Over time! Living in America And I Save your decision Living in America Head in Constellation Living in America Got to have a celebration I live in America Wait a minute. New York City, Dallas, Pittsburgh PA, New York City, Kansas City, Atlanta, Toronto, and LA. New America, yeah. New America, yeah. I live in America. I live in America. And I'm a big one. I live in America. Hey, I know what it means. We'll be right back. So nice with your bad self. Living in America. I feel good. Easy come, easy go. That's just how you live. Oh, take, take, take it all. But you never give. Should have known you was trouble from the first kiss. Had your eyes wide open Why were they open? Gave you all I had And you tossed it in the trash You tossed it in the trash You did To give me all your love Is all I ever ask Cause what you don't understand Is I'd catch a grenade for ya Throw my hand on a blade for ya I'd jump in front of a tree for ya You know I'd do anything for ya Oh, oh, I would go through all this pain Take a bullet straight through my brain Yes, I would die for you, baby But you won't do the same No, no, no, no Black, black, black and blue Beat me till I'm numb Tell the devil I said hey When you get back to where you're from Mad woman, bad woman That's just what you are Yeah, you'll smile in my face Then rip the brakes out my car Gave you all I had And you tossed it in the trash You tossed it in the trash, yes you did To give me all your love, that's all I ever ask Cause what you don't understand is I'd catch a grenade for ya Throw my hand on a blade for ya I'd jump in front of a tree for ya You know I'd do anything for ya Oh, oh, I would go through all this pain Take a bullet straight through my brain Yes, I would die for your pain ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. The End 131. So I would like to call this meeting to order. Welcome. First on the agenda, agenda item two for the commissioners. We have minutes from the August 24th, 2023 minutes. I'd like to have a motion for the approval of those minutes. Mr. Chairman, so moved. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? Second by Mr. Pohl. Thank you, sir. Please vote via Granicus. Mr. Wilson, are you going to vote? I did. You did? You got the one that- Okay, all right, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you, sir. Postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Murphy? Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On page three of your agenda, item two, clear optics LLC, zoning map amendment and first security national bank development plan. That's PLN MAR 2311 and PLN, MJDP 2343. I represent the owners, we're still working out some issues on that one and we'd request a two months postponement to December 14th. Okay, I want to check with staff, right date, because I didn't have it on here. It is the right date, in December we're having a combined meeting. Okay, thank you. Yeah, December 14th. Okay. The floor is open. Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to make a motion to postpone. Excuse me. PLN MAR 2311 to our December 14th meeting. Okay, thank you Mr. Davis. Any discussion to that motion? Not seeing any. We have a second by Ms. Worth. Please vote via Granicus. It worked. It did. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Thank you. Okay. No more. Okay. So that put us on page two of the agenda. Staff. So Chairman Forrester, we would like to see if there's any items this afternoon that qualify for an abbreviated hearing. And just for the audience, the zone changes can have an abbreviated hearing if they are recommended for approval. And also if there's no one present to object to the zoning change. So we'll go over those and if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to have one of these items heard with a full hearing, if you will raise your hand when I mention the case number and address, that will help us. So the first case that qualifies for an abbreviated hearing appears on page two of the agenda, and it is PLN MAR23-9, and the application has been made by 214 Waller Avenue, LLC, but the location of the zone change is 416 and 418 West Maxwell Street. This has an associated development plan as well. Is there anyone present that wishes to have this item heard in a full hearing today? Okay, seeing none, that can be our first abbreviated hearing this afternoon. The next item appears on page 5 of the agenda, and it is PLN MAR23-14. The application is from Lexington Habitat for Humanity. And this zone change involves property at 220, 224, 226, and 228 East 7th Street, as well as 628 Maple Street. And again, there is a preliminary subdivision plan that accompanies this requested rezoning. Is there anyone present who wishes to have this item given a full hearing? Okay. That can be our second abbreviated hearing today. The next item appears on page six of our agenda. PLN MAR 23-15 and the applicant is Meadow Oaks Farm LLC. This is a request to rezone property for 3320 Feliciana Lane and 6800 Manowar Boulevard and also has an accompanying preliminary development plan. Is there anyone that wishes to have this case heard by the Planning Commission? Okay, seeing none, that also will qualify for an abbreviated hearing. We do have one more zone change on the docket, and we did receive some opposition to that via email or correspondence. But we'll see if there's anyone present today to object to that. And that appears on page 8 of our agenda, PLN MAR23-17 Red Draw Development LLC. and that's for property located at 2156, 2176, and 2184 Liberty Road. Okay. Okay. So we will need to have a full hearing on that last case that appears on page 8. So it sounds like we'll just follow the order of the agenda today. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Crum. So I'm going to put us on the agenda of page 2. Item 1, PLN MER 23-9. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crumb Planning Staff. The next request on our agenda is a request to rezone. This request is being made by 214 Waller Avenue, LLC, and it is a request to rezone the properties at 416 and 418 West Maxwell Street. Currently, the subject properties have a B4 zone. The applicant is seeking a Lexington Center business B2B zone. The applicant, in their discussion of place type and development type, have identified this as a low-density residential development type within a downtown place type. Staff agrees with the choice in place type. However, the choice in development type, staff does not find appropriate. The applicants seeking to rezone this property in order to establish a four-plex multifamily residential use at this location. So the subject properties are located along one major downtown area. So we are located on West Maxwell Street, so the subject property is shown in white here. So West Maxwell, and then it's also near the intersection of another major roadway in South Broadway. So these are these two parcels shown in white. As far as the current zoning, it is zoned before. There's kind of a collection of other B4 zones and uses as you go further away from West Maxwell Street, but the predominant zoning in this particular area due to its proximity to the Lexington Convention Center is this B2B zoning that the applicant is seeking. So there is B2B zoning adjacent on the parcels here across the street, as well as further northwest along West Maxwell. There's also some B1 zoning located at the corner with an existing drive-thru liquor store. as well as some residential as you kind of go further away from West Maxwell Street. Here's an aerial that gives you an idea of kind of how the properties are laid out. So of the two parcels, only one contains a structure, so the singular structure is here. Otherwise, the vacant lot is adjoining. You can see its relationship to the other B4 zoned businesses tucked away here, residential uses as you go further back, as well as the actual convention center and parking lot associated with that slated to be redeveloped in the future. This yellow line indicates that there is an H1 overlay district, so a historic district in the immediate vicinity. However, the subject property is not located with anyone. Here we have view of the subject property from West Maxwell Street. So this was a B4 zoned property and had a auto repair auto service use at this location. Once again, the adjoining parcel to the right primarily has historically served as the vehicular use area for the site that leads to the back. The subject property also has access on the adjoining Annie Alley that leads to the rear of the structure. The applicant is wanting to essentially utilize this existing structure to expand upon it, but utilizing the current footprint. So making some modifications, but staying with the same approximate size. Here we have a plan for the development plan for the subject property. There has been a change since the initial review at subdivision committees. The applicant has opted to remove the vehicular use area and drop-off area that circulated around the site here. And so that is now being shown as green space. And so one of the comments and concerns staff originally had was the impact of this vehicular use area on West Maxwell and just the amount of site that was impervious surface. So the applicant has made a change with that regard, but otherwise is keeping the same footprint. The applicant is indicating that they are going to utilize the structure to put four residential units to second level, two first floor units. The applicant has provided a rendering. This does show the potential for commercial use on the first floor. The B2B zone allows for a mixing of uses that we really like to see in the downtown zone. So this is a graphic representation of what the property could look like if the rezoning was approved and their uses were established. With regard to the discussion of the place type and development type, so the applicant and the staff agree that this is a downtown place type, which recommends for high-density residential and high-density non-residential uses. The applicant is proposing a low or medium density use here, utilizing this small existing structure rather than building out on the lot. The downtown place type really calls for a more intense use of the property, kind of higher mid-rise structures, and an increased utilization of the lot. The applicant's proposed zone is a recommended zone within the place type. However, the development staff felt it wasn't meeting the intent behind the comprehensive plan and place builder at this location. So once again, the applicant is advocating for a lower medium density development when high density is pretty explicitly called for within the comprehensive plan. Within our last staff report, staff kind of outlined a number of ways that the current proposal really wasn't meeting what the place builder was calling for. The applicant took a look at this, submitted a supplementer letter of justification that really addressed that essentially based on the size of the site and its proximity to these existing roadways and the amount of constraints on the site, that meeting what the comprehensive plan is calling for in this location wasn't possible. So staff has found that they weren't fully meeting the comprehensive plan. However, in instances where there is an agreement with the comprehensive plan, the applicant does have additional means to justify a zone change at a particular location. They can find that the zoning given to the property is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate or that there's been major changes that have substantially altered the character of such areas. So they've opted to make an appropriateness argument that the B4 zone is inappropriate and that the proposed zone, the Lexington Center business zone, is appropriate. To give a kind of a quick overview, B4 uses are really intended to supplement kind of industrial, light industrial uses. It can have some residential support, but primarily deals with storage, with vehicular intense