procedure of how the site operates. both are valid, just we tend to in most cases go the opposite way. But this was just sort of to ensure clarity, and this was sort of how the applicant had already formatted it. Okay, and then in my second question regarding the staff report on the sort of what a private club compares to. We have a lot of comments that for the neighborhood business, one of the defining facts is that it doesn't cater to the neighborhood because it is restricted access. was that um what was the can you speak to that yes so it is already so it is a principally permitted use in the b1 zone already so essentially it is already by virtue of being there been found to be generally appropriate in b1 type zones staff does not have any ability to kind of control what type of club so this very well could be something that's used by the the community with the way these things operate. The specifics of the membership versus not, the members of Belcourt could very well be members of this particular institution. So really we're looking at land use. So it's got this assembly component. It's got on-site dining and drink component. And so really looking at it from that angle, how does this particular type of use work? Because we aren't able to discriminate any more than, say, a restaurant that only sells $300 steaks may not be applicable in every neighborhood, but a restaurant has generally been found to be a permitted B1 use. So to that extent, a private club can be appropriate in a B1, and that's why it's a buy-write use within that zone. Thank you, Daniel. Okay. Mr. Nickel. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right, Mr. Crum, I've got a few questions and a comment to start with. As I'm looking at the approval of the staff alternative conditions in the supplemental staff report, we're seeing that it states conditional zoning restrictions unreasonably restrict subject properties or restrict properties in general. And so to me, I'm thinking that it is well, that is equal to and reasonably limiting the property rights of the individual who owns that. So that being said, I want to look back and get a little color on this property and zoning history. It looks like in 1949 a single family residence was constructed. And then with the comprehensive zoning in 1969, this was zoned R4. And here's what I'm interested in. in. While initially used as a single family residence, a fraternity house use was later established at this location, operated until 1990 when the property was sold. So 1990 is the same time we had the zone change on this property, is that correct? Yes, the 1990. So I'm interested in knowing, was the fraternity house operating with a conditional use in an R4 property before the 1990 zoning? My understanding is it was operating legally there. Yes. Okay. And so the zone change was from a legally operating fraternity house to a restricted use with the conditional use restrictions that was applied, is that correct? Yes. Yes, that mechanism kicked in in order to establish that Z Faulkner antique use. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other commissioner questions for Daniel? Mr. Pohl. On the earlier staff staff recommendation was for postponement and ask for three things from the applicant on being neighborhood outreach, one being the economic feasibility, and the third being information regarding physical or social changes in this portion of Main Street. I heard your presentation with regard to economic feasibility. Could you speak a little bit more about neighborhood outreach and physical or social changes on the street? Yeah, so with regard to outreach, I personally attended two meetings that were hosted. One was at the Bell Court, actual the Bell House. That was the initial meeting, as well as a subsequent meeting that was actually at the Crossgate Gallery structure itself. And so much of the conversations that occurred there, and the meetings were generally well attended. There was a pretty significant number of individuals present there. Really were more oriented about the specifics on this particular use. So staff, the way that this process had kind of occurred previously back in 1990, the list and the specific conditional zoning restrictions that were brought to the Planning Commission and Council were sort of engineered by the applicant kind of in conjunction with the neighborhood. And so staff was hoping that during this time that we would be provided a list kind of from the neighborhood or working with the applicant, working with the neighborhood in order to kind of generate a list. In the meetings that staff attended, most of the conversations were really directed towards the operation of their particular use, which was understandable. But they discussed the timeline of kind of when their application or when they started thinking about utilizing the property for this particular use, what they had drawn inspiration from, specifics on what they were thinking as far as staffing, hours of operations, those procedural elements as well. But just due to kind of time restrictions, a larger conversation about, well, what uses in this particular list are you all comfortable with? And kind of that larger conversation really didn't have time to occur at those meetings. And so staff provided our information at that time. And so they met a total of three times. Staff was present for two. However, that kind of discussion on the list of acceptable conditional zoning restrictions at this location really was never a major topic. The third meeting staff did not attend, and you'd have to ask the applicant kind of how that conversation went. So the list that you see before you as far as what the applicant proposed was based on just the kind of the applicant's effort and just some of the feedback that they may have heard. but nothing as far as a cohesive list submitted by the neighborhood to kind of speak to some of the conditional concerns. With regards to the kind of other social changes or other changes outside of that economic, there really wasn't much additional information provided, but there only needs to be one change, and economic change is one of the three. That was just sort of probing to feel out if there was kind of any other information that needed to be addressed and kind of just getting the applicant to bolster their justification. Any other questions? Mr. Nickel. I also have a question about the economic justification. Was it taken into consideration how many world-class art galleries we can have here in Lexington? I mean, we've got a market, and then we've got our own individual market here in Lexington. Have we considered what our market can support when it comes to the economic data that's been shown by or submitted by the applicant shown here to us by you? Yes. So the information that was provided was sort of macro level. There really wasn't, say, an individual analysis of Lexington performed, but this is really more of just larger industry trends as a whole, talking about the decline in physical book sales, brick and mortar, just about everything that was mentioned in the original conditional zoning restrictions. So really it was kind of larger industry-wide scales because that's really all that you would have the ability really to get objective data for, I think, on a sort of a short term, you know, during the span of three to four weeks when staff is recommending for more information. I'm sure that the applicant can provide whatever additional clarification, but staff felt that the kind of macro level analysis that was done was sufficient to show that there has been a change since 1990. Any other questions? Thank you, Daniel. Thank you. Where's the development plan? Next one. So we have a, on page 10, we have the, whoops, I'm sorry. On page 11, we have the development plan conditions for the MJDP 23-52 C. Faulkner property. Currently, the first condition is that the council approves the revision of the conditional zoning. Then we had just a couple sign-offs, engineering traffic and the urban forester. had a couple cleanup conditions as far as correct note number six, deleting the word resolution. We just had one discussion item as far as with this being Forest Avenue and this Main Street, this is the only parking area. We just had a question as to where the drop-off because Main Street is somewhat busy. If somebody had an Uber ride or a friend dropping them off, where would you drop them off? Is it in the rear or in the parking area? Do you have a designated area? Also, for any deliveries, with the restaurant being there, where would you park the truck for the deliveries? Will it come into the property or is there a designated area on Forest Avenue possibly? So with that, the staff asks if you have any other comments or questions. Do we have any questions on the development plan? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you so much. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. I'm Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant, 509 East Main Street. With me is the members of the applicant team, Tyler Bromagin, Brian Babbage, Field Ladd, and Will Adams. Vince Thompson is also with us, who was the primary architect and who submitted the development plans. We're happy to answer any questions that you all may have throughout of this. I'm going to let the applicants try to explain their vision for this project here in just a second. But I wanted to start with this picture because this is where this application basically really begins. The reality was that the gallery was not able to kind of sustain the upkeep of this historic structure in the manner that it deserves. And so the concept basically started from that perspective on how do we keep this building going, How do we keep these same kind of traditional uses that were in this structure, but do it in a way that is economically feasible? When digging into that conditional zoning restriction, there just wasn't really a way to make this building basically be able to fit into that economic box that this kind of harsh conditional zoning restriction really is. So the applicant team basically started looking ways on how do we generate this type of economic uses, kind of influx and capital in order to make sure that this building can be basically updated. They went through a lot of different iterations, a lot of different kind of business plans trying to figure out what really works. They incorporated a lot of the feedback that they were receiving from the neighbors in order to kind of change their plans in order to make sure that we can be a welcomed neighbor into the Belcourt Neighborhood Association. I now want to bring up basically Field Ladd and Tyler Bromagen in order to explain what this building basically means to this group and also what kind of this plan is moving forward. Good afternoon. I'm field lad. My family's owned this building since 1998. I lived there in high school, came back after college, worked there, lived there several years with my children. This building to us is a bit of a legacy for my family. After 25 years of really working hard, as Mr. Crum alluded to, the industry has changed. Antiques, China, these things have gone down in some estimates as much as 70 or 80%. My family's gone to great lengths to work really hard and try and keep this building and make it be a viable option. Going to Florida for three months in the winter to take things to try and sell to the equestrian community down there. We go to New York for a month in the summer. Every summer we started a new junction 10 years ago with Keeneland trying to do an art auction. And all of this was in an effort to preserve what we kind of see as part of our family legacy. To me, the building means quite a bit. The Belcourt neighborhood obviously is important to me as well. Not only do we operate there, what we thought was fairly successfully and in a friendly manner for many years. My kids went to school at Good Shepherd and taught my kid to play soccer at the Bell House. So I understand both sides of this. I understand the difficulties in doing this, but for us, the preservation of this building is extremely important. The cost, the monthly cost to keep this place up is somewhere in the range of $25,000. And selling what we have to sell became burdensome. So we moved to Vine Street at about a quarter of the cost of monthly upkeep, and we wanted to figure out a way to keep this building functioning and in the family. and willing to bend as much as possible and accommodate the neighborhood where we can. But the restrictions that are on it right now are no longer economically viable for one reason, more or less, and it's the Internet. I mean, you can see it in every market that's listed. I mean, in every aspect that's listed here has gone down by more than 50 percent. I mean, and we're talking since 2015, let alone since 1990. And so we appreciate your time. Tyler is going to speak more to the vision of the project. But I just wanted to say, we understand, we respect the history of Belcourt, but we also need to have a way to keep this building up. And that's what we're trying to do. Thank you. Hi. As many of you know, 509 East Main Street is a one-of-a-kind historic asset. and this beautiful building needs to be protected and preserved for the benefit of our community. We cannot let it fall into disrepair. Our vision for this property is a culturally diverse social club based around art and carrying forward the tenants of Crossgate Gallery. In addition to rotating art collections and curated by Crossgate, art exhibits highlighting local artists. This will be used as a place for people to co-work, socialize, and relax in an upscale atmosphere. We would like to host talks, lecture series, book clubs, supper clubs, and other social and community-oriented events. Additionally, we intend to work closely with local charities to provide much-needed support to the groups working to improve the lives of all Lexington residents. We aim to build an inclusive membership community open to people of all color, creed, sexual orientation, and background. And we hope you will support us in creating something truly special for our community and help us preserve this amazing building. Thank you all very much. I'm going to kind of get into the kind of legal side of things. I do want to say that we are in complete agreement with the staff's kind of revised conditions. That list originally was generated from our first neighborhood meeting when I was kind of handed a list of all the things that would not be acceptable to the neighborhood. And so we started off with basically putting this list forward to you all as a list of prohibited uses. I think there was 31 prohibited uses, I believe, on kind of the first draft of this. And so that's why we kind of switched over to the permitted uses in order to keep the kind of historic treatment of this property, but also just make it more manageable from kind of an upkeep perspective since we were over the 50% mark of basically uses that were going to be prohibited. As Mr. Crum explained, we are only asking to basically change this one condition and add in a few other common neighborhood businesses' uses that are allowed throughout kind of the B1 properties, not just in Lexington, but also in the historic districts themselves. Since 1990, it is unquestionable that these type of limited uses have seen a cataclysmic shift in economic viability. This just simply cannot be argued. It also cannot be argued in 1990 that the council could have foreseen what was coming. Amazon, I just looked up earlier today, Amazon was created in 94. It seems odd that that is true, but it is. It was founded in 1994, and it represents a fundamental change in just itself. And that has certainly continued kind of through. throughout basically life in the post-pandemic