uses and equipment storage and things that aren't necessarily conducive to an effective pedestrian environment. Doesn't allow for residential component and generally does not create a pedestrian friendly environment. B2B is the explicitly recommended zone for this particular area. Contains a mixing of uses that's designed to support the downtown core as well as the Lexington Center. So it allows for retail offices, professional services, restaurants, residential uses. So a true mixing of uses with the development standards that allow for kind of a downtown built form. To illustrate some of the components behind why the current B2 or the current B4 zoning is inappropriate, here we have the subject properties. They're highlighted in this blue color. And then you have an aerial that gives an overview of the surrounding area. So this is in 2022. Going back to 2000, this was a substantially different site. So this is an aerial showing some differences. So once again, we have the existing subject property here, as well as a number of structures outlined in red that used to be warehouses. So this did have a more industrial, more warehouse-oriented nature prior to the early 2000s. However, since that time and since the reconfiguration of Oliver Lewis Way in Newtown that removed the large industrial sections here, as well as the existing warehouses here, here, here, and here, we've made a transition much closer to what is called for within the downtown. So mixing of uses, allowing for a pedestrian-friendly experience. And so in essence, staff is agreeing with the applicant's contention that the current B4 zoning with the shifts that have occurred on the property in this proximity to these major downtown corridors is inappropriate. And that the B2B with its proximity to B2B zoning in the downtown core is appropriate. So we find that it's appropriate for the following reasons. The small size of the property limits the ability to utilize the site for wholesale and warehouse uses. It's oriented to support industrial and commercial users that are no longer present in the area. It doesn't promote a pedestrian friendly experience and doesn't allow for the mixing of uses. We also find that the B2B zone is appropriate because it allows for higher density development. It adjoins existing B2B zoning and it allows for consolidation and future development that's a little closer in line with what the comprehensive plan is calling for in the future with its adjacency to other B2B zoned properties. With this, staff is recommending some conditional zoning restrictions. The properties in this area that have been rezoned to B2B all contain this common thread of prohibiting several automobile-oriented uses. So we want to protect the character of the West Maxwell corridor as well as provide for pedestrian safety. So we are prohibiting eliminating automobile service stations as well as the auto sales rental of those items. So as always, this is made subject to the approval and certification of the corresponding development plan. But staff does find that the appropriateness argument for the applicant recommends a recommendation of approval with those conditions. So with that, staff would be happy to answer any questions you may have. As always, Mr. Martin will be on to follow me to discuss the development plan. Any questions for staff? Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the development plan that's associated with zone change is on page three of your agenda, as well as we should have passed out to you on this lovely lavender paper, some revised conditions. As Daniel reported, we have a revised plan for this property. Now, this is a preliminary development plan. They will follow up with a final development plan, which will be before you sometime in the future, should this zone change move forward. Now, as Daniel pointed out, we are here on Maxwell Street. This is the existing building, And they are going to reutilize the existing building. They're going to add a second floor to it. It is just over 1,900 square feet in size, so they'll be doubling that for the four units that Daniel mentioned to you, four residential units. There's pedestrian facilities around the building, as you can see. And with this, they're going to enter the building with a hallway and go upstairs. they will access the upstairs units interior to the building. Daniel mentioned as well, there's ample green space being provided on this plan. No vehicular use area is being proposed on this particular development plan. The staff has reviewed this, and we're recommending approval of the plan to you, subject to the conditions on your handout. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Do we have any questions for Mr. Mark? Not seeing any, thank you sir. Are there any citizens that would like to make any comments on this particular application? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. I'm sorry. I'm scared, I'm scared. Applicant. Come on, come on. Thank you, big dad. Mr. Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, I am Fred Eastridge with Vision Engineering. I'm accompanied today by the owner of the property, Trey Cranfield, who's over here and can answer any questions. I want to first thank Daniel and Tom for the excellent presentations they did on the project. and I have talked with the owner just a few minutes ago and he is acceptable to the conditions of not having any auto sales or service on the property. And I think the staff has done such a great job. I don't need to belay you anything and I'm going to take up your time. I do like to request that you approve the zone change as it stands. Is there any questions or anything? Are there any questions for the applicant? No, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Now I can ask if there are any citizens that would like to speak on this particular application. Do so by stepping up to the podium. If not, we can take it back, bring it back just to the committee for a motion. Meyer? Mr. Chair, I'd like to move for approval of PLN MAR 239-214 Waller Avenue. LLC for the zone change for the reasons outlined by staff. Okay, thank you. We have a second by Mr. Wilson. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Ms. Meyer? Yes, and I'd also like to move for approval of PLN mjdp 2345 odd and elizabeth robin robinson property with the um seven do we need can we remove discuss place builder or do you want place builders still on it place builder um number seven Okay, yes. So yes, with the revised six conditions. Okay, thank you, Ms. Meyer. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Wirth. Any discussions to that motion? Seeing none, please vote Villagranicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Okay, Mr. Crumb, on page five, item number three, A, PLNMAR 23-14. All right. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The next item on our agenda is a request by Lexington Habitat for Humanity. It is three zone 0.56 acres. The property is at 220 through 228 East 7th Street, as well as 628 Maple Avenue from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone. The applicant is seeking to construct a townhome development at this location, and he's seeking to place it in an enhanced neighborhood and a low-density residential development type. Staff agrees with the choice in place type and development type. Here we have the location of the subject properties. I'm going to zoom in a little bit to give us a better idea of the surrounding area. So the properties complies this block at the intersection of Maple and East 7th Street. It also is bounded by an alley on this sort of southeast side. The subject properties have B1 zoning, however, they really have not had a history of B1 use. The subject property on Maple Street was rezoned to a B1, but the use was never established. There is, however, existing B1 zoning in the surrounding area with several businesses on the opposite side of East 7th Street. So here located at this intersection, we have several existing commercial uses. Otherwise, the other areas shown in red are actually residential uses that just happen to have B1 zoning. The larger area is overwhelmingly zoned R3 and is comprised of residential uses as well. So here we can see the subject properties, currently a vacant lot, not being utilized, as well as the character of the development in the area, largely single family with an older, narrower style of development. Here we have some views of the subject property. So the area along Maple Street does contain some substandard parking areas. These are being proposed to be removed with this request, but the subject property is, like as stated, currently a vacant open lot with the alley running to the rear, which will serve as the primary access for the site. Here we have the view from 7th Street. Once again, here's that alley access, but otherwise in an empty lot. This is how Maple Avenue looks in the vicinity. So you've got that existing residential character as well as a glimpse of this is the commercial uses otherwise mixed in with the existing residential. So the applicant is seeking the R3 zoning, which is what's consistent with the immediate vicinity. As this is single-family residential development, they are able to do this as a subdivision plan rather than a full preliminary development plan. As such, you do not see the outline of the structures here, just an idea of how the properties will be lotted up. They will primarily be oriented towards Maple. However, the unit on the end here, Unit 7, will have some porch activation to help activate the 7th Street frontage. The applicant has submitted some rendering. So these will be two-story units with a small porch feature on the front. But they're just giving a view of how this will look from Maple here. And then this would be the view from 7th Street. So single-family attached units, two-story, being constructed by Habitat for Humanity. We agree with the applicant's choice and place type, development type, and zone. All three are recommended. Staff is recommending approval of this request. We finance agreements with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan that speak to expanding housing choices, activating underutilized parcels, and creating a pedestrian-friendly environment. We find it's agreement with policies that speak to keeping the development in scale with the surrounding area, providing an activated streetscape, and increasing the supply of affordable housing. We find that it meets the criteria for site design, building form, and location, transportation and pedestrian connectivity, as well as green space and environmental health. As always, it's subject to the approval and certification of the corresponding development plan, which will be presented next. but staff is recommending approval of this and we'd be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff at this time. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crone. Is there any questions? Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, The plan is associated with this zone change is on page six of your agenda. DeLong Additions, Lots 17, 18, and 19. It is a major subdivision plan. And when you have a residential zone change, when you consult with staff, this is one of the options, when you have, particularly with single family, that you can have a preliminary subdivision plan as opposed to a preliminary development plan. So, there will be no final development plan follow up in this regard. They will be able to construct any necessary infrastructure repairs, improvements, utilities, et cetera, off of this preliminary subdivision plan and then pull building permits to build the townhouses. With that, again, preliminary subdivision plan is a very simple site layout demonstrating the orientation of the lots, which Maple Street is the front. They will be attached, as Daniel showed you with the exhibit that they provided. They will be offset as required for townhouse development. Access will be from Foster Alley to the rear of the units. They are required to meet Article 15-7 of the ordinance. that's the requirements under infill and redevelopment for design elements. As you all are well aware, they're not particularly strict, but they have roof pitch requirements. They have covered porch requirements, doorways, that sort of thing. Habitat for Humanity is very familiar with these. They've done this on a couple other projects now, so they've got a lot of experience with meeting those requirements. So again, it is a preliminary subdivision plan for the seven townhouses. They will be activating this unit, as Daniel mentioned, along East 7th Street as well. Again, because it's got its double frontage as a corner lot. But your subdivision committee recommended approval subject to the conditions that you see on your agenda. And staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Commissioner? Mr. McClendon? Well, this is a question not as much related to this subdivision plan, but more a little bit broad. But the removal of that parking area, will it remain at all for parallel parking on the street, or is it to be removed in its entirety? It's all going to be removed, but I believe they will have to repair the right-of-way as necessary. And that will be part of the engineering review of the infrastructure plans. And as much as parking is allowed on Maple, they will be allowed to park on the street right-of-way. Well, and I think, and this is maybe just a broader question for us as a city, But as we're doing projects like this that increase residential activity on these streets, it would be a service, I think, if we evaluated whether we can expand on-street parking on some of these streets like Maple. Because I believe right now it's, for some reason, a double yellow-lined, no-parking street. and we would be doing the future residents of service, I think, to look at that. Your point's well taken. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. I've not seen any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Good afternoon. My name's Katie Beard. I'm with Prime AE Group, the civil engineer for this project. Lexington Habitat for Humanity is here as well. The applicant, as I stated in the subcommittee meeting, they're excited about this project. They're hopeful for an approval today to take the next steps in moving forward with providing some affordable housing in this area. They're agreeable to all of the conditions. And we have been approved for the sanitary capacity. That was one of the approval conditions. We've been working with them and the capacity is available. So with that, I will keep it short and sweet and take any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? All right, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. If not, we will bring it back to the commission for a motion. We have two motions. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN-MAR 23 to age 14, the Lexington Habitat for Humanity, with the conditions provided by staff. Okay, thank you. And we have a second by Ms. Boxtel. Please vote via Granicus. Graham. Screwed you up here. Are you a yes, Graham? Yeah, we can record it over here. Graham, you're a yes, right? Yes, it's just not letting him back in. All right, can we make that? Okay, so that motion passes unanimously. Mr. Wilson? Mr. Chairman, I would also like to move approval of preliminary PLNMJSUB 23-5, 5, long addition, lot 718 as amended. Okay, thank you. With the 10 conditions provided by staff. All right. Thank you, sir. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Barksdale. Please vote via Granicus. Good jam. There you go. It's only Thursday. That motion passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Look forward to seeing that project. So that should put us on page 6, agenda item 4A, PLN MAR 23-15. We have two motions, and we have revised staff recommendations for this as well. Thank you. Mr. Crum. All right. The next item on our agenda is PLN MAR 23-15. This is a request by Meadow Oaks Farm LLC in order to rezone 5.64 acres of the properties at Manowar Boulevard and Feliciana Lane. They are seeking to expand an existing approved CC development in this area. This is located within the expansion area and is as such a subject to the expansion area master plan or EAMP. However, the applicant is also chosen to make a place builder argument in conjunction with this application. seeking to place this as a new complete neighborhood and a medium density non-residential slash mixed use development type. Staff will get into the expansion area master plan and the comprehensive plan in a moment, but agree that the place type and development type can be appropriate with this application. Here we have the portion of the subject properties being rezoned shown in white. This is located on Manowar Boulevard prior to its termination at Winchester Road. So moving south, we have the interstate as well as Polo Club. Moving in a little bit closer, you can see the existing zoning. So this area has existing CC zoning that was approved in 2017. This was approved as a mixed-use development, having office space, a residential component, and it was supplementing a planned assisted living facility that was originally intended to be located here. The rest of the subject property is comprised of EAR2. AR2, so it's that medium density expansion area residential. In the vicinity, we also have some lower density expansion area residential, as well as agricultural rural zoning. Here we have an idea of how the subject property is actually laid out. So here we have the subject property, the portion being rezoned, the existing portion of CC that the applicant is seeking to add onto is located in this area, and then you can see the rest of the Meadow Oaks farm kind of comprised of the rear. So this This is slated for future development for residential. You'll also notice in the immediate vicinity we have an existing residential neighborhood that this will be connected to via Feliciana. So this roadway will extend up through the development and provide connections centered around this large amenity of this farm pond that the applicant is seeking to utilize as a feature with this request. Here we have a view of the subject property. So this is view of the entrance from Manowar. an existing farm drive that the applicant is wishing to retain, as well as some significant trees and landscaping along this area that the applicant wishes to preserve. You can also see the existing cemetery, which is fenced off in this area here, that is also being preserved with this request. Here we have the view from the adjoining residential neighborhood, so this is the entrance coming off of Feliciana, where it will enter the proposed development from the south. Here we have a view of Manowar in the vicinity. It is a two-lane roadway, but it is still an intense roadway in this vicinity. As I stated earlier, this is located within the expansion area. So this is within area 2A, and so the subject property's location is shown in with this red circle here, its approximate location. Initially this area was planned to be exclusively EAR2, which is the residential density of of up to six units per acre. However, when several changes have been made to the proposed land uses in this area, most notably, this area of CC zoning that was proposed kind of centralized to this entire expansion area 2A shifted. So this is now closer to the interstate. It is the Costco development with Cabela's development. So the planned community center zoning that was supposed to be centralized was moved closer to the interstate. Partly as a response to that, the CC zoning that was approved in 2017 is located here now. So essentially the applicant is wishing to expand that existing CC zoning, even though it is not recommended within the future land use element. They make an argument for how it's meeting other components of the expansion area master plan. Moving forward, so this is development plan showing kind of the entirety of the larger Meadow Oaks or the Ashford Oaks development. We'll zoom in in a moment, but the portions that are being amended with this request are here. So we have the larger, lower-density residential development that kind of comprises the back portion of the farm connections to Feliciana as well as to Man of War. Zooming in a little bit closer, we see the portions that are actually being rezoned with this request. So it's just this five-acre portion here. This is being done to accommodate several new uses, the most major of which is a hotel use located here with a sort of courtyard plaza areas fronting on a large Great Lawn amenity space. They're also proposing several supporting uses in a spa slash bar as well as some additional restaurant space. The hotel itself will also have a residential component, so there will be dedicated residential units included within this hotel structure here. In order to make the required densities and mixture of uses line up with what is called for in the EAMP and called for within the comprehensive plan, this development to the north will gain some additional dwelling units as well as size. So these units up here will be a mix of three and four stories and contain a mix of residential, office, and retail uses. With regards to the community center zone, it really calls for mixing of uses and calls it to be incorporated with neighborhoods. It calls for incorporating these things around public spaces or meeting areas, trying to develop sort of a town or a village feel. They are calling for when appropriate to be integrated with multimodal transportation as well as possible and does have a non-commercial component so it requires residential to be included as well as open space requirements. So the existing community center development that we've had in this community really hasn't met the full intent behind what the community zone was calling for. So these are the two areas within expansion area 2A that it have currently CC zoning. The one on top here is the Costco development, so large big box retailer. Into the south is a little bit better mixing of uses containing some residential gas station as well as a pharmacy, but not really a civic gathering space and not really a community feel like is what is being called for within the comprehensive plan. Due to its relocation, kind of closer to the interstate, it also provides for some connectivity issues with the residential neighborhood that it was supposed to serve. Here we have some views of other CC zones, once again, missing the mixing of uses, intentional vertical stacking of uses, and the organization around common open space. So when regarding the expansion area master plan or considering the expansion area master plan, especially when moments where it is not in line with the recommendations of future land use elements, the applicant is choosing to make a place builder argument as well. In circumstances where both of these things are kind of in conflict, the comprehensive plan calls for weighing them kind of both together. So one is not taking precedence over the other. The argument in their application are arguing that they are meeting kind of the intent and the spirit behind the CC zone, just not the future land use element component. Staff in the review of the place builder element of this found numerous goals, objectives, and policies that apply. This development is going to enhance tourism, allow these existing neighborhoods to flourish by organizing additional mixed use opportunities. It provides pedestrian connections and really neighborhood supportive uses in a way that the current CC zoning in the area along the Costco and Polo Club really doesn't accomplish. Staff is recommending approval. We find that the CC zones in agreement with the comprehensive plan, goals that are relating to tourism, providing amenities, as well as providing for connectivity. We find that it's in line with the policies of the comprehensive plan, speaking to providing mixed-use development, increasing the amount of housing and the variety of housing being provided. We find that it's in line with the development criteria for site design, building form, location, as well as transportation and pedestrian connectivity, as well as green space and environmental health. And then while it is not recommended within the future land use element of the EAMP, staff find it is in agreement with elements of that plan, specifically calling for mixing of uses, vertically oriented around common open space, increasing accessibility to create a development that it is possible for neighborhood residents to walk to and meet their needs without utilizing a vehicle. it's recommending density that's in keeping with the intent of a commercial community center zone especially along a major roadway and it provides for additional pedestrian connections. As always this is subject to approval and certification of the corresponding development plan that Mr. Martin will be on to talk about in a moment but otherwise staff would be happy to entertain any questions you have about the proposed CC rezoning. Thank you Mr. Crone. Any questions for staff? Thank you, Mr. Daniel. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Daniel. One thing, and I'm glad you mentioned the fact that with the other CC zones that we've had in the past, not one component or the other has a hard time of getting built. It doesn't seem like both get built. Do we have any security here that both are going to be built here? So that would be reviewed at time of final development plan. So if one component is not being shown or those square footages and that ratio is not meeting the requirements, then at the time of final development plan, it could be denied by the Planning Commission and it would be reviewed as such. We've seen both components on final development plans before, but yet it's still not built. Just asking. Yeah, so that land would have to remain vacant. I mean, it would have to be shown on the plane and it would remain vacant, but right now we don't have a great mechanism to ensure that both are actually followed through with that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Is there any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Crum. Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan associated with this zone change is on page 7 of your agenda. And we have handed out revised conditions on, once again, this lovely orange paper for you, as this is an amended plan or revised plan, I should say. It is an amended one as well. Has Daniel – let's see if I can get where I need to go. There we go. All right. So here we have the overall plan for this development. And this, of course, is the existing single-family area that's currently governed by the currently certified development plan and is not a part of this amendment. As Daniel pointed out, it is this area through here that is being amended and is part of the zone change. So again, here's our existing CC area. You have access off of Manowar. Here's your Manowar frontage. Access off the existing farm road will be in this location with access into this CC area looping this way. This is the existing, there's a cemetery with a nice large tree in it. You may have noticed it in one of the photographs that Daniel showed you of the farm entrance. It was off to the left. You could see it. It was fenced off. So that's one. Ah, my thumbs. My thumbs. My big, there we go. So again, that is a part of this development that you can see here. And again, approved commercial residential in that area of the CC. Here in the new area of the CC, they are essentially proposing a hotel, large hotels. Again, there we go. And the restaurant, the bar, cafe, here you can see the hotels that are being proposed. The total square footage being proposed in the CC area is 235,000 plus. So they're proposing a fair amount of square footage. The lot coverage itself is only 71,000. That's what actually sits on the ground, the footprint on the ground. The hotels are 117,600 square feet total, multistory. with the suites. There's 10,000 square feet of private suites in each of these hotels. One is five units, the other one will have six units. So that is a necessary component in the CC, that they have a residential component along with the commercial component of the hotels. So that is what they're proposing at this time. Now, they're connected. Here's this large green lawn area that kind of serves as a connecting feature to the townhouses. There's 45 townhouses being proposed, and their access is a write-in, write-out off of Man of War. Now, you're going to see a final development plan and probably a preliminary subdivision plan on this. We're going to have some further discussions about that write-in, write-out, and make sure it is designed correctly and make sure there's the appropriate median controls in Manowar for that to function. They have a pedestrian access system, again, as you can see. They're also accessing the amenities, the large pond in this area, which has a trail along the other parts of it. They will be connected by a pedestrian system to the original existing CC area. And they have the standard approvals subject to this preliminary plan. They have a couple of cleanup items. We just want to make sure they clearly state what their coverage and their FAR under Article 21. And then they need to clarify some site statistics relative to the density that's required under the AMP. Again, it's just a matter of a little bit of clarity in some of their site statistics and how they read. And with that, I will mention the landscape buffer before it almost slipped away from me. There's a required landscape between the zones, and this one comes right through here. See the dash line? That is required, and they're indicating the buffer. There it is. Obviously, they don't want to install that. So at the next phase, should this move forward, they're going to have to go to the BOA for relief from that. The lawn and the pedestrian system, you can see, is a central component to the development. So they don't want to have to run a line of trees and shrubs or a berm, fencing, that sort of thing, down through that. But they will need to seek relief from that requirement at the next stage of this development, again, should this go forward. With that, staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions? Mr. Mickley? Yeah, I have three questions. The first question has to do with the parking areas of this plan. I guess I'm noting that we're adding a significant amount of commercial space with this CC rezoning, including a lot of hotels pretty far away from our sort of transit and walking areas of our town. And all of the parking, if I'm not mistaken, is surface parking. There's no structured or underground parking. Is that correct? That's correct. And is that considered appropriate? Well, appropriate, it has to meet our requirements. and we can only measure it based on what our actual zoning and subdivision requirements are. So that's how we'll evaluate it. And in terms of the location of the parking, I'm looking at it, one is a little bit troubling. Just the parking lot that separates the hotel from the pond, that seems we've often talked about using our natural areas, especially water areas, as sort of amenities. And instead of sort of a green space or natural area or amenity to the hotel, we're utilizing most of that square footage between the hotel and the pond for parking, if I'm not mistaken? Yes, there is parking right there. Yes, sir, there is. As well as green space with the lawn is also adjacent to the amenity, which is open to the hotel patrons. What we will do, again, at the next stage with the final development plan, is we will review their community design element relative to the AMP, which may require some adjustments to some of these features that you see before you today. Yeah, in terms of community design, I certainly strongly would encourage you to, I would hope that the staff would discuss and at least encourage them to make that underground parking so they can make a public just in that area between the building and the pond. So they can make that public space for the hotel guests between the building and the pond. My second question has to do with access to the north. Could you go back to that sort of view of the whole area, including the approved? Yeah. If I'm not mistaken, there's only one access point to the north. Is that right? One stub out? This will be an access point, as you can see, stubbing it into there. Wherever they share frontage, like in this area where there's a gap, there could be additional pedestrian access, that sort of thing. This, of course, is the public street that comes through and can, again, there's the ability, I'm sorry, here's the public street, that will go to the north. And again, that will be fully developed with pedestrian sidewalks, et cetera. This isn't a carefully calculated observation, but that one street seems like not a lot for that area. Is that meeting our connectivity standards that we've approved? Well, at this point, and when it comes in for development, we'll have to evaluate additional connectivity, particularly relative to the rest of the system. The Manowar, Winchester Road, the rest of the system will all have to be looked at. At the point of the final development? Yes, sir, when they bring that section in. What would, just for my information at this point, what would that criteria look like trying to, because if I look around that property at the existing areas that have been developed, to the south and to the east. Our connectivity options are extremely poor. Yeah, our new standards will, at a minimum, improve the connectivity within that new development. Within the new development, and then hopefully to future development to the north. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And what would those standards require? Well, they rely more on shorter block lengths and more connections in an attempt to establish a grid system. Cul-de-sacs are extremely discouraged. So we'll see. You can see there's a fair number of cul-de-sacs in this particular development. You won't see that with the next phase of residential development. But would they be able to still only have the one connection to the north? At this point, that's all that exists in terms of vehicular connection is that street. Yes. but we wouldn't I guess what I'm wondering is why we aren't making a second connection to that commercial area yes we'll have to look I'm I'm in the plan I believe at this point again we have this we'll have to look and see and evaluate that. We'll just have to evaluate that. Okay, and then my final question is on the pedestrian circulation. It looks like it has internally some good flow around the lake and things like that. Usually when we're along a major street and there's no sidewalk, we sort of see a sidewalk come along that whole sort of public street frontage. And I'm sort of wondering why this or if there was discussion about the fact that the sidewalk doesn't continue along the entire stretch of Manowar and it sort of takes a break. That's part of the development process. And we are getting pedestrian facilities down Manowar as these properties develop. Well, it currently doesn't show it continuing all the way. I guess would you go to that large division? And they will have to improve their frontage, and that is all they have to do. And then as more development comes in, it will extend. Sorry, David, Filiatch from Traffic. When they uploaded this, we noticed that as well. And I think maybe it was just a slight communication of what we wanted. So that will be our ultimate intention is that it would connect along the frontage, not just behind the parking lot. I think that's what you're getting at, correct? And so that's one of the criteria you'll look for at sign-off then, I guess? Yes, correct. Scott, our bike pet planner, sent that email, but it had been uploaded, so I think the plan was just to handle it afterwards. Great. Thank you. That was all my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bickler. Mr. Meyer? Mr. Martin, I'm looking at our agenda, and I'm seeing that it's described as a structure, a six-story, 75-foot-tall structure that would contain a lower parking structure? Am I looking at the right plan, Meadow Oaks? That would be the Maxwell Street property. I'm not. Sorry. No. No? Are we at PLNA Mayor 2315? Am I on the wrong one? That's the wrong description. That's not the right description to the application, right? Okay, I'm sorry. The section under comprehensive plan and proposed use, yes, the... I'm on the wrong page. On page, you're on page six, right, Ms. Meyer? No, that is right. Proposal would include 250 residentially. I don't think that's right, is it? Sorry. Sorry. I believe that's for the Maxwell Project. You're right. You're right, Ms. Meyer. That's a description for a different case. So I would refer you to the staff report that Mr. Crum presented, and it should be uploaded in your Granica system. It should have the correct description. Thank you. Mr. Meyer, thank you for pointing that out. Do you have any other questions or concerns? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Applicant? Mr. Turner. Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, I'm Darby Turner, Dennis Bingham-Grain, but I'm representing the applicant here. With me is Mr. Jason Justice, principal of the applicant, along with our engineer, Roy Cayley. And we're here, of course, to answer any questions or concerns that you may have, and I'll try to address some of the questions that were asked here. We appreciate the staff's interaction with us. We've had a lot of discussion over this plan from originally filed and a number of changes. and going back and forth and come up with what we think is a very good plan, and we appreciate the staff's consideration of it and work towards something that works. Again, a couple of things I wanted to say, and Mr. Owens, to your question, Yeah, none of the CCs have really developed the way it was originally envisioned 27 years ago. This, we're going to try it. And that's the short answer. I mean, this is what we want to do. We've got now with the zone change, assuming it's approved, and with the preliminary plan, assuming it's approved, Then we've got to go try to make it work in the field with users and so forth. One thing, Tom had mentioned hotels. It's actually one hotel on two buildings. And you may recall we had approached the Palatine staff a year or two ago about trying to get the concept of a boutique hotel for this area. And we wrestled around with it. Finally, Tracy said, well, we need to make hotels and motels of principal use. and we said well and let the let the other requirements of the cc zone that the square footage is set back so forth uh dictate you know what becomes of it so we went back and analyzed that and agreed that worked out pretty well for us so this this is not a big box standard hotel motel kind of thing it's the design here is a kind of unique product we think um obviously with what's happening over in the further to the over towards the interstate with two hospitals going in that activity and the support of this type of project will pick up considerably. So that's part of the effort here as well. We did, we have, actually it's not on that plan, but on the plan we just filed, there is connectivity of the sidewalk extends along Manowar. So you're right, it's not shown there, but it is shown on the actual plan we filed earlier a few days ago. The public access to the... Tom, if you could flip it to the one you had with the one next after this. Oh, I have it. I'm sorry. Let's see. Yeah. Oops. I did a Tom. Is this the pointer? There you go. This right here is supposed is a deck in a very much open space to utilize that area with the existing pond. And I think to your suggestion on that parking lot, that will get some attention because it's additionally good space that can be used for public and pedestrians and so forth. So that will get some more attention as we get further into the planning process. But, Tom, I have one question on your revised report, and that was condition number 11, discuss place builder criteria. I assume we can delete that because I think Daniel already, we've discussed that. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And with that, we're here to answer any questions or concerns. We have people to address those, but we're in agreement with the recommendations of the staff and respectfully request approval of both the zone change and the plan. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Mayer. Mr. Turner, thank you. I'm wondering how do you see this hotel being integrated into the neighborhood or being used by the neighborhood? How does the, you know? Well, you know, in neighborhoods, particularly today, many times you have needs for family, visitors, children come back who need, you would like to have a close place to stay. The neighborhoods can also will be using the spa and the other related amenities of the hotel, including the restaurants, the bars, and so forth. And so we think the hotel will be kind of a focal community place, as well as a location for travelers coming into the community, particularly into the hospitals and some of that thing, that it will generate the necessary energy, if you will, to be a very attractive place. So it would function, you know, part of it potentially as kind of a clubhouse, kind of, you know, with other amenities. Exactly. It's the intention that those amenities be used by the neighborhoods as well. And obviously there will be some kind of fee or charge for those kind of things, but that it will have public access. It's not limited to the hotel guests and so forth. Okay. Thank you for taking up two of the questions there. In regards to the one other question, in this commercial space that's shown here, there's really only one vehicular connection out. Was that looked at or discussed? Just particularly in terms of even though it's not developed currently to the north, adding a connection for that commercial area to the north. Yeah. One of the issues, of course, is with man-of-war and spacing. And that's why the write-in, write-out is going to require some discussion at the final development plan. But there's some trade-offs with that. Now, as Tom indicated, you've got a lot of, really not a part of this plan, but there are a lot of cul-de-sacs, well, it is part of this plan, but cul-de-sacs shown in the residential area. It's very likely those will end up being stubs and so forth as we have those discussions. But on the commercial track, right now we just don't have, in order to get square footage and so forth in, the connection is over there to the east. And again, you're going through a residential area as well, too. So the commercial area there is trying to be somewhat compact. The right in, right out is going to be somewhat critical in order to control the traffic patterns. Let's see. Through here, we don't want, originally we had this parking lot emptying right here at the access, which is way too close. So we closed that off, but then this right in, right out becomes even more critical. And I'm sorry, I can't hold this that steady. But at any rate, I guess I can show it on this side, and you all can see it too. There. So going this way, this right now is the only connection in order to utilize that boundary. effectively we may we will be as Tom indicated we will be revisiting that on final development plan and they're very well could be another connection a lot a lot of that depends on what is going to happen in the on the on the proper adjacent property which we don't have the answer to right now so at any rate yes that's why a lot of this some of these issues are going to be reserved and dealt with the final development plan but this is the best we could do with this at this point thank you do we have any further questions for the applicant at this time mr owens thank you mr chair uh mr turner thank you for one acknowledging what hasn't occurred at other places in the past i don't remember that you were involved with those other ones either so I'll just hold you to it that this is going to be built this way I like the look of it I like the concept of it so thank you and as we've had the public engagement with surrounding neighborhoods we've had a very good acceptance of this and actually some looking forward to it they like what they see thank you Mr. Turner Thank you. Is there any citizens that would like to speak on this particular agenda item? Please do so by stepping up to the podium. If not, we'll bring it back to the commission. For further questions or the floor is open, we will have two motions for this application as well. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. Ms. Dolenz? In regards to plan MJDP 23-56, Meadow Oaks, I'll move for approval of the plan with the recommendations provided by staff. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion to that motion? Seeing none. Hearing none, please vote via Granicus. Perfect timing. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 23-56, Meadow Oaks Unit 2, with the revised staff conditions, or 10 conditions, deleting number 11. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Do we have a second to that motion? Seconded by Ms. Meyer. Please vote via Granicus. Okay, motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, all very much. Okay, Mr. Crum, on page 8, PLNMAR 23-17, Red Drawn Development, LLC. All right. So before I begin, I do have, planning staff has received several letters of opposition with this request, so I'll go ahead and provide those. All right. This is the last zoning request after the day, but it's a request by Red Draw Development seeking to rezone approximately 7.5 acres at the properties at 2156, 2176, and 2184 Liberty Road from a single-family residential and a planned neighborhood residential to a medium-density residential R4 zone. The applicant is seeking this in order to construct a multifamily residential development. The applicant has identified this as an enhanced neighborhood place type and a medium-density residential development type. Staff agrees with the choice in place type and development type. With regards to public outreach, during the subcommittee meetings, staff had identified the lack of public outreach that had occurred at that time. The applicant has since met with some members of the neighborhood, but it was fairly recently, and one of the comments received in the letters was some disappointment in the kind of way that public outreach had kind of occurred and kind of the lateness of it. So some outreach since committees has occurred, and the applicant has provided some information on that and is detailed in the letters as well. So just orienting ourselves to the subject properties shown in white in the center of our screen. So they're located on Liberty Road. This is east of New Circle Road and directly across from Fortune Drive. Zooming in a little bit closer, you get a better idea of the surrounding area as well as the subject property's location. So we have the three parcels here, two of which are zoned R1B. This is historically how this area was zoned. The parcel on the right to the larger parcel was rezoned to the R3 zone. However, it had a conditional zoning restriction placed on it that it could have no more than 22 dwelling units total on the entirety of that parcel. So that parcel never really developed as a more intense or dense R3 zone. But the other parcels maintain the R1B zone that are consistent with the properties along Paradise Lane as well as Wilderness here. Directly across the road on Liberty Road is where we get to a little bit higher intensity of land use. we start to see a more dense product and some zoning that's reflective of R3 and R4 development. In the immediate vicinity, we also have