era. I've kind of fully documented a lot of articles and kind of some of these statistics in our justification letter and some of the kind of retail exhibits that we submitted. I did want to go over just a few of them because they are kind of staggering. We submitted a New York Times article in 2019. The antiques market has declined roughly 80% in the last several decades. And that article shows that it was between a 45 and 70 percent drop in the antiquities market as a whole and that was just in the last 15 years brick and mortar bookstores both corporate and independent have been decimated over the last 30. everyone knows that barnes and nobles example but in the local kind of retail business that has been even more dramatic the furniture and home furnishings industry has also taken a downturn in retail presence. Mr. Crumb kind of showed those graphs that we had submitted, but basically the number of brick and mortar retail stores for all consumers peaked around 98 in 1991. The heaviest decline in those retail locations occurred between 2005 and 2010 when those numbers dropped from a national standpoint 12 percent and a 21.7 percent when you're talking about kind of independent type stores. And that basically brings us up, excuse me, well following 2010 the furniture store estimates decreased by an additional 18 percent which basically brought us up to when the pandemic hit. And we also were able to document that the online sales spending coming out of the pandemic continues to trend upwards while the brick and mortars have declined post pandemic. And that is kind of on a macro level as Mr. Crump pointed out but we also have two examples on a micro level in this very building. See, Faulkner's antique didn't last a decade. In the minutes that from the actual zone change, when asked about her feelings on this heavy restriction, Ms. Faulkner stated that the only way this would be a good move for her is if she could conduct her business on the premises for a very long time. Otherwise, it would not be a sound financial investment to the severe limitations of this property. That's in the minutes from 1990. Now, Crossgate Gallery lasted a little bit longer than Ms. Faulkner. However, they also have made the decision that they had to leave this property in order to be able to occupy a space that makes it more manageable. When you're dealing with a 10,000 square foot historic structure, That's a little bit different than a boutique store. I know the lads are here today. I believe they're planning on speaking as well in order to kind of document some of that history and why they had to make that difficult decision. And it was a very difficult decision, but it was an economic reality. Now, here is the kind of overall zoning scheme of this area. As you can see, this is as kind of mixed zoned as we really get in Lexington. You have obviously the B1 subject property, but even further outside of town from where we are, right across the street, you have downtown zoning in B2A that was zoned in 2008. You have I1, you have B4, you have P1, you have a litany of different uses all within this area. This is a list of just a sample of all of the uses that could, or all of the properties, excuse me, that could utilize the uses that we are here talking about today by right. This isn't a situation where they have to come in and ask for permission because they're not conditionally zoned. This isn't a situation where they need development plan changes, most likely, because it would be re-utilization of existing zoned properties. We took a look at the entire corridor of Main Street because this is a Main Street building. From South Ashland to Newtown, there's 128 business zone parcels. There are two that have conditional zonings on it. It's us and the one right next door. The one next door to us is able to utilize every single use that we are here talking about today. What they're not allowed to do is have a gas station, have the type of kind of prohibited uses that we see throughout the B1 zone when these normally come in. Can't have a pawn shop. They can't have a car dealership. But they can do everything we are here talking about today. There are B1 parcels in the Belcourt overlay that are able to do everything we are talking about today. There's a property right outside the Ann Greeley property that is currently on the market and zoned for B2. They can do everything we are talking about today. Now, without a doubt, this is, oh, excuse me, I did want to point this out. Here are the B1 properties that are in kind of historic overlays. There are 12 properties that are actually conditionally zoned. There are 78 properties that are full B1, no restrictions whatsoever, in historic overlays. This is not a unique concept that we are asking for neighborhood business uses in a historic neighborhood. This is without a heavily trafficked area. I know I don't need to remind you that Richmond Road is a major corridor that receives a lot of traffic in our community. These were some recent clips that we pulled off the KTC website. In kind of talking with the guys, they, in a perfect kind of good day situation, they'd be looking at around 40 to 60 kind of car trips a day throughout their kind of 8.30 through 10 hours on the weekdays where they're, you know, people are coming to utilize some of the co-working spaces. Some people might have dinner there. We're talking about 40 to 60 car trips, so under 0.2% of total traffic, what we are talking about being generated in this type of situation. We have dedicated parking agreements on both sides of Main Street. We have one right across the street and we have one further down by Midland in order to make sure that there's a significant amount of parking that is able to be done. We are trying to push ride sharing. We are trying to push multimodal type transportation. We also, this is kind of one of the reasons why the club concept came to fruition is we knew we needed to add these type of commercial revenue generating uses, but we also knew that we needed to control our patrons from the neighborhood's perspective. A lot of these guys went to Good Shepherd. They know how that neighborhood can be overrun when there is a large funeral, when there is masses and so we knew that we needed to get cars off of the kind of bell court area and not utilize parking at woodlands not utilize parking at wellington arms and so we proactively found kind of shared parking arrangements in order to be able to do that the club concept comes in by being able to restrict our kind of membership in where they can park we're requiring all cars to have decals with numbers on there. We put fine systems in our bylaws in order to make sure that they cannot and should not be parking in this area. It also gives us a very easy way to contact membership in order to say there's a large event that's going on in this neighborhood. This is the type of situation. This is where you can park today. This is where you can't park today, etc. It just gives reassurance to what I know is one of the principal concerns for the neighborhood, which is traffic and parking. The state has already basically planned pedestrian safety improvements for this intersection. I think anyone who has driven this intersection would say this is a very unique traffic pattern with these lights being so kind of close together. There are not basically pedestrian improvements on forest right now. So the state are basically adding in the pedestrian improvements right here and basically making improvements to the Woodlands area as well. But even after hearing kind of about these improvements, we went out and made sure that we got parking on our side of Main Street to help accommodate those concerns. Now, one of the other kind of areas of concerns that we've heard from the neighborhood is that they would like to see some type of increase in the landscaping requirements above and beyond what historically I've always called the castle, like the Crossgate Castle walls, because they truly are some of the more impressive, like, thick brick walls in our community. And so what we've kind of come up with is the ability to have a kind of landscaping wall, but have it kind of removed slightly from the brick wall in order to maintain the integrity of that brick wall as well. We believe that this will require Board of Architectural Review approval. We do not believe that this would require a development plan approval, but if it does, We are more than happy to come back and make sure that that gets your all's blessing if the Board of Architectural Review approves these landscaping plans. At the end of the day, the landscaping is a key issue for both of us. We want to ensure that everyone has mutual enjoyment of one's own property. We are not trying to be in inconvenience. We do not want our members bothering our neighbors. We do not want angry neighbors in any way or shape or form. We would like the Bell Court to be, to utilize this property. We would like this to be an amenity for them just as well as any potential members. Here's the list of conditional zoning items. Again, we are in agreement with the changes made to by the staff. I should have caught the form-based neighborhood business project. That's on me. And we also completely agree from a personal standpoint about the actual issues that the brought up. We hear a lot at the Board of Adjustment meetings, not usually with you guys, about the kind of concerns neighborhood has when we are talking about the truly equitable uses that our zoning ordinance allows. And so I'm quite happy to add those uses to this. And I know that Belcourt prides itself in being an inclusive neighborhood. And so I hope that there won't be too many objections to those added uses, while I know that there is still concerns with our kind of fundamental business plan. On neighborhood outreach, we first reached out to the neighborhood on August 3rd. We did not, unfortunately, hear back until August 23rd. I'm happy to kind of put those emails in the record. We've had three neighborhood meetings at the Bell House, one and then two at the Crossgate facility itself. I know I personally have had several phone calls and email correspondence. The applicants all have given out their personal cell phone numbers to every single member that was at the neighborhood meetings, encouraged phone calls. The applicants have been walking the Belcourt area trying to drum up support and interest in attending these neighborhood meetings and also kind of trying to answer any questions that we have. While this is a Main Street property, we also recognize that this is part of Belcourt, and they want to be part of Belcourt. Now, as far as kind of some of the social aspects that we can talk about changes, I think while this isn't a comprehensive plan kind of compliance type argument, the comprehensive plan does kind of play into this when we're talking about what societal changes have occurred since at the time we were under the 1988 comprehensive plan. And so what at its core is this application asking for? It is trying to be able to basically utilize an incredibly underutilized facility from what B1 uses are currently allowed. It is an infill project without any doubt. It is a historic mixed-use property on our corridors, on our well-traveled corridors. We are using parking sharing. We are using multimodal. We are using ride sharing. We are trying to do everything that the policies of the comprehensive plan really have been trying to flesh out and push. And if this was a new project in a different area of town, I think this is the exact type of thing that would fit in the compliance with the comprehensive plan arguments for a potential zone change. At the end of the day, what the request in front of you guys is to just recognize that the existing conditional restrictions are just not appropriate. I know that you all have not seen any properties that have come forward with this type of hard, only one use basically possible. In your time on the Planning Commission, I certainly have not seen it in my time and practice. Based on our research, we think that this is the most restricted B1 piece of property in all of Lexington. We are asking for that to be lifted in minor uses that are overwhelmingly appropriate in all neighborhoods be allowed to utilize here. If you go down that list, everything that we're asking for is pretty much already in this area when you're looking at office spaces, when you're looking at restaurants, when you're looking at dwelling units. These type of uses exist here. They are good for this neighborhood. They are good for this community. And we believe that this potential use is also going to be good for the neighborhood and good for this community. I'm happy to answer any questions if you all may have it. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, I have just a couple of questions. Yes, sir. Just for clarification. There's several terms that sort of stick with me. Number one is private club. Two, upscale. And three, it's going to be open to anyone and everyone. Having said that, have the developers or owners thought about what would be the criteria for membership in this organization? So I don't believe that there is set criteria. I certainly will defer if you all have kind of specific answers to that. But what they are trying to do is not create a country club. They are not trying to create a kind of a true elitist type club. What this is is a desire to have a kind of cosmopolitan location where you are able to have co-working space, where you are able to have social events, where you are able to actually actively learn, where you are able to be kind of culturally kind of influenced, where we can bring in artworks, We can bring in exhibits. We can bring in speakers where it is the type of club where you want to go to learn and meet new people and to diversify your kind of sphere of knowledge and interests. It is not trying to be anything like another club that's further down the road. One other follow-up question. How many parking spaces? So I believe there are 17 on site. and we have parking arrangements for well over 100. Thank you. Mrs. Worth? Just a clarification. When you say co-working spaces, are you envisioning that you might have artist studios, renting space, using space in the building? Not renting space or anything like that. It would be more of an opportunity for any of their membership to be able to come there. I mean, truly, it costs about, I believe, is it $250 or $300 for Awesome Inc? $200? To basically get a cube at Awesome Inc. We believe that we're going to have a competitive membership, basically fee, where you're able to utilize that space in order to use as some of your workspace. to be able to utilize, like to come in, take a laptop, get a cup of coffee, and get out of your house. I think we all are too familiar with a situation where that wasn't really a distinctly possible. Mr. Bickler. Can you talk about hours of operation? So it is, I believe, 8.30 to 10 on the weekdays, and then I'm not sure the morning time on the weekends. And then 9 to, right now we have midnight for the weekends. We kind of corresponded with the Bell House standing hours on the weekends. And is that, that's a note on the development plan, or is that on the proposed conditions? It is not, but we can add that note to the development plan. Okay, thank you. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Nicholson. I believe at this time we are going to move to public comment. It is the policy of the Planning Commission that everybody approach the podium, state your name. Public comment for individuals is limited to three minutes. We do not allow the yielding of time at the planning commission. I understand the neighborhood is represented by council and you have requested 30 minutes. Is that correct? Yes, sir. All righty. That's fine. And please proceed. Okay, great. Thank you. My name is Bethany Baxter. I'm here on behalf of the Belcourt Neighborhood Association. Jessica Winters is actually the council of record for this case. She had a previously planned trip. She's in Chile. I'm kind of filling in for her in her absence. I've submitted a position statement that's on Ms. Winter's letterhead as well as a slide deck and some proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. You guys should all have a copy of that position statement. It's got some attachments there. so I just wanted to confirm that. Okay. I want to start by giving the commission a little bit of information about my clients. So the Belcourt Neighborhood Association has existed since 1962 and it became a 501c3 nonprofit organization in 92. It's run by a volunteer board of between nine in 12 members those folks meet monthly and it includes within the boundary of the area that the neighborhood association concerns is approximately 170 residences or buildings. The neighborhood association is focused on preserving and improving the neighborhood and they do that via fostering community amongst its neighbors and also sort of shepherding and protecting the Bell House and the park that's at the center of the neighborhood. The Belcourt neighborhood is a vibrant community and I should say too I grew up in Belcourt so it's sort of a distinct honor for me to get to represent my home turf here so to speak. This is a vibrant community that is full of engaged residents. These folks hold many events in the Bell Park as well as Bell House. There is a strong sense of community amongst neighbors and I want to go ahead and just say at the beginning, this is a neighborhood that's worked cooperatively and successfully with a number of businesses on issues, including planning and zoning issues. The neighborhood association has made their best efforts to mobilize and disseminate the information that's been made available to them about this specific zone change and development application. The neighborhood just recently sent out an internet poll of neighbors, and the vast majority, and when I say that I'm talking well over 90%, the vast majority of neighbors oppose this zoning amendment and development. I think there's well over 100 survey results submitted. So in the course of considering the question that you guys have to decide today, which is whether or not to approve this zoning amendment, it's important to bear in mind that the Belcourt neighborhood is within this H1 overlay. Belcourt is one of Lexington's 15 historic districts, and this neighborhood stands out nationally for its concentration of historic homes, the majority of which were built before 1940. The reason Belcourt sought this historic overlay was to preserve properties from demolition and to ensure that this area would remain predominantly residential. Importantly, and I think as Nick noted, Mr. Nicholson noted, the applicant's property, 509 Main Street, that is within this H-1 overlay. And importantly, it's at the corner there of Forest and Main Street. Importantly, it's one of the primary entrances aside from Belcourt there, which is by Good Shepherd. It's one of the primary entrances into this neighborhood. This H-1 overlay was decided, or was approved, I guess, in 1990, which importantly is the same year that this Z. Faulkner amendment was also approved. Those things were really done in tandem. So in thinking about the zoning amendment and sort of the history of this decision, it's important to bear in mind that this H-1 overlay decision came right in tandem with that zoning amendment. I want to make the point, too, that the perimeters of the neighborhood are every bit as important as the interior. So Bell Park is sort of at the heart of this neighborhood, but the protections of the H-1 are threatened and can be eroded from the exterior where it's most vulnerable. And that's what we're talking about here today, a seminal property on the exterior border of the Belcourt neighborhood. I want to mention, too, Belcourt's been recognized since 1980 on the National Register of Historic Places. And Belcourt is one of only three neighborhoods in the entire state of Kentucky that has a National Preservation America designation. So this is a really unique neighborhood, and there's a lot to be proud of with the history of this neighborhood. Bell Court is a compact neighborhood and there is a lot going on in this neighborhood on a day-to-day basis. Bell House, which is the photo in the middle there, I'm sure you're all familiar, there's weddings hosted there regularly. That is a public event space and community center. There's senior citizen groups meet there. There's kids playing soccer in the park. a lot of traffic in and out of this park on a daily basis. The Carriage House, which is a part of the original Bell House, that's home to Studio Players, which is a community theater group. And there's 37 residential condos within Clay Villa. There was a development in what was a former, I think, radio parts store on Skane Avenue. And I'd note too, those are projects that the Belcourt Neighborhood Association worked with those folks and was in support of those projects. In 2005, there was a traffic study conducted by the city, and that indicated that there was a significant amount of cut-through traffic from neighboring locations and other neighborhoods, folks cutting through Belcourt to either get downtown or vice versa. Much of that is bike traffic. There's a higher incidence of bike pedestrians traveling through this neighborhood on a regular basis. And as a result of that traffic calming study, there were five speed humps installed in the neighborhood. Belcourt neighbors have some major concerns about the safety of this project and the increased vehicle traffic that's going to result. There were 66 accidents at this intersection of Maine and Forest and Maine and Woodland Avenue over the past five years. Ubers were mentioned and I think what I understood the planning staff to say is that they hadn't really heard what the plan was for where Ubers were gonna pick up and drop off folks. Well they're not going to do it on Main Street, they're gonna do it on Forest Avenue and that is a street too that when there's cars parked on either side it's difficult to navigate that street. This is a historic neighborhood. There are few garages, there are a few driveways, so traffic is a major concern for Belcorp. So having given you a little sense of some of those of the neighborhood and some of those concerns, I want to talk specifically about why the Belcorp Neighborhood Association is opposed to this proposed zone map amendment. There was some information, this was in the staff's presentation. This is the standard and I want you guys to sit with this for a second because it's really important. This is the the decision making that you guys have to make today in order to approve this zone change. You have to make a finding that there has been a major change of an economic, physical, or social nature on the subject property or within the subject property where the area where the subject property is located and that is a change which was not anticipated at the time the binding restrictions were imposed and which have substantially altered the basic character of the area, making the restriction inappropriate and improper. That is a robust standard and that is a significant finding that I want you guys to sort of pay attention to the details on that. Importantly too, this is a burden that the applicant must satisfy. the applicant needs to satisfy all of you all that they can check all of those boxes so to speak and ask to do so through clear preponderance of the evidence. That is a high standard. I'd like to talk a little bit about 1990 when the Z. Faulkner Zone Amendment was approved. There's a copy of the minutes actually attached to Ms. Winter's brief. It's a tab A. So, these restrictions were carefully crafted to preserve the integrity of Belcourt neighborhood, while also facilitating the restoration and preservation of this historic building at 509 Main Street. In reading those minutes, you can sort of glean a few important considerations, things that the Planning Commission then was bearing in mind and things that I would implore you to bear in mind in the course of making your decision today. This property is very close to neighboring homes and the sort of gray photo in the back there shows the house on the left is a residential property on the right that's 509 East Main. There's about 15 feet between that property and the 509 building. That is very close. This was a property that had continued viability as a residential use. Ms. Faulkner lived at this property. The second floor of the property remained a residential use. This is a property that was the subject properties at the entrance of the Belcourt residential neighborhood. That was an important consideration and also the H1 overlay that I mentioned earlier. All of these things prompted the Planning Commission back in 1990 to make a finding that this proposed zoning as conditioned would create an appropriate buffer between the mixed uses on East Main Street and the residential uses in the adjacent Belcourt neighborhood. The buffer was important and it remains important today to safeguard Belcourt neighborhood and that it's sort of important and unique neighborhood that it is. So these are the restrictions. And I think I felt like I heard Mr. Nicholson and staff refer to this as, you know, it's basically antiques. It's not basically antiques. It's broader than that. Retail sale of merchandise, including only fabrics, furnishings, fixtures, glassware in China, gifts, antiques, and books, and dwelling units. These are uses that remain viable today. And these are uses that were carefully crafted back in 1990 in conjunction with the neighborhood to maintain that important buffer between the residential neighborhood and the more commercial uses on East Main. So the applicant really hasn't put forth any sort of argument that there's been any physical or social change to this property. The focus has been on economics, the economic changes that they've referenced on a national sort of industry-wide level. Our zoning ordinance is not concerned with industry changes on a national industry-wide level. It's concerned about major economic changes that are specific to the property and the area surrounding that property. And that is the type of evidence that you all need to consider to be able to make a decision on this zone change. And it is not the kind of information that has been made available to you today. So the zoning ordinance is not concerned about economic changes in New York or Atlanta or Louisville. It's specific to Lexington. And the articles and the information that you've been provided are on the wrong scale, that macro level. that's not the type of information that you all need to be able to make an informed decision on this zone change today. It's the area where the subject property is located. That's the focus. So I would submit to you that there have been no major economic changes substantially altering this area because Crossgate Gallery that successfully operated in this area for over 25 years, they only moved two blocks away. This is an area that can still support those uses within the restrictions that were contemplated back in 1990. There was an article in the Herald Leader in December of 2022 about Crossgate Gallery moving and the owner was quoted as having said, we've been in a wonderful building for over 25 years but we have a lot of pieces to show and simply need more exhibition space. We can't be more excited to welcome our clients and potential art buyers to the new Crossgate Gallery very soon. That new Crossgate Gallery is two blocks away. It's within the same area as this restricted building, which demonstrates that there has not been a major economic change. I also heard Mr. Nicholson say, and maybe Fieldblad say, they're going to have a lot of Crossgate Gallery's artwork on display here at 509 Main, and for sale conceivably at 509 main again that does not demonstrate that there's been any kind of major economic change at this property or in this area i want to take a minute to orient you guys and talk about the area that surrounds 509 main this is a photo of the justice building it's right across the street it's zoned to include both residential and commercial uses you've got Wellington Arms and the Woodlands. Those both include both residential and retail spaces, many of which are included within the restrictions as they exist for the 509 building. The 509 building, I want to reiterate, is unique because it was intended to buffer this East Main Street area from the Belcourt neighborhood. So there was a heightened need for that buffering and hence a heightened need for these restrictions. This is a property that was recently purchased August 1st of this year, and the purpose of this building, the intention, it's been a law office for a long time. It's being repurposed as a design and furniture gallery. This is 631 East Main Street, maybe two blocks from 509. This is a usage map that was created by some of the Belcourt neighbors. It shows the applicant's property there in red, as well as some of the other uses in the immediate vicinity. there's a there's a real sort of corridor design corridor home improvement corridor whatever you want to call it that exists in this immediate area along walton along main street there's a significant amount of those types of uses over on liberty road there's some popping up on national avenue and those all demonstrate that this the market for these types of uses is booming, and it's as robust as it has ever been. You've got Schneebel Interiors, I think I'm pronouncing that correctly, right across the street, Ann Greeley Interiors, Thoroughbred Antique Gallery, Matthew Carter Design, that's on Clay Avenue, there's a significant number of sort of gift shops and antique home furnishing shops over there, Willis Klein Fixtures on Walton Avenue, Ferguson's lighting on Walton Avenue, cabinets and design on Walton Avenue. So all of this evidence is that there has been no major economic change. I think most of those businesses were there in 1990 and remain there today. So the idea that there's been some sort of major economic change specific to this area is false. A couple more Thoroughbred Antiques, I think I mentioned that, and a couple other shops there at Main Street. These are all within the same area and all within that similar type of use. The idea that the restrictions essentially only allow antiques is false. This is actually a far broader set of uses than the applicant would have you to believe. gifts is an incredibly broad category there's a new um a new gift shop opened right on main street keeneland mercantile lv harkness is operated successfully you've got mulberry and lime you've got heritage antiques all of these are within decently close proximity certainly within that main street corridor image that mr nicholson showed and all demonstrate that um that there there's been no major economic change here. Again, I wanted to note the need for residential. And this is a mixed-use property. It's no secret that Lexington needs more residential properties, and that use is clearly still viable and necessary in our community. So, as I noted previously, the sale of art continues to be an economically viable use for this property. The applicant has not met their burden by citing these newspaper articles. And I'll say, and close with our position statement, there's a significant number of newspaper articles that we were able to find demonstrating that the art market is alive and well, it's booming, and similarly home furnishing markets are doing well. At the