some I-1 a little bit further up Liberty Road, closer to New Circle. Here we have an aerial view of the subject properties. So historically, they've contained single-family residential uses. There was some issues of dumping going on at the subject properties being used as dumping of construction materials. So there's still some remnant effects of that particular development. But the subject properties, like I said, are fronting on Liberty Road. There is actually a four-way stop. So the access point that the properties currently have to Liberty Road is signalized. And a very small portion of the subject properties have frontage on Paradise Lane, which is a very substandard roadway that essentially deserves these existing residential lots to the rear. But it is narrow, approximately only 12 feet in paved width. It is worth noting that, as noted in some of the letters of opposition you received, there's been some concerns about the capacity of Liberty Road. That is expected to be expanded in the near future. The state is undertaking a project to widen that. Construction is going out in 2025. That would widen the roadway, as well as provide planned pedestrian infrastructure on both sides of the roadway. So on the section of the roadway that abuts Liberty Road to the south, there is a planned pedestrian infrastructure in, I believe, a six-foot-wide pedestrian path. So there is some expansion to that roadway being projected in the future, but it will go out for construction approximately 2025 based on the conversations I've had with transportation staff. So here we have these are the subject properties. So this is basically looking directly in on the property from its Liberty Road frontage. So this access drive here lines up directly with Fortune Drive and is signalized. So it does have that dedicated access to that dedicated signal pattern already. But it leads deeper into the property. You can see some remnants of the construction debris that have kind of been left there over the years. This will have to be dealt with appropriately in meeting all of our environmental standards kind of moving forward. Here we have a view of the intersection. So this is what Liberty Road, so the access points to the subject property are going to align with Fortune Drive here. This is an area that does see a significant amount of traffic volume throughout the day. And so the impact of this development on that traffic and the traffic patterns will be something that is looked at very closely. Here we have the rear. So this is Paradise Lane. So this is the rear portion of the property that shares a common right-of-way with Paradise Lane directly to the left. Once again, it's a very substandard roadway, doesn't have any dedicated pedestrian facilities, and really only is intended to serve those existing lots to the rear. So there's approximately three or four homes in the area that have access on Paradise Lane. All other homes in the area are using other roadways. But this is proposed to have a small emergency connection in the event of needed emergency services. So this is an updated development plan that was submitted to us. Some of the initial concerns that staff had in reviewing the first iteration of the plan was parking areas that were provided here. The comprehensive plan kind of calls for relocating those internally and not making the vehicular use areas the primary visual aspect of the site. So there's been a reduction in parking here as well as emergency access for emergency vehicles and a reduction of parking that was originally found here as well. So kind of an increase in green space found in this request. The request itself is for seven apartment units. So serving around the perimeter here with a clubhouse and community open space, community facilities being provided near the center. This is going to be kind of a standard three-story apartment product. totaling, let's see here, a total of 168 units on this particular parcel. Here, the applicant has submitted some indications of the proposed design, so a mixing of mixing materials, but otherwise a fairly standard apartment product, three stories in height. This was submitted in response to some of the staff's questions about multifamily design standards, So they included an updated letter of justification and provided some information regarding that. The applicant is seeking to place this as an enhanced neighborhood. They are really tying this into the connections that can be made with the improvements on Liberty Road, with connecting directly to transit on Fortune Drive, as well as in the immediate vicinity near Liberty and Fortune. But it's providing an enhanced neighborhood in that this is supplementing kind of the single-family residential development that's present in the area. and providing kind of a context-sensitive step up in density and intensity. Yes. Mr. Crum, there's a question about the plan that we're looking at right now. Didn't mean to interrupt you. Yeah, go ahead. We're all looking at another development plan that's black and white and has, for example, like a parking lot. I think we are looking at the first iteration of this. Yeah. So, yes. So this is the updated version. Just a clerical error on staffsend. So we need to just disregard what we have on the computer? Yeah, disregard what is being shown there. This is the updated version of the plan. Okay. Apologies for any confusion with that. So the big changes, as I highlighted from the initial plan, is that the core of it is the same, the same units, the same structures. But really the change in how this area was laid out with the reduction in parking there are really the main differences between the two plans. So apologies for any confusion with that. The black and white version has a connection. What difference is that parking lot? Gotcha. Okay. So, yeah, the only difference being shown really is the change in the parking configuration there for what Ms. Wade is telling me. So, moving on to, once again, the applicant is seeking to apply this as an enhanced neighborhood. Staff agrees. The R3 zone that the applicant is choosing to situate this in is a recommended zone for the particular place type and development type. And staff finds that medium density residential, especially with the intensity of this roadway, is appropriate as sort of a context-sensitive increase from the single family that occurs a little bit further back away from Liberty Road. As far as goals, objectives, and policies, this touches on a number of them, many of them dealing with the provision of housing, higher density housing, and mixing housing types. Calling for infill and redevelopment, as well as development that is occurring along these major corridors and these higher intensity roadways. With the connections that are being proposed, the staff finds that it is providing for safe interactions between neighborhoods, especially with the planned improvements. They're going to be coming in 2025 along Liberty Road. We find that it meets the multifamily design standards with the revised letter of justification and the revisions they've made to the development plan. And so staff is recommending approval. We find that the medium density residential zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan's goals and objectives relating to providing expanded housing choices, developing underutilized land, and providing those safe interactions. We find that it's agreement with policies of the plan, providing access to transit, meeting multifamily design standards, and relocating that parking sort of to the interior development so it's not a focal point of the site. We find that the development is in agreement with the development criteria for the chosen place type and development type. As it intensifies this underutilized property, demonstrates compliance with the multifamily design standards, provides for new connections, and like I said, relocates the parking into the interior. This proposed development also improves upon the transportation and pedestrian connectivity. It provides a kind of a connected site with a centralized amenity space, connections to Paradise Lane to the south, as well as providing a crossing and connection at Liberty and Fortune as well. We find it meets the criteria for green space and environmental health as it's not impacting any environmentally sensitive areas and increases the tree canopy present on site. So staff is recommending approval, as always, subject to the corresponding development plan that staff will be presenting next. However, at this time, planning staff would be happy to entertain any questions you may have of staff. This is probably not a question for you, but maybe how we can help people get more information. Most of the letters that we looked at that were passed up here referred to traffic. And you talked about the 2025 proposed development. Are you able to describe in just a few sentences what that's like or where these residents could go to get more information about that? Yes, so that's a state project. So the transportation cabinet as well as transportation staff are a good resource for that. Yeah, the District 7 office for the transportation cabinet is the best resource for those particular plans. Mr. Mikkel? So, in terms of the interaction with place builder, between place builder and the zone, I'm struggling a little bit here because your explanation and rationalization of the zone makes sense. But here we're looking at as cookie cutter of buildings, long rectangular as humanly possible with as much surface parking as humanly possible. in a uniquely shaped, difficult-to-connect parcel. And I'm trying, I guess, to understand. And it seems like the staff changes that have been achieved and have moved this towards approval have really addressed and helped mitigate some of the design issues along Liberty. but we've been left with a plan that really just because of the cookie-cutter nature of this architecture or lack of architecture really focuses the whole community on the parking lots. And I guess, is there place builder criteria that are looking at that, or how did you all discuss that? Yeah, so when we look at place builder, really the criteria are sort of in talking about relocating parking to the interior. So really the property's interaction from the street, the public right-of-way, is sort of a main focus. There's criteria that speak to the accessibility of the open space. So staff found that even though there are those parking areas, those vehicular areas between the structures itself and the common open space in the middle, that the kind of extensive pedestrian system that circulates throughout the site helped mitigate some of that. With respect to, I think the applicant may be able to speak to on their end, some of the design and site constraints that led them to choose this particular orientation versus perhaps locating parking kind of further there. but then you have parking that is now being provided adjacent to another property. So it's a little bit of a balancing act, and the place builder criteria provides some guidance on that, but a lot of that is oriented towards kind of the public streets, as well as making sure that this is being an appropriate neighbor and providing kind of those context-sensitive transitions. So we thought that this was an improvement over the previous design, and that the applicant did a sufficient job of justifying the design choices with that. Do we have any further questions? Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. This is MJDP 23-63. With this, as Daniel had said, there are seven buildings, 168 dwelling units. They have 203 parking spaces and bicycle racks located on this property. They have on our agenda, they have eight conditions. One is that the property gets rezoned, and then we have the typical engineering, traffic, the forester, green space, and environmental quality. Condition number seven, discuss tree inventory. I received a plan first thing this past week with the tree inventory, locating the trees, denoting which ones were significant. So I believe that condition at this time can be removed. And also, since Daniel has gone over everything, condition number eight, discussed place builder, could be removed also. If there are any other questions. Are there any questions for staff? Mr. Mickler? I just, this is a clarification since it's not shown on our development plan and I can't, my site isn't quite good enough there. Where it connects to Paradise on the black and white plan that we're seeing, we don't see any sort of pedestrian access down there, but it appears that the sidewalk continues on down to Paradise on that development plan. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. You can see the sidewalk along the front of the building, and then as it comes down the edge. This second access point actually was a public safety issue. Anytime over 100 dwelling units, they like to see a second access point. So that's why we asked for an additional access point. And this is where they came out and put it on Paradise. Okay, and it does include, at this point, pedestrian access. They're showing a sidewalk along the edge of it, yes, sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Applicant? Is there a sidewalk along Liberty Road? Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Jihad Hallani with Vision Engineering. We are in agreement with the staff about the condition as well as in agreement with the staff about that zone change is an agreement with a comprehensive plan. We had a public meeting, neighborhood meeting a couple of days ago on Tuesday at the 24 at 5 p.m. at the church close to the subject property. There was four individuals that came into the meeting, we discussed the project. And so basically that's our, in addition to the normal notification, so basically that's our meeting with the neighbor. And if there's any question, I'll be more than happy to address it over here. Okay, thank you sir. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Mr. Mickler? Yeah, I'm curious a little bit about the design of that internal space. I suppose it addresses staff concerns because it's managed to check off all of our design criteria while at the same time is not in keeping with the spirit of them in terms of just focusing all these buildings around this sort of central parking area? Has anyone on this, has anyone, these appear to all be sort of pre-designed apartment units. Have you brought in anyone from the architectural side on this project yet? Yes, sir. A couple of things. You don't see them on the 2D design. That side has a lot of challenges from geotechnical point of view and topography point of view. There's significant change from, I guess, from the east side to the west side. So plus the soil itself has been a used dump area for a long time. So the first thing we have done is that we did some kind of massive grading to see the buildable areas where we can fit the building and the area based on the geotechnical investigation that has basically the better soil of the site. And based on that, the building is going to get, to a certain extent, oriented in that direction. And EOP, the architect, is going to be taking that project from the zone change point of view forward. So we have been working with them on kind of building shape and number of units and things like that. And the property owner also has done kind of market study to determine the size of the unit, if it's going to be one bedroom, what kind of size two bedroom units, and decided that majority is going to be a combination between one bedrooms and two bedrooms. And also associated with that market study, what kind of rent expected for that area, and also knowing the fact with the challenges we have with the site itself from a constructability point of view, if it's feasible to build that project or not to reach that market value. So there's a lot of things that went into the background that's not shown here on the 2D dimension. And then also one more thing I want to add is that we have been working with Division of Photo Quality on sanitary sewers. That site has no sanitary sewers. So the sewers is going to be going underneath a bore underneath Liberty Road and connect to an existing trunk line that runs north of the property. And also we work with the transportation cabinet about the right-of-way, what the future right-of-way is going to be. And all this building has been set farther from the future right-of-way, and we are proposing to have a berm along the back of that area with some landscaping and evergreen berm. and also we are showing some bike connectivity to the future Liberty Road and the sidewalk connectivity to not only Liberty Road but to Fortune Drive. There's two bus stops, one cover bus stop approximately 400 feet from the intersection of Fortune Drive and Liberty Road and there's another one west of the site, maybe 300 feet. and on the emergency connection we would be working with fire department about accessibility how it's going to fire truck is able to access to the site is going to be gated for for only for emergency cases and you're right we are showing a sidewalks that's going to connect to paradise drive as well are the sidewalks going to go along the front of liberty as well Yes, sir. We are not proposing on this plan. We are proposing the sidewalk to extend all the way to the intersection with the 2025 construction of expansion of Liberty Road that will connect into the six feet sidewalk that the state is planning on that roadway. I see. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. This is time for citizen comments. um there's yes ma'am i mean i've lived here 19 years i'm at the top of paradise lane he states your name patricia oh b-i-s-h-i-r by shirt okay thank you and i have a nice half acre i think this is going to make things really congested i don't see 200 plus parking spots This man in the middle where there's supposed to be green space, he has destroyed that property with that dumping of concrete, garbage, concrete garbage which should have been sent to CNR for crushing over on McConnell Springs Road. And to me, this is going to be builder grade. Luxury is what they have titled this as. There's not going to be any polar siding for decent utility bills. There's not going to be any bricks in between each unit, which would be luxury, but he lists it as luxury. Brick walls for fire and soundproofing, this is totally not luxury. And it's going to be builder grade, it's way overcrowded, it's causing congestion. It's my opinion that they should be down where Parks and Rec is on Liberty, and Parks and Rec should be up here. We can have our nature and our seclusion and our peace and quiet, and this is just builder-grade garbage. That's what it is. It's builder-grade garbage. Paradise should go straight to Fortune Drive, and we should have a light to exit. I know we're spoiled back there with all our nature, but it's been great. And this is going to be ugly, but I mean, the buildings look pretty, but they're not going to have polar siding. Their utility bills are going to be sky high. The only thing luxury about that is the $900 price tag on each unit. And we on Wilderness Road should be able to access that fortune drive as our light. There should be a street from paradise straight to that light. This is clutter. That's the way I feel about it. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you. Is there any other individuals in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application? Okay, applicant, do you want to step back up, address any other citizens concerns? No sirs, no more comments. Okay, thank you. Mr. Pohl? Yeah, I have a question, if you don't mind. On the site statistics, it says that the property parking is 231 spaces? No. It used to be 231, but as Daniel and Sharon mentioned, we lost the parking space. We removed the parking spaces fronting along Liberty Road, and then a row of parking spaces along the emergency connection area. And the total is now? Two or three. And then we went to the ITE manual, based on the ITE manual for one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. It can say a range between, if my memory is correct, from 165 to 220. So we are within that range. We feel comfortable that the number of parking spaces are going to be adequate. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Staff, do you have anything? You got a question? Yes, we'll bring it back to the commission for questions and concerns. I am now. Yes, sir. It's a question for staff, and it's one of these topics that everybody's concerned about, but no one seems to be putting some action toward it. And I guess my question is, when you look at and review development plans, do you ever ask the developer point blank whether or not some of these apartment units can be used for a four-year-old? affordable housing or for low-income housing? So there are development criteria and aspects of the comprehensive plan that kind of speak to those issues. There's nothing that requires it within our zoning ordinance. So the applicant, I don't believe what this request has indicated anything about the price point. We're strictly looking kind of at the land use here. But I think the applicant could provide more information on what they're specifically going to be doing here. It's not required, but is it possible to have that discussion with any developer that's coming forward, not just with anyone, but just simply ask the question if, in fact, they are willing to address the affordable housing unit as they're building these types of things? Yeah, that's generally a goal of the community that's outlined in the comprehensive plan and something that staff speaks to, but there's no mechanism to require that here, essentially. Well, I understand the requirement. I'm just trying to get the discussion started someplace. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Mickler? I have a question for traffic, if I could. Yes. I would like to sort of bring the question from the citizen comment forward. I understand that Paradise was constructed before the current roadway standards. In balancing that with the benefits of connectivity, what is your thinking there? And what is your maybe comment or reaction to the comment that that should connect Paradise as an access for the people on Paradise all the way up to Fortune Drive? I think you already kind of alluded to it. The only concern is the Paradise Road lane being about 10 or 12 feet and then connecting that through. It's certainly something that we could look at as far as in the final development plan. But I think the applicant would have to reorient their site as well. So that would have to be something on their part because you wouldn't necessarily want to connect and then the connection be the parking lot. Not that there's a lot of traffic between the two anyway, And currently the connection is shown. I don't know if it's evident because they don't have the utmost up to date. It's proposed to be gated as well. So it's just an emergency access aside from the pedestrian access. But the conditions of Paradise Lane would be something. There's another application that we've looked at before that the Paradise Lane being only 12 feet, essentially being a driveway, even though it's public, is something that we would want to overcome either at the same time or before we made some sort of connection. I mean, I guess I'm a little bit confused. I arrived last night from Munich, and I noticed some pretty heavily trafficked public streets in Munich that are 12 feet wide that I guarantee you carry. I measured one of them. I was curious. So I guarantee you carry a lot more traffic than Paradise Lane on a daily basis, and it seems like we have a reason over and over and over again for different reasons, but that we keep not connecting these new apartment complexes to various aspects of the network. And incrementally, it's left us over time with a city not