end of the day, you can find plenty of articles on the internet that can tell you a million different things, but what's relevant for purposes of the zoning ordinance is what is within the surrounding area of this property, and based on everything I just showed you, there has been no major economic change. I want to bring your attention to this B1 intent for a second also. So the purpose of a B1 zone is to serve the needs of the surrounding residential area, and it is a zone that should be oriented to support and enhance a residential neighborhood. This project is all nuisance with no benefit for the Belcourt neighborhood. I think equity was mentioned as a reason to include some of these additional uses within the proposed amendment. Well, private club doesn't sound like much of an equitable use to me. There's been some discussion about how the applicant has engaged the neighborhood. This applicant, the Belcourt Neighborhood Association, and these neighbors have not been meaningfully engaged in the course of this project. None of the information that the Belcourt Neighborhood Association has been able to obtain has come from the applicant. It's all come from downloading things from the Planning Commission's website or through third parties. What the neighborhood has come to learn is that this project, they began recruiting membership and investment back in July of 2023. The email, that August 3rd email that Mr. Nicholson referenced, that didn't actually come from the applicant. That came from a third party person, a woman named Erin Helton, who works with VisitLex. I don't know her, but she apparently learned about the project and said, oh, does the Belcourt Neighborhood Association know about this? folks in the court know about this it sounds pretty cool well they didn't know about it the applicant did not inform the neighborhood about this zoning request and neighbors learned about it from the city on august 24th the belcourt neighbors were able to get a hold of some of the sort of marketing and investment materials those are included as tab c in the document that you you guys have got. And those which were created back in July state that the extensive architectural zoning and cost diligence period of the renovation has already been completed. Well, that wasn't true because they hadn't actually filed their request for the zone change yet. There's been a number of meetings, but there's not been any kind of effort to address the questions. And that's what's important. It's not important to have a meeting if no one can give you any answers to your questions and that's this position that the neighborhood has found themselves in. So here we are the applicant the applicant should not be allowed to benefit from its own poor planning and procrastination and approval of this zoning amendment would reward bad behavior in this case. The Belcourt neighbors need more information. They've got a long track record of working well with applicants and with neighbors. They're happy to do that, but they need to get the information and they need to get accurate information in a timely fashion and that has not occurred in this instance. The other reality is that Belcourt's got to consider the long game here. The private club is the immediate use that's been proposed and there's a lot of concerns about that, some of which we've discussed, but the reality is if this private club concept were to fail, what happens to this property then? The Belcourt Neighborhood Association has been successful stewards of this unique and historic neighborhood for decades and they take that responsibility very seriously. The same concerns that were addressed back in 1990 about proposed uses and making sure that the neighborhood is protected and that historic overlay is protected, that buffering that's necessary, those are all still immediate concerns today for this neighborhood and I hope for the Planning Commission as well. This private club as well as these other uses that have been proposed are going to cause traffic safety and nuisance issues. This is a neighborhood with a lot of young children and families and as I already said this is one of Lexington's most historic and unique neighborhoods. We got the supplemental staff report yesterday about 5 p.m. and there are new proposed uses in that staff report that had not been in prior proposed uses submitted by applicant. The neighbors have had no chance to consider and they need time to meaningfully review and to meaningfully engage in this process. This kind of 11th hour notice is not good planning and raises some significant due process concerns. Okay finally as to the development plan I want to address that briefly. There were a few development plans filed early on. Those were all very deficient. At these meetings neighbors asked very detailed questions about what the club's plan was for this or for that. Those questions went unanswered. There was a more detailed plan that was filed I believe on Wednesday. That was the same day as the most recent neighborhood meeting but that development plan was not provided to anybody or discussed at that meeting. So it puts the Belcourt Neighborhood Association in an untenable and unfair position because if you were to approve the development plan today, that clock for appealing that decision would start to tick. The neighborhood would have 30 days to appeal that decision. But for this proposed zone change, if you were to approve it today, the City Council would have the ultimate say in whether that's decided. So it puts the neighborhood in an unfair position of being forced to appeal a hypothetical development plan before the City Council has even ruled on the amended restrictions. So I'm asking you to reserve ruling on the development plan until after the City Council has ruled on that zone change. And to give you a sense of some of the questions that the neighbors have posed and have not been able to get sufficient answers to, how are you going to protect the tree canopy on this property? What are the plans to establish the necessary buffer areas between proposed use and adjacent residential properties? How does the applicant intend to designate outdoor use areas as contemplated by the proposed use? What are the locations for pickup and drop off to the use of public transportation? Where are you going to locate the trash cans? We spend a good bit of time talking about dumpsters and where they're located. We've asked those questions too. We don't have answers. How does the applicant intend to vent this planned commercial kitchen space? These are all questions that you would, the neighborhood would believe what they would be able to get answers to, but they've not been able to get the answers they need to be able to meaningfully engage in this process. So the Belcourt Neighborhood Association is asking you to vote no on this zoning change and development plan. The applicant has not met its burden by a clear preponderance of the evidence that there's been a major economic change sufficient to justify amending the zoning restrictions given the use of this property and the use in the area. That's what's key to your determination today. The Nebraska Gallery, they operated successfully there for 30 years and they moved just a couple blocks away. That's compelling and that demonstrates that there is not the kind of major economic change that is necessary. Thank you for your time. Thank you, counselor. And before we begin, we'll take again continued public comment and I've been given the sign-in sheet. to speak and you've not signed up, there should be a sign-in sheet at the door for you to sign in. And we should have a clock that we can display. And again, everybody gets three minutes. The first three are Dan Elkinson, Trish Smith, and Megan Winfield. And again, just please come forward, state your name, and make your comment. Thank you. Hi, and thank you for your time. My name is Dan Elkinson. My wife and I moved to Belcourt in 2010 when our daughters were five and three. I'm a licensed real estate agent. I have many informed thoughts on zoning, density, business and residential districts, and so on, but today I'm speaking as a member of my community. We dreamed of living in Belcourt since our days as graduate students in the early 2000s. Many of our neighbors now were already residents then. We would walk there and admire the historic homes, the bell house, the park, families out walking, and neighbors talking on their front porches. It struck us as the perfect place to live and it still does. Its central location is close to UK and downtown but not too close. It has the perfect blend. People talk to one another, let their children wander freely and readily share a cup of sugar but we can also walk to the farmer's market, Rupp Arena and downtown restaurants that are close to our residential neighborhood. We're fortunate to live where we do and sad to see neighborhoods like Belcourt becoming increasingly rare and at risk. I think we all need to do our part to protect them. The consequences of not doing so will likely result in more families leaving these amazing old neighborhoods. Single-family homes will be turned into businesses and short-term rentals for the financial gain of a few at a time when we are trying to increase the number of housing units within our urban service boundary. I think a lot of people in town actually do oppose development, especially when it suits them personally. I'm not one of these people. However, I do strongly believe that development needs to be done thoughtfully with concern and care taking into account all of the lives it can affect and the many ways that it can affect them. Not just in the immediate surrounding area of one particular zone change but in all of our neighborhoods as a whole. And development should not just take into consideration the wants or needs of a small group of investors or developers but should rather take into consideration the wants and needs of families who reside in these historic neighborhoods where homeowners need to get permission from historic preservation to replace a window or add a stone patio in their backyard where people who vote and pay taxes and mow their yards and pick up after their dogs and look out for one another call home. Changing the zoning on the 509 property could have a very direct impact on my own personal home as our backyard abuts the applicant's property. It is approximately 100 feet from my back door to their back patio. But this is larger than just my home or some of my neighbors homes who are even closer. This is about setting precedent. It is about future uses for numerous properties all along Main Street and Walton and all the homes that are in the perimeter of our neighborhood and not just our neighborhood but many like ours. In closing, please when you are deciding on this zone change, please take into consideration the many families that live in our neighborhood that sleep here and wake up here that sit on their porches and walk their dogs and teach their children to ride bikes please weigh whether or not the applicant's proposal will really improve the quality of life of the members of our community as a whole thank you thank you trish smith and then megan winfield Hi, my name is Megan Winfield. I'm a Bell Court resident of 20 years along with my husband Brady. We've raised our kids in the neighborhood. We were married in our house and we had our reception at the Bell House, so we have a close connection to the community. I'm here to speak just a little bit on the neighborhood engagement piece because I think that's come up a lot on both sides. We are very early to get engaged in this project because I sent an email to the applicants a completely unrelated email around the shuttles that they have parked in their parking lot. And I was inquiring about the shuttles that were there. And they said they'd like to invite us over for a tour of the property. We spent about an hour with them learning about the property and asking them a lot of questions, many of the same questions you all have asked today about who's going to be members of this club, how are they going to be decided, who will be welcome, who will not, what are the uses of the patios, what are the hours of the club. Those were all the same questions that we had. A lot of the answers that we got were satisfactory at the time. They were very, I think, tailored to our particular concerns of it will be closed early. It's mostly a co-working space. We're going to talk about art. Don't worry. It's not going to be late nights. It's not going to be any kind of revelry or parties. We won't have the whole membership gathering. And then we became in possession of the marketing materials that they've been using to get investors since the early part of the year. And those completely contradicted all of those answers that we got. And so we started to ask more questions and ask the applicants to clarify the difference between the investor packets that were being circulated and the materials that we hadn't gotten in the neighborhood at all. And they still have not provided us any materials. The development plan did not come from the applicants. Any of those information of hours and that kind of thing, we've not gotten any collateral that shares any of that information that we can share with our neighborhood. The engagement in those meetings has largely been us asking questions that go unanswered or are answered with, we're still thinking about it, we're still figuring that out, or even we don't have enough money to pay the person that draws up those plans, or we've run out of money and we just need to get our construction loan, and then we'll have enough money to provide you with more information. And that's insufficient as a neighborhood to engage with a developer. We've done a lot of different projects with different developers in the city. They usually come prepared with a plan, with a proposed business usage, with some of those questions at least able to be answered. And then the follow-up meeting is a follow-up that has some of the answers that come back. That's been absolutely not the case here. It's been changing the entire time. The answers still have not been provided. And because of that reason, I would ask you all to really consider whether that's the intent of neighborhood engagement that the Planning Commission has laid out for developers in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Daniel Rayner, followed by Marcy Deaton. Yes, sir. That's Trish. Sorry. Yeah, okay. Trish Smith. Sorry, I didn't hear my name. Sorry. That's all right. Sorry. Hi. Hi, I'm short. I'm Trish Smith. Like Megan, we're rooted in this neighborhood. My husband and I met at the Bell House in 1987. Our son got married at the Bell House in 2019. Love this neighborhood. I'm going to cry. I'm a homeowner in Bell Court. I also own several condo units in Clay Villas. So I'm looking at this from a lot of perspectives. I'm also a member of the Belcourt Neighborhood Association and the Clay Villa HOA. Also a member of the Apiary, which is one of the clubs they reference as a link. So social clubs, I'm not opposed to them. I think they're wonderful. I think it's a good thing. I don't have any complaints about social clubs. I do want to talk about traffic issues as a Clay Villa owner. I don't know if you all are familiar with this property. Clay Villa has two parking lots on forest in between two intersections right across from the vehicular entry to 509 East Main. It's a very congested area. You saw in the pictures. It's a very narrow area. So we have concerns about traffic safety. They are not recruiting members in our neighborhood as of this time. So we anticipate members are going to be driving in from other places. Where will they go? Where will they park? Where will they be driving? Our parking lots and our big narrow driveway are going to be prime places because they're right there by the building. That's going to be where the ride shares get dropped off. That's where people are going to be picked up. That's where people who can't find a parking place on Forest and don't want to park at Justice or there's a funeral down the street and they can't park there, they don't want to park there, they're going to be driving up and down forests and they'll be turning around in our area. We're an old property, not particularly well designed on the site. It's already a traffic burden just from what we have there now. The parking is in weird spots. Residents have to cross a very long driveway and the parking areas to get to their cars, to get to the sidewalks, to get to the green spaces on the building. And having club member parking or club member traffic moving in and out, turning around, backing in, backing out, we see that as a risk to our residents and to the pedestrians in our community. We also, you know, they just mentioned $25,000 a month. That seems like a lot of traffic. That seems like a lot of people to maintain $25,000 a month in maintenance fees. And they have not given us a good plan. We have asked. We've asked for more time. We've asked for clear plans. The only information we have talks about revelry, four bars, late nights, wee hours. It's not reassuring. Thank you. Thank you. Daniel Rainer followed by Marcy Deaton and Will Kaufman. Daniel not here. Then Marcy Deaton. Hi, I'm Marcy Deaton and I have lived next door to 509 East Main for 14 years. My home and one other are probably the closest properties to it. my driveway, which did not show up very clearly in any of the photos, is literally nine feet from the wall. My actual house is nine feet from the wall. It's one of those driveways where there is no green space on either side. It's my house, my driveway, their wall. I can look out of all the windows from my bedrooms, my second story, my third story, my kitchen, and it's almost as if I'm in their parking lot. So, while all of my neighbors are concerned about the impacts to the neighborhood, which I totally am, totally do not want this in my historic neighborhood, I was asked to speak about the impacts to all of us who live closer, and that includes like Megan Winfield and Brady Barlow, because they're directly across forest. my neighbors behind me, Dan Elkinson, who also shares property line with them, and even a house or two beyond that. So I wanted to mention noise. We are concerned about noise. If there is an outdoor patio, the upstairs one and a downstairs one, and they're open until 10 or midnight, and there are people out there, we will hear that. Noise carries. Like from my house, I can hear the children playing down at the preschool at Good Shepherd. So we're very, very concerned about noise. And the common theme is we don't get answers. At the meeting two nights ago, we specifically asked, what is your plan for noise? Somebody, Trish, I think, asked, what kind of noise absorption have you looked at? Have you done some research? Have you talked to the historic society about what would be approvable for this historic house? They said, no, we haven't done any research yet. The only drawing they gave us was the one they showed you with trellises and vines. They gave us as a noise thing, not a landscape thing. So we didn't get any answers about noise. We also asked about odors. There's that commercial kitchen. They're going to have a dumpster somewhere. They're not going to have residential, you know, push-out things like we all have. Where is it going to be? If you were to walk down the street there, that wall is almost on the sidewalk of Forest, where pedestrians walk and our neighbors walk, and we go through there to go to Farmer's Market, etc., etc. They haven't given us any plan for where that's going to be, how will it be picked up. If it's at the back of the lot, it's going to be in Dan's backyard. If it's up in the front, it's going to be right on the sidewalk and by my house. But we asked, and they don't give us answers. So I had like 18 pages here, so my time's up. Thank you. Will Kaufman, followed by Jenny Daly and Keith Loven. I'm not sure. I'm pretty loud. Can y'all hear me? Yeah. Hi. I'm Will Kaufman. I probably won't take three minutes. No, that's okay. I'll be quick and to the point. I'm here in support of the application for change. I'm a longtime Lexington resident. I moved back to Lexington with my wife a few years ago and our kids. I'm also a very close friend of the lads and consider them almost like family. to me. I was actually quite skeptical when approached with the idea of a club. I don't like clubs to begin with, but as this was explained to me, I believe this property and this club will really begin to usher in a new era for Lexington. I actually, I know Bethany well, also, I thought that depiction of the buildings along this part of Main Street was really interesting because as you've been in lexington as much as i have a lot of those buildings um they're going to get sold it's just a matter of time right a lot of those businesses you don't see a lot of traffic in there i know many of them are long-standing businesses but this transition is going to begin to occur in our community piece by piece that's main street right we're talking about the major thoroughfare for our city this is going to be a place where diversity is prized where people are very welcome and i think it is unfortunate that it does back up to a residential neighborhood but the difference between bell court and main street is really night and day i my wife and i are both business owners i own a business a small business branding agency my wife and a partner have bought the festival market building and they're redeveloping that and i think that these are going to be conversations that we i do believe this is an important conversation to think about at a big level that um again this is a residential neighborhood that backs up to main street and i really um it's a it's an initiative that i'm proud to be supportive of and um just uh yeah thank you thank you jenny daly hello good afternoon my name is jenny daly and I do not live in the adjacent neighborhood. Instead, I am here on behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, which I'm assuming you know, but if you don't, it's an umbrella organization representing neighborhood associations, HOAs, and individuals interested in neighborhood issues throughout the entire county. The Fayette County Neighborhood Council supports the concerns of the Belcourt Neighborhood Association and ask that you deny the request to remove the current conditional restrictions placed on this B1 zone property. We believe that allowing an unrestricted or even broadened B1 use will be detrimental to the neighborhood, particularly the residential properties in close proximity to the subject property. We concur with most of the neighborhood's concerns that you've already heard and you're going to hear more about, about the redevelopment of this property, including things like whether this type of private club actually supports, enhances, and serves the needs of the surrounding residential area. That's the purpose of the B-1 zone. We're concerned about the lack of a reasonable parking plan for 500 members in a dense neighborhood where on-street parking is already in high demand. They talk about speakers and events. How do guests know about this dispersed parking plan? The potential noise, trash, odor, traffic of a venue with multiple bars, dining areas, entertainment media, and outdoor terraces without considerable buffing. And the use of a large short-term rental residence on the top floor. Also, will allowing this unrestricted or opened up B1 use, will it open the door for other B1 businesses that are not a good fit for the neighborhood? In addition, FCNC is also concerned about the bigger picture and what sort of precedent allowing this might set for other neighborhoods throughout the county. Understand that Fayette County Neighborhood Council is not opposed to private clubs being embedded in neighborhoods. We also champion the B1 neighborhood business zone when applied appropriately. It's designed to promote healthy neighborhoods, and that's what we're about to. But this proposed redevelopment seems to pose more of a detriment than an improvement or a benefit to the Belcourt neighborhood. It doesn't seem to serve a greater good, especially for the neighborhood. And I'm going to propose that perhaps B1 is maybe not the right zone for this parcel at all. Perhaps a P1 might be a better fit or reverting it to the R4, a residential, might be a better use. In any event, FCNC encourages you to deny this zone change request and send this idea back to the drawing board. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. All right. If we could please, the more we need to keep applause to an absolute minimum because public comment needs to be efficient. So thank you for respecting that. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. I'm Keith Lovett. I live at 524 Sarah Avenue. I've been in the neighborhood about 33 years, so I've seen a lot of change. Most of the change has been very positive. I feel very uncomfortable with the proposed zone change. I wanted to address traffic a little bit. You saw in exhibit the number of crashes at the intersection of Woodland, Forest, and Main Street was about 66 crashes over the last five years. That's roughly one per month. With the proposed zone change, I expect the traffic to increase at that intersection. And I think it's going to be reason for concern. I am a bicycle pedestrian coordinator. I appreciate what traffic engineering is doing to the intersection. They are adding a couple of crosswalks, but they are not adding crosswalks at all of the legs because mainly they want to keep the traffic flowing on Main Street. That is a congestion problem. It has been a problem for years. So it was interesting to hear the applicant talk about wanting to improve pedestrian access to their property. They still, traffic engineering hasn't gone the extra step in making sure that there are crosswalks at all four of the legs at this intersection. So I would like traffic engineering to consider that as well, but I'm here today just to be opposed to this zone change. Thanks. Thank you. Next we have Kevin Murphy followed by Maureen Peters and Bob Babich. I'll be brief. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Kevin Murphy and I live at 141 West Belcourt. We bought our house there back in 1998, but I had been coming to Belcourt visiting professors and friends and other people since the 1970s. And one of the nice things about living in Belcourt now is, as I look back, it was a trip through time coming to Belcourt because there really hasn't been an overall change in that neighborhood. It's maintained a pretty consistent identity of single-family residential dwellings since I have been familiar with it. And I want to mention that in 1983, I worked for the urban county government. I was an urban planner in charge of the board of adjustment. And I was unfortunately the one to handle the infamous McDonald's restaurant conditional use drive-through. And I can't fault Mr. Crum that much because we recommend approval of that as well. But if you're familiar with that case, you know that it was unanimously, overwhelmingly defeated. And that was due to the presentations by the Belcourt Neighborhood Association and their representatives. As a matter of fact, one of the major issues that was cited was that unique intersection that has been talked about today in front of your house at Woodland, Main, and Forest. It is extremely dangerous. Okay, so I want to just make a comment or two about the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, which should be guiding us through all of these zone changes, this one in particular. When you begin to look at the goals and objectives section of the Comprehensive Plan, you'll note that there are five themes. One of those five themes, and the first one mentioned, is neighborhoods. The preservation, the creation, the nurturing of neighborhoods and the importance of neighborhoods to the city of Lexington. And they have design policies, but I'll let you all read that. I have been sitting in the back looking at my laptop and I'm assuming that if they get the B1 zone carte blanche, we're also going to be subjected to the potential conditional uses which include things like live entertainment indoors and outdoors and all of those other things that you don't want in your backyard basically. So I also want to mention in my last seconds in 1988 I served on the comprehensive plan update committee. And as part of that duty, we were asked to speak to neighborhood associations about what the comprehensive plan is. Final statement. What I would tell neighborhoods then is the same thing I would tell them now. And that is the comprehensive plan is potentially where the war is lost before the battles even begin. So I encourage you to think about the comprehensive plan and making your decision and I urge you to vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Maureen Peters. My name is Maureen Peters and I live at 535 Russell Avenue. My husband and I have lived in Bellcourt for 31 years. I've been talking to some folks who have lived in the neighborhood longer than I have and I asked about the H1 overlay and the conditions that were put on this zone. The neighborhood folks that were around at the time said the only reason they even considered the B1 zoning is because the owner agreed to the restrictions. They said if they had not gotten those restrictions, they would have voted against it and stayed R4. They lived with the fraternity house for over 15 years. It wouldn't have been a problem to keep it R4. Thank you. Thank you. We have Mr. Bob Babbage, followed by Bo Bromagen and Greg Ladd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm Bob Babbage. I have a company here, Babbage co-founder. Many memories of Belcourt going back to the 50s and recently. It's a great neighborhood. I speak on behalf of my wife and myself in favor of the project. Our son is involved in it and I've followed some of these considerations closely. The economy of Lexington has changed and it changes all the time because we're a popular place and people want to be here. Lots of people want to be here for lots of purposes. People move here every year. We have a net gain in population. I don't have to tell you that. I did sit on your side of the table a long time ago as a council member and listened to presentations like this. I'm not a planning expert, but I do know we rely on the plan and history and the staff in particular who have been excellent in making decisions like this. I want to share with you that there's a club like this in Louisville and in other cities. The Louisville Thoroughbred Society is in the 200 block of East Main and Louisville like this is in the 500 of East Main here. It's designed to draw young professionals and we're trying to do that for business meetings, for board meetings, and civic and social and other functions. It's been successful and is a good teacher for what we can do here and have a success with. Our economy is changing. I want to emphasize that constantly, all the time. The pressures are great. I'd love to redesign the city, make a little more room in a lot of places, have some better outcomes that way. But the Louisville Thoroughbred Society is an asset to that community like this will be to Lexington. In our emotions, we get exaggerated sometimes. There are not 500 members in the club. That's wrong. There's a parking plan. That's correct. And I think too, because the young partners in this have offered to Belcourt, have your board meetings at this place, have your civic causes at this place. Already you've had a fundraiser for the Land Conservancy, the Bluegrass Land Conservancy, even though the place is not in perfect shape, just to help that cause. So this is a positive asset for our town in many, many ways. And I hope that we can continue to have this conversation. I have friends in the neighborhood. As I said, memories in the neighborhood. Debbie Johnson was in my carpool in the 50s. That's how old I am. So I remember Belcourt and the playground way, way back. And we want it to be special. We want to keep it special and this development team and partnership is committed to that very cause. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bo Bromagen, Greg Ladd, and then Andrea Mandello. Hey, I'm from Lexington. I live nearby. I'm here to support the project at 509 East Main. I think this project represents the efforts of local residents who like myself and many others are committed to seeing the continued improvement in our city and the investment in our community. Through its development, the project serves the city not only through the preservation of property and economic impact, but also by offering artistic and cultural opportunities and providing a social and professional environment that fosters both personal and business relationships that can strengthen the social fabric. While I appreciate the reservations that a select few may have, it's important to understand the difficulties facing traditional brick and mortar businesses. They shift towards online sales that have caused too many businesses to close and properties to be vacated, allowing them to fall into unmaintained disrepair that is negatively impacting the surrounding areas. It cannot allow our city and its properties to fall into disrepair degradation and should be recognized this project will prevent that from happening. For removing the deed restrictions, the council will ensure that local investment will continue to improve our city, benefit our neighbors, and strengthen our communities. I hope you will join me in this sport thanks thank you greg ladd i'm greg ladd i have to say i'm uncomfortable speaking in front of a lot of people i did not sign up to speak my wife signed me up who's here with me today so i'll be brief You know, I'm 72 years old now, backing off a little bit from the business we've had. We own 509 East Main Street for 25 years. It's a wonderful building. That's the reason we moved into it. It's something that needs to be preserved, and it does take a lot of money to keep it going. You know, we found that out, so consequently as a business, and the gallery business is not an easy business to make a living in anyway, and certainly in Lexington. So we found that we had to go on the road to raise money, which we did. We do exhibitions all over the country probably, you know, over the last 25 years or 49 we've been in business. But over the last 25 years, we've done hundreds of exhibitions all over the country, California to New York to Florida, Toronto, everywhere. So you need that income to make this work. We needed it to make it work anyway. These young fellows, when they came to me, you know, my primary concern is preserving the building. I mean, it's a beautiful piece of property, and we were thrilled to get it. Just put a whole lot of money into it, and annually put a whole lot of money into it. When they came to me and showed me their game plan, I think it's a wonderful game plan. I think it's going to work. from the standpoint of improvements on the building. I mean, I don't know if you've been in the new hotel down on Manchester Street, but those people are involved in this from the standpoint of interiors. I've seen some of their plans. It's going to be absolutely beautiful. It's going to be something that I could never have done with the money that I brought in. But anyway, we love the property. We think it will be maintained beautifully. I think their game plan will work, and I'm in favor of the change. Thank you. Andrea Mandelo and Jonathan Nunley. And that is all the names I have on my sign-up sheet. I'm sorry? Okay, do we have additional names? Okay, all righty. Thank you. Hi, I'm Andrea Mandela. I think, first of all, I want to just express from a personal standpoint where the economy in this town is, because my husband and I are both self-employed small business owners, and I can tell you in the last six years we have both had to shut our retail doors. So between my personal experience with furnishings and interiors and my husband's, as well as several of our friends that are in business for themselves that may still have their doors open, but I can tell you for a fact that they are struggling to keep them open. Businesses are changing. Small businesses aren't surviving. That's just the reality, and it's sad, but it's true. The other thing I want to say is that I have a personal relationship to the Ladd family and that property. It's a wonderful place. I've spent a lot of wonderful time there. Almost had to think about getting married there when COVID happened, and I couldn't get married where I was supposed to. but my point being I have no doubt that they're going to do the right thing by that property and I ultimately think it will be really great for the community and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Jonathan Nunley followed by Amy Clark. Hi. I was excited to be best for last but looks like a late addition. Being a young professional not from Lexington, I'm excited for the opportunity of joining what is anticipated to be an adverse and forward-thinking club. As I'm sure many of you know, as you get older, it's harder to make friends, and that can be very isolating. For a 32-year-old transplant like myself, having a space with other thoughtful and professional individuals can be a game changer. The other private clubs in Lexington are either stuck in antiquated ways of thinking or prohibitively expensive to young people like me. I'm confident that should this group be allowed to open their club, it will be a communal space allowing for greater engagement between community members, as well as creating a positive economic impact for not only its members, but the city as a whole. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. This commission in 1990 granted the B1 zone only on condition it be restricted to compatible uses, and we've heard that these compatible uses were agreed upon between the Neighborhood Association and the resident landowner. And I must say I'm very impressed that the landowner, the business operator, lived in that house. It was a residence. If this rezoning is to be amended and the conditions withdrawn, let it then return to the prior residential use. Those were the conditions upon which the zone was granted. We're seeing lately, I was going to say a surge, but certainly a significant trickle of petitions to remove or amend conditional zoning restrictions adopted with the zone itself in prior years. And this is a provision that's unique to our county, this possibility of attaching conditions to the grant of a zone. And it's called into question when people say, well, we'd like to change that now, we'd like to change it again. Well, it wasn't really very important. It was trifling. It can easily be fixed. Please recognize the high and reasonable standard of review and deny the petition because there is no demonstrated change to the property and its vicinity to warrant amending the restrictions agreed on 30 years ago as a condition of allowing the B1 zone. I would mention two considerations in particular that have come up. The hours, if in the unwelcome event that you grant the rezoning, the hours need to be a conditional zoning use restriction, the intensity of use. And dwelling units need to be restricted to long term, not the commercial transient rental. notice that extended stay hotels are not among the uses still to be permitted if I have that straight. And so certainly other transient rental would not be appropriate. But please deny the petition. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Brady Barlow followed by William Meng. Hello, my name is Brady Barlow. I live at 505 East Main. I go with her. I've lived there 20 years. We're proof that the dominoes are not, in fact, for sure going to fall on Main Street Residential. We bought the last residential house, one of the last residential houses close to downtown. We've happily raised two kids there. We love it there. We actually bought the house as an investment, and we stayed for the neighborhood. So, Belcourt is extremely special. It's like a Norman Rockwell calendar, the way that I would describe it. So, a few things, and I'm a quick talker, so a few things I wanted to point out. There's been a lot of talk, and I love the lads. we were neighbors of theirs for 20 years, but they don't own the building anymore. So it can't be their legacy. Investors bought the building. So I think that's a very important thing. They knowingly bought the building with the zoning in place recently. So I think that's an important thing. The second thing is there's been no talk of the number of members. Someone said 500. We've been told 300. But the problem is I do profit and loss statements for a living. I've done a P&L on 300 members for that business. It doesn't work. So what do we do then? Do we go to 500? Do we go to 1,000? Do we go to 1,500 until it makes money? So I think that's a big concern because there's no provision for that. And then the last thing is it doesn't serve the neighborhood. That's been mentioned, but private clubs have restrictions. they can only be open to the public once a month so and and it's invite and it's invite only so that's what their their paperwork says you don't get to you don't get to be in the club unless you are invited so i think those are all important things thanks thank you uh william meng Yes, my name is William Ming. Sorry, I didn't originally intend to speak here today. I mostly live at 720 Beachmont, but I do own a place in Belcourt and spent many years at Crossgate Gallery. But, you know, I spent six seasons on Kentucky collectibles. I started my own regional auction house, and I really only deal in local things. So when we're talking about the antiques market as a whole here locally, frankly, to see those type of restrictions on that zoning is unfathomable to me. I didn't even run an auction this year because the market's so hard. We've seen the Bluegrass Trust show, Antique and Garden show didn't run this year. I was in Louisville last month for their largest show, and it was half the dealers were there. A lot of us are going out, so I have to support this. Thank you. Thank you. And that is all that I have signed up for public comment. Is there anyone else who would like to speak? If not, Mr. Nicholson, take a few minutes for a rebuttal. Thank you all. I will try to be brief and just kind of hit on a couple points that have kind of consistently kind of come up. Yes, this is an H1 overlay. That's great news when it comes to additional protections for this neighborhood. This isn't introducing new uses in this neighborhood. There is B1 property, there's B2 property in this overlay. And this makes sure that this property cannot be fundamentally changed. The functionality of this property cannot be functionally changed from how it basically operates today. I should have clarified with regards to the delivery in Ubers. We mentioned this at the subdivision committee. We will be utilizing the kind of rear parking lot for all of that, just like Crossgate Gallery does for their large box trucks that are basically dropping off deliveries today. We can also set all ride sharings to only have specific pickup and drop-off locations for that rear kind of parking lot area. On the marketing materials, those were done at a time before they did know about the conditional zoning restriction because they weren't aware of the conditional zoning restriction when this property was bought. This was a totally different business model that has changed as they've continued to have dialogue with this neighborhood. This is one of the beautiful things about the type of conversations that we have been having, where there is a response to the neighborhood concerns and there can be a fundamental change in what that business model was. And that's exactly what has happened here. And we believe that this change has been 100% for the better. The new development plan that Ms. Baxter brought up, that was just the rendered presentation plan that's required to be filed prior to all of these hearings. There is no outside exterior changes whatsoever being proposed to how this property functions today. Any exterior changes, including any changes to the exterior of a building for a commercial vent system, will have to be approved by the Board of Architectural Review in a full public hearing, just like we are having today. The development plan is also conditioned, as you all know, on approval of this request by the Urban County Council. It's one of the first conditions on every single development plan. So there isn't any type of rush to have to file an unnecessary appeal pending the outcome of the Urban County Council action because the development plan is, in fact, conditioned on that. The traffic accidents. They mentioned 66 traffic accidents in five years' time. There's 20,000 to 30,000 trips a day in this area, and so that doesn't strike me as a large number, but that also is why the state is improving this intersection. The residential use, it is not allowed to be residential use in the B1 zone as it is. As you all know, B1 restricts it to residential use on the upper floors and requires the B1 use to be on the first floor. that requires this property to be a niche boutique for that first floor. And so there can't be just a return to any type of residential use, or I was surprised to hear a welcome return to the Theta Chi fraternity house. On the side yards, they mentioned it's 15 feet. The minimum side yard in the R4, which is neighboring adjacent property, is five feet. In the B1, it is zero feet. This is 15 feet with substantial landscape buffers that exist today are not being proposed to change. If anything, they are being proposed to be enhanced. On the economic changes, you've heard from the actual operators of the Crossgate facility. By moving to where they are, they were able to save $20,000 a month in the overhead of the operations of a gallery. A lot of the businesses that Ms. Baxter pointed out are in those smaller type locations. They are in the type of facilities that can financially make these types of uses viable. The only one that was mentioned that is in a 10,000 square foot historic structure is Ann Greeley's interiors, who is currently on the market as an unrestricted B2 zone. What a surprise. The only other interior store with this type of structure is currently on the market. There is no short term rental proposals as part of this plan. We are not proposing 500 members. We are shooting in a dream scenario to have between 250 and 300 members. And talking with similar clubs, you are lucky if you see 10 to 15% of your membership on any given day. You are lucky to hit that type of threshold. Outdoor noise. We've kind of talked with the neighborhood in the past about restricting the outdoor areas to prohibit smoking. We are happy to do that. We're also happy to basically shut the outdoor areas to earlier and basically in the night. So if we want 10 o'clock at night, we can shut basically those areas and we're happy to put that as a note on the development plan. We are wanting to be good neighbors here. They do not want our core business proposal to be here. I understand that, but we're trying to basically work as much as we can to make sure that we We can still operate a normal B1 use that is prevalent all throughout the areas, all throughout other neighborhoods, and have just a baseline of those uses that make it fundamentally economically viable. Last point I will say, if you look at the conditions on what the staff findings are, you are seeing that there is economic change that is in this specific building, that is in this area. You also heard retail people talk about the changes that they are seeing in the Lexington market specifically. You also saw staff say that this is an unreasonable restriction. That's a very strong language for a staff finding. I think you should follow your staff's advice. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson. Ms. Baxter, does anyone have any immediate questions for Mr. Nicholson? Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Baxter. Thank you. I just want to address a few things that I heard Mr. Nicholson say there. If there's been a change to the marketing materials and how this property is being marketed or advertised, the Belcourt Neighborhood Association has asked for those. They've been provided none of them. Again, there's been no meaningful opportunity for them to engage despite attempts to do so. I heard Mr. Nicholson say, well, there can't be any changes to the exterior. In some of these neighborhood meetings, as I understand it, there was talk of moving walls and expanding patios. That's inconsistent. This timing issue with, oh, well, maybe we could say folks are off the patio by such and such hour, That's never been proposed or discussed with the neighborhood, despite kind of requests in that vein. As far as the Greeley property goes, it's my understanding as hearsay, but that someone's interested in purchasing that property and using it for the same use it has been historically, which is an interior design slash residential property, as I understand it. I want the Planning Commission to be aware that there are no B1 properties that are adjacent to residential properties within the Belcourt neighborhood. This property is unique in that way. The applicant cannot prove that the existing zone is not appropriate or proper. The standard of the zoning ordinance amendment was not meant to allow a zone change simply because a property owner believes they can make more money or may have a more valuable use if they make more money or the property may be more valuable with a broader range of uses. That's not the question, despite that being some of what the message has been from the applicant in this case. It is a robust standard, and it is intentionally so. The applicant has not, in this case, met that standard and presented proof consistent with a clear preponderance of the evidence that there's been this major economic change. There's been this argument that, well, this is essentially just antiques. It's not just antiques. Those restrictions are broader than the applicant is submitting to you and they remain viable on the subject property and within the subject area. That's what the relevant consideration is for the commission today. This property is part of sort of a larger antique gift interior design corridor. This is not about retail trends. It's not about industrial standards. the question is not what's going on at the macro level. The question is what's going on at the micro level. And I would ask the Planning Commission to protect the Belcourt neighborhood. The city has worked hard, these neighbors have worked hard to protect and preserve this neighborhood for decades. I'd ask you not to reverse course and sort of destroy what these folks and what this commission has worked hard for a long time to preserve. So I ask you to vote no on the proposed amendment. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Baxter. Mr. Crum? I forgot. Do any commissioners have any immediate questions for Ms. Baxter? If not? Daniel Crum, planning staff. Just wanted to just clarify a couple of items. First off, when we're talking about a H1 overlay, This has not gone to the Board of Architectural Review as of yet. That's standard. They usually let zoning cases run its course before they review it. That's pretty standard practice for them. They will look at any additions to the building, whether it's venting. They also have purview over the trees and associated canopies, so they do have the ability to review that as well. When looking at the standard, it was brought up several times since then, but the standard is not agreement with the comprehensive plan. It is with that very specific set of findings, and staff finds that there has been that substantial change that is called for within the conditions there, and it is unreasonably restricting the utilization of the property. With regards to the conditional zoning restrictions that you all can place, if the Planning Commission deems it appropriate, you can place restrictions on the hours of operation. You can prohibit things such as outdoor loudspeakers. There was some mention of short-term rentals. This, as proposed, would only allow for dwelling units. It would not allow for a short-term rental, an extended-state hotel, or a hotel use within that unit. So just wanted to address those items. If there's anything else, any questions you've got of staff, but otherwise, staff stands by its recommendations. Thank you, Daniel. Mr. Mickler? Well, this is just a clarification. There's also no part of this that's asking for a conditional use for outdoor amplification or live music. And it's my understanding that if this property is as close as it is to residentials, that would not be permitted on the property as is. Yes. So there is, I guess, a distinction between outdoor amplification, so speakers, and outdoor live entertainment, which is indoor and outdoor live entertainment. Those are differentiated, so within a certain distance to a residential zone is a difference between it being a permitted use or a conditional use, normally in a normal B-1 zone. However, as currently proposed by staff, within those conditions, outdoor live entertainment would not be permitted, indoor or outdoor live entertainment would not be permitted at all. So indoor or outdoor live entertainment would not be permitted at all, meaning they could not go before the Board of Adjustments and request for permission for that? That is correct. And did you all have a discussion? Is the applicant aware of that restriction? It's been brought up in conversations before, but I believe the applicant is aware of that provision. Okay. Any other immediate questions for Daniel? If not, we will terminate this portion of the hearing and open it to commissioner comment and questions and discussion. Mr. Pol. I've got a commitment that I have to meet, so I'm going to have to leave. I just wanted to share my thoughts before I left. This is really difficult for me because I know and love so many people in the Belcourt neighborhood. However, I agree with the staff with regard to the substantive economic change. I have too many friends who've suffered in the retail business, and I've watched what's been going on there on a very personal level. I'm also concerned about the need to generate enough income to maintain a building that i know is an expensive building to maintain i'm assuming that the move to the move the gallery's move had a lot to do with the need to the the inability to generate what they needed at that site I think there's been a really unfortunate mishandling of relations with the neighborhood. I'm hoping that that's not an indication of the new owners and developers' attitude. I'm hoping that it should dispass that they will move toward a much more collaborative attitude with the neighborhood. If it passes, I would favor strict limitations on hours of operation, strict limitations on noise, and prevention of any short-term rentals in the residential units, to include limitation on outdoor loudspeakers of any kind at any time. So that's where I stand. I'm sorry, I've got to go. Thank you. Commissioner Poe? Well, I have a, before, you know, we do a motion, I would like to hear maybe from Mr. Nicholson. Do you have some draft language that you might be willing to share as far as adding a condition to talk about the hours? We can work with Ms. Jones in order to do that through a recess. We thought that that was only going to be able to do as a development plan note as opposed to initial zoning restrictions because like their county council is very restricted in what like conditional zoning restrictions can be. And so I thought that it had to be a development plan note versus a conditional zoning restriction. That's correct. I mean, that would be reasonable would then just a sign off on the time. The development plan note. And so based on what you all kind of direct as far as hours of operation, that then gets put on the development plan note. Since it doesn't really go to a use slash buffering conditional zoning restriction, I think it has to be a note. And sort of the times you discussed were... Go ahead. It was 8.30 to 10 on the weekdays, and it was 9 till midnight on the weekdays, 8.30 to 10, 9 to midnight on the weekends, and we're happy to restrict the outdoor areas to basically 10 o'clock throughout the entire week. Okay, thanks. And then just making sure that what I heard was correct, that because there's no conditional use on this for short-term rental, that that's understood that that's not included. Yes, we are not requesting short-term rentals. We are not requesting outdoor live entertainment. Okay, thank you. On this marketing materials, we don't have updated marketing materials. We don't know the outcome of this. Thank you all. I guess I would just comment also just similar to Graham. I know many of you in the Belcourt neighborhood. And speaking to you all and the developer, there has been so much change to the retail environment. since this very restrictive zone came into place. I haven't seen a zone this restrictive since I joined the Planning Commission. And even for some of these uses, the idea of selling books today and not selling coffee, I mean, there just has been a lot of changes in people's behavior and shopping habits that don't jive with the way that this zone is written. flexibility and change is important. That being said, I think it's a missed opportunity by the current applicant to create a neighborhood space. I think there are a lot of ways that this project could generate the revenue that they are looking for in this sort of special place with a very walkable neighborhood right behind them. And so instead of looking out for those willing to pay an initiation membership fee, I think it's a missed opportunity that they're not looking at the neighborhood right behind them. But I do support the general staff's recommendation because I do think that this zone is inappropriate the way it is now. mr wilson or i'm sorry owens who are you asking for mr owens sorry i was um comments i'm trying to be as brief as possible i appreciate everyone speaking and coming down here. I've heard and I think it was pretty equal on both sides, but everybody made very good points. And I would agree with the opposition in the fact that I would have definitely loved to have seen this supplemental staff report come out sooner. However, I do agree with supplemental staff report and there's a lot of things here. One, I think the art business is very difficult and that area can be difficult as well. That house can present its own problems. My knowledge would be the fact that my previous employer attempted the art business for 10 years, first on Walton Avenue on one side of Crossgate and then down on East Main Street on the other side. And after attempting it with art and even jewelry, he closed his doors after 10 years. As far as the location, it's a lovely building on the corner. It's not interior to Belcourt. And I think it would be a benefit for what they're wanting to do and not really present the, what I would say, premature fears that I'm hearing. The building itself is almost, the property, I should say, is almost walled like a fortress. And I think it would provide adequate screening. And with what we've heard as far as business hours, denoting business hours, limiting business hours on patios and outside to 10 o'clock, we can definitely say no outdoor speakers whatsoever. I'm good with this and I can I'd be willing to make a motion whenever anybody's ready. Well before Mr. Owens does that, do any other commissioners have comments, questions? Yeah, just a clarification, something that the attorney said for the neighborhood, but I think to the applicant, a question about how often this is open to outside groups. I heard that could only be once a month. And I'm thinking about what Mr. Mickler said about opening to the neighborhood as a location for neighborhood association meetings or other kinds of opportunities for neighborhood engagement with the property. Can you clarify that? So I believe that also came from the marketing materials that were very outdated on a completely different concept and so we're more than happy to work with outside groups to be able to host it um you know multiple times there's not a going there's no hard restriction on the time we've also talked in several belcourt like members that are wanting to be members of this club and so like we are looking interior we do want to have a strong membership in this area i know if i lived there i would want to that is for sure just just to reiterate the comment i think a lot of the concerns i'm speaking as somebody who's lived across the street from an sae fraternity house a long time ago who also lives close to one of the private clubs that was mentioned earlier in the presentation and have spent some time at at the bell house over the years and the carriage house a lot of what I heard was people very frustrated because they didn't hear answers to their questions. Not that they're certain that this is going to be detrimental, but they don't know what it's going to be because they don't have answers to their questions. And so going forward, whatever happens, I think it's really important that in all these kinds of situations, that the communications with the people who are going to be impacted by this get very good answers that are timely. Thank you. I cannot agree more, and I certainly will commit for the applicants that as this, because we have to go through counsel as well, that we are absolutely committed to answering these questions or making sure that there's open lines of communication without a doubt. Thank you. My own thoughts. It is an extraordinarily restrictive zone that was put on the property in 1990. However, I understand why it was put there. I think what the applicants are proposing is very intriguing. It could be a lot of tremendous value and contribute to Lexington. However, my reservations and concerns involving the neighbors, particularly considering that it's in essence bordered on three of four sides by residential zones, I'm not saying there's not a solution. I'm just saying I'm not there yet. I, again, I wish there was a lot more neighborhood engagement and involvement. As I say often in chambers, I think there's a path to yes, but I don't think this application is quite there yet. But I very much appreciate everyone's efforts because I believe they are very well intended on every side. That said, does anybody else have any more thoughts or would like to make a motion? May I ask a procedural question? Oh, okay. There's been sort of some talk about certain restrictions and imposing some certain requirements. Would the appropriate time be to do that now before you all make your vote or between now and the Planning Commission? I just wanted to be clear on that. Ms. Jones. Well, just to see if we can clear this up a little bit. The statute that I'm looking at right now about zoning restrictions says you can only restrict the use, the class of use, or the density, impose architectural or visual requirements if it's in a historic zone, which it is, or impose screening and buffering restrictions. Now, you all are changing what you're here for is to talk about removing this restriction, but that's going to necessarily involve changing them if you do that. In terms of, so that's all you can do per the statute. So what you're being asked to do today in regard to the zone change, which has really changed the zoning restriction, are those things. But the development plan has a host of other things available to you, which would include things like lighting, noise, hours, things like that. So, you know, as addressed earlier, it depends on your vote. and by the way we're running out of time before the council meets in here shortly just so you know but we're depending on your vote if you were to vote this down then the development plan becomes a non-issue. If you were to do what the applicant is requesting of you then the development plan will also come into play. So what I would tell you is if you're interested in And depending on what your motion is going to be, if it's going to be in favor of what the applicant is asking, and you want to impose some of those things that are not set forth for purposes of conditional zoning restrictions, but on the development plan, before you approve the development plan, you might want to add those or have a conversation about those. I'd just like to have an opportunity for my clients to just parse some of this out. I think there may be some room to do that, and I think that would be welcome if we could talk about some of those requirements that were discussed by council, and it seems at least some of council is in favor of. I just want to make sure we don't miss our window, and I'm honestly unclear what the appropriate time is to do that. So I just wanted to note that for the record. I certainly understand. Commission thoughts on that question? I would just like to, I'm having a difficult time, I'm on the fence with this application. I think it's a good project. I think it's interesting. I just wish that it, in my mind, could have more benefit to the neighborhood who has, you know, is very active and has been there a long time. I'm with Robyn's comments in that it's unfortunate that there hasn't been the, you know, the engagement and had there been, maybe this project could have taken a little turn that would have been more involving to the neighborhood. So I'm on the fence. Yes it's restrictive. Am I concerned about moving forward if this doesn't fly? What the neighborhood could potentially be faced with? And so I think I'm with Zach in that I'm not quite there yet. So, Mr. Nichol. I was just saying I'm interested in making a comment and a motion when you are ready. I mean, maybe to answer your question, we make a motion. We see if it passes. If it does, then we address any sort of proposed restrictions that would be on the notes of the development plan. Is that reasonable, Ms. Jones? Okay, question. Yes, ma'am. So will we see the development plan again, or where does it leave us at? This is a final? Is this a final development plan? It is a final development plan, but any changes have to go to the Board of Architectural Review, which allows for review of this council. But your question, it's a final, you won't see it again. Staff does have to certify that the development plan is in compliance with the wishes of the Planning Commission. And so if the planning commission wishes to put hours of operation restrictions on there, so long as that is part of the motion, we then have to convert that into a note which has to be on there to staff's approval prior to any type of certification. That's true. The question is, you know, if you say that it has to be certified with, how specific do you want that note to be before it gets signed off and certified? That's the question, but that is a possibility you've done that before. But you've also done specifics before. All righty, Mr. Nickel. All right, thank you. So from what I understand is I'm going to make a motion and then we're going to see the development plan after the result of the vote of this motion. So what I, we'll have the ability to vote next on the development plan. Can I make a suggestion? May not be a good one, but is it possible to do that? I don't. Sure. Okay, thank you. I think what I'm hearing from the Planning Commission is you all sort of agree with us that there's been a breakdown in communication. We've not really had a meaningful opportunity to engage. We would like to have that opportunity. I'm wondering if it would be possible to, postpone the vote on this until a later date. In the meantime, we could get together with the applicants, try to figure out and craft some of these sort of restrictions that I'm hopeful we could maybe find some middle ground on. Depending on the calendar, I mean, the planning commission can always make a motion to postpone, but I don't know where we are on the calendar with this application. Well, let me say this. You have a November 5th deadline, and if you recall, a couple weeks ago we spent a long period of time arguing about the dates because there wasn't an agreement so you can't go beyond the 90 day period that you all have to act and I'm not sure you're gonna get and you know I don't know that I mean you all can do that but you got to got to be within your period of time statutorily that you have to act and I don't know if that can meet everybody's desire. And if it's not within the 90 days, it can still happen, but only with the applicant's consent? Correct. All right. The other option is we can make this a preliminary development plan. We're not changing anything. We're not having to pull building permits based on this plan. And so if the worry is properly kind of evaluating what conditions you all want to place that aren't conditional zoning restriction, as a note on the development plan, we can bring that development plan back. We could postpone approval of the development plan until after council action. I mean, there's a range of different options when you're only talking about the notes on the development plans. I believe you can do that. I'm looking at Tom Martin who's handling the development plan. I mean, it would have to be clear in the record that you're changing it to a preliminary, which means it would come back to you all. And it could be a motion to postpone action on the final development plan. Right. You could vote on the zone change part and then postpone on the final development plan or make you get a preliminary plan to come back to you as a final. Is that, Tom, are you agreeable to that? Yes, yes, that's exactly right. As you all know, you most often see preliminary development plans with zone changes and then you see a final. But because there's no physical changes, quite often that's why you'll see a final. But they can make it a preliminary and come back to you with a final where you can discuss development plan conditions on their operations, hours, all that sort of thing. Alrighty. Any more comment before any motions? Seating on the floor is open. All right. Thank you. So I'm going to make a motion that is referencing the applicant's findings and the staff's findings. And what I find is that I agree with the staff that the industry trends are a significant economic change that were not anticipated. And that the current conditional zoning restrictions are unreasonable. And that in turn that limits the property rights of the owner. So with that statement, I would like to propose approval of PLNMAR 23-00012-509-East-Main with the 21 conditions that are shown here on the supplemental staff report. Those are, yes, those are uses. Sorry, uses, not findings. The findings that I'll reference are the staff's findings. in the supplemental staff report question question you're talking about the staff alternative okay yes staff alternative yes zone change only staff alternative which is 21 permitted uses on the property so going from 1 to 21. all right that's my recommendation in motion motion for mr nickel second from mr i'm sorry motion for mr nickel second for mr wilson correct all righty and our voting appears to be working so we will vote electronically motion carries so now we need to tackle to how how do we want to handle the development plan do we We just want to request that the applicant read and label it as a preliminary. Do we want to postpone? What's the best? He's offering that it be a preliminary plan, so I think that would be the best way to handle it. Okay. To make this easier, we can postpone the development plan until after basically the council action to determine whether or not they actually will lift the conditional zoning restriction, and then we can bring the plan back to present basically a note to make things a lot easier since we are working on a council deadline. All righty. So I suppose just a motion to postpone action on the development plan until after council has heard the zone change. Do we need to put a date certain? I don't know that you can put a date certain because we don't know when the council is going to schedule or act on this. So in depth and postponement until after council action. Put the timing, times on there. Mr. I think we can do this pretty quickly. Owens, if you want to make. I'll try. And we can have discussion. I'll move for approval of, it's not going to be MJDP, the preliminary plan for 23-52 Z-Falcino property. With the staff's approval and recommendations, I'd like to change number six to denote. on-site drop-off location for members and deliveries only and then number seven to no business hours as was presented by the applicant closing hours of 10 p.m on weekdays including closing the patio at 10 p.m and then midnight on weekends and then also that's number seven number 8. There shall be no outdoor speakers. We have a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Nichols, is there any discussion? So we can just call it a preliminary plan. We don't have to have a motion to make it a preliminary plan or anything. It would be helpful if Mr. Nichols would say they are agreeable to making it a preliminary plan if that's the route you all are taking. That's fine. Okay. Okay. All righty. So motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, we will vote. And that motion carries. Thank you. I believe we have one last item. Good evening. I will not take up too much of your time since we are on a deadline to get out of here. But this is a public facility review for Bluegrass Airport for some changes and additions. So I will proceed through here pretty quickly. Again, this is for the airport located at 4000 Terminal Drive. The proposal is to construct two new hangars and a commercial fuel farm. Please respect the speaker and exit the room quietly. Thank you. As I'm certain most of you are aware, the airport is located along the intersection of Manowar and Versailles Road in the agricultural rural zone. It is in one of the rural activities centers. The rural activities center was initially identified in the 1999 Rural Land Management Plan. And the blue area that you see here contains 707 acres. prior to the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan update. The airport acquired and constructed on some additional land outside of the RAC boundaries, but the proposed projects are within the existing boundary of the airport. Before I get into the current proposals, I did want to update you on some projects that received a public facility review about a year ago. Those are the Firefighting Training Center. They are expecting that the fire simulation equipment will be active in spring of 2024. Building renovations and expansion completed in spring of 2025. The east side hangars that were reviewed last year are expected to open in fall of 2024. They are working towards the Gumbert Road realignment. Their design is complete, but the construction has not been authorized yet. The baggage screening system design is complete, and they are looking at funding for that, but it may not happen until 2025. Terminal solar arrays were discussed last time, but those have not been funded and that project is on hold. And then the Westside General Aviation Fuel Farm, again the design on that one is complete, but they have not received funding. They're still working towards that. And then the Westside hangars are being finalized as far as the design and contract and they will plan to occupy that in summer of 2024. So moving forward to the new proposal, these are both located on the east side of the airport's and include two new hangars and a commercial fuel farm. So, progress here. So, the two new hangars are shown in yellow on the plan here. One of those, the smaller one is a 120 by 126 foot single bay hangar for small aircraft storage. The larger hangar is a single bay hangar for multiple privately owned aircraft to be stored. And they are also anticipating that there will be offices and storage space in this location. The proposed fuel facility will replace the existing fuel facility, which the applicant states has reached the end of its useful life, so they are creating a new one. Larger jet aircraft has led the airport to develop a fuel farm that will store 160,000 gallons of fuel. This project will include road, tanks, pumps, and piping systems, as well as security fencing in this vicinity. So this is as close in vicinity to the hangars that were being proposed. You can see, I'm not used to the new pointer. One of the hangers is going in this location and the other down at this end and then the fuel farm there in yellow. So these projects are supportive of several themes, goals, and objectives of the comprehensive plan, particularly those related to tourism, economic development, transportation, and quality of life. There are also a couple of policies of the comp plan that are related to attracting and retaining young professionals and fully utilizing the rural activity centers without negatively impacting the surrounding ag lands. Those also apply to this public facility review. So staff has found that the projects are in agreement with the comprehensive plan, in agreement with the rural land management plan, and that the proposed improvements to the Bluegrass Airport will benefit Lexington with better service for the community and for those visiting our community. And I will open it up to any questions that you have, and I believe that Mr. Day from the airport may still be here if you have questions for him. Thank you, Autumn. Are there any questions? If not, I believe we just need a motion to, is it accept or? Your motion is to find that it's in compliance with the comprehensive plan. A motion to find that this is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the findings that the plan for the Bluegrass Airport additions are in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Do we have a second? Mr. Wilson, all in favor, we'll put it to a vote. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Autumn. And for other commission items, Mr. Owens had one item. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to let it be known that after zoning hearing last month on September 28th, after we closed the council went about their business and during that process the mayor and the council made the proclamation and announcement that september 28th was deemed to be frank pen day so i'd like for that to be well known throughout the commission and and everyone i joked with uh frank pen after the fact saying she did it at six o'clock because everybody feared that he couldn't handle more than six hours of having it in his name thank you it's on record thank you mr owens uh nothing else on the agenda we are adjourned thank you all