well connected. Yeah, I think that's a somewhat fair assertion. But I guess there are design standards across a lot of aspects that would have to kind of alter slightly. I know with fire safety, they typically want 20 feet clear for new develops and things like that. So trying to accommodate the fire trucks, I assume in Munich they probably have different standards in that respect as well. So it's kind of a pretty long list of different things that would have to be considered. And I'm as much for connectivity as kind of what you're saying as well. but I'm just trying to think of a way to do it within the confines of our design standards that we try to go by. Mr. Davis. Thank you. Just as a follow-up to Mr. Mickler's questions, I suppose if it's on this plan, both the access on Paradise Lane as well as the angle of that turn, our largest safety vehicles are okay with, we're calling an emergency access, but if there's something bad happening, can the big trucks get back there if they need to? Yeah, I'm not, Captain Lingle's probably best to answer that. I know at least the access, I mean, it's shown as 24 feet wide, which I assume is partly to accommodate the larger vehicle. Captain Lingle, Division of Fire. Yes, so I did talk with Mr. Helani earlier today, and he stated that when that's designed, we will have a good turn in radius for our apparatus. He's familiar with our vehicles and our specs. One thing about Paradise Road is it is a substandard road, and that's been discussed during technical and subdivision as well. So I believe there's a plan coming through next month that might actually push the standards up on Paradise Road. I'm not sure how that's going to go. But as of now, their plan would meet our requirements. But Paradise needs some help as far as a drive road. Thank you. Captain Leggo. Thank you. Commissioners, are there any further questions? Concerns? Maybe we can get rid of this one really quickly. Liberty Road, particularly down by the bus barn, is prone to flooding during heavy rainfalls. I don't know if anybody's had that experience. and I know there are a number of places along Liberty Road in different housing developments where the lower floors get flooded on a regular basis. Do we have any indication of whether this particular area floods? Yes, ma'am. That property does not flood just because it's a little bit elevated from the roadway, but definitely will follow all the stormwater requirements outlined by the stormwater manual. And to provide some context, there appears to be, based on our GIS maps, some areas of floodplain on the adjoining property, so the school property there. There does not appear to be any flood areas on the properties being rezoned with this request. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Worth. The floor is open. Time for a motion if we are ready. Mr. Wilson? Let me say, I'm going to make a motion for approval, but let me say this about the traffic situation. I understand from staff that they're thinking about doing something to that road in 2025. And I'm always a little reluctant. I think they will do something to that road, but I don't know whether it will take place in 2025. It's my fear. It could be stretched out to who knows when and where. But despite that, I think that this is a good plan. It's a good thing. So I move for approval of PLN MAR 23-17, the Red Draw Development LLC District, with the conditions identified by staff. Okay. We have a motion and a second by Ms. Worth. Any further discussion to that motion? And none. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes. unanimously in the development plan. I have a question or maybe a comment maybe before the motion on the development plan. Yes you want to go ahead and take it now. Just make your motion. Well I can make a motion then you can have a discussion. Is it going to be on the development plan? Yes. It would be on the motion for the development plan. On the motion. Well I haven't made a motion. Yeah let Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Well, I guess the, I mean, for, I'm wondering if on the motion we can add a condition that that the final development plan include possible connection or a stub out for Paradise Lane for when improvements are made to Paradise Lane. Staff. So I do think we oftentimes put conditions on preliminary development plans to, at the final development plan stage, consider certain things. And so a condition to consider connectivity to Paradise Lane at the final development plan seems like an appropriate condition. Okay. I will accept that. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN MJDP 23-63 Pleasant Ridge subdivision with the provision on the final development plan that there will be a possible connection demonstrated to a possible connection to Paradise Lane, is it? Yes. Is that good enough? Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Not at the moment, no, ma'am, not at this moment. So we have a motion and a second by Mr. Pohl. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay, please vote via Granicus. Okay, that motion passes unanimously. Okay. Staff, is there anyone that can, I just want to make sure Ms. Patricia's question gets addressed. I want to talk with her real quick. Thank you. Hey, Mr. Bailey. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm a little late to the game. On page 9, item C1, PLN ZODA 23-0006, amendment to articles 1, 3, 8, 9, 12, and 17 to implement the comprehensive plan. Staff would like to request a postponement to the November public hearing. That is November 14th or 16th? Floor is open. Flooring motion. I move. Ms. Meyer? I move that we postpone SOTA 23-6 as requested. To the November 16th meeting. Thank you. I got a second by Ms. Barstow. Please vote Villagranicus. Okay, that motion passes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Why they didn't do that at the beginning. Oh, that's no excuse. All right. Good afternoon. The text amendment before you is PLN ZODA 23-7. This is for amendments to update definitions and restrictions related to second kitchens, accessory living quarters, and accessory dwelling units. So accessory dwelling unit regulations were adopted in October of 2021, so just right at two years ago. Since that time, staff has had 35 pre-application conferences and hundreds of conversations with citizens who are interested in constructing or converting structures to accessory dwelling units. However, in that time, only six ADUs have been permitted. One of those was an attached unit that was permitted back in the 90s by the Board of Adjustment under some pretty unique circumstances. Four are detached conversions, so structures that were accessory buildings constructed prior to the adoption of the ADU regulations that have been converted. And then one is an unpermitted detached unit that has been brought into compliance. So this was a situation where there was a pool house constructed, and over the years there have been some complaints that that structure was being used as a rental. And ultimately the current owner found out that they did not have the right to be doing a rental in that unit because it was not an ADU, so they have since gone through the process and had that structure permitted as an ADU. And then there are two in progress, and those are actually similar circumstances. Those were two unpermitted units that are being brought into compliance. One of those is attached, and one of those is detached. So since we've only seen six of these, we've really been looking at what the barriers to ADU construction is. And the most common barriers for people who wish to construct an ADU include the existing prohibition on new detached ADUs. We hear a lot that folks want to construct a new garage with an upstairs ADU or a new freestanding ADU, and they're not able to do that. Cost and availability of materials for construction is another issue. Of course, we can't really do anything about that in this room, but that's something that we hear cited fairly often. Building code requirements for interior conversions can be particularly tricky because an attached ADU is treated essentially like a duplex for the purposes of building code. so that makes basement and attic conversions really difficult to get that fire rating that's required in between the two units. And then we also have found that there is a desire for a shared living situation that's not a fully separated ADU, that's something that allows for a separated living quarters, that may have its own kitchen, may have an access, may have a bedroom, may have a bathroom, that kind of thing, but that a family wants extended family to live in, and maybe they still want to share some of their space and be able to come and go between those two units without having that fully separated situation. And then the owner occupancy requirement is another barrier that we have found. So in evaluating the trajectory of ADU construction, these are the things that we have identified, and these are sort of the three that we think we can do something about. So that's the restriction on new detached ADUs, owner occupancy, and the desire for more of a shared living situation that's not truly a separate dwelling unit. So getting into the text, staff is proposing several changes to the existing ADU regulations to make ADUs more feasible. So most of these are in Article 3-12. That's the general regulations for accessory dwelling units. First, staff is proposing removal of the prohibition on new detached units, additionally allowing four modular manufactured units to be utilized as an ADU, so something that's manufactured off-site and then brought in and placed on a permanent foundation. Oops, I think I got ahead of myself a little bit. There are also changes to the section that was originally put into Article 3-12 related to the short-term rental of accessory dwelling units. that provision was placed as an interim regulation because the urban county council had a work group going on that was evaluating short-term rentals sort of across the board. That project has been completed and the short-term regulations were adopted in July of this year. So this modification is just to get short-term rentals for ADUs in line with what that work group intended. So to line it up with article 3-13 that was approved in July. staff is also recommending provisions requiring owner occupancy and the filing of a deed restriction to be struck these provisions make ad use far more heavily regulated than other residential uses if property owner owns a single family dwelling a duplex or multi-family unit they're not required to live on site they can rent out each unit and more than 50 percent of our population rents their home so excluding this group because a particular housing type exists on the property is in opposition to the comprehensive plan. To address that sort of not quite an ADEU that we were talking about, staff is adding a definition here. So this goes back to an issue that we have found that was going on prior to the adoption of ADUs and has continued to be sort of a common story that we're hearing that the building code requirements make an attached ADU a little bit difficult. There are, our zoning ordinance currently does not say that you can't have a second kitchen. It doesn't limit the number of kitchens you can have, but whenever we see an application come forward where there is a second kitchen, it always is sort of a flag that there could be an additional dwelling unit being constructed. So these definitions are really intended to sort of delineate between what's an accessory dwelling unit and what is an accessory kitchen that could be utilized in a shared living situation. We think that this will make it a lot easier for applicants to do what it is that they're wanting to do, which there's not really anything wrong with, with having a multi-generational living situation. But the way that we're currently regulating these, it's kind of tricky because if you can't have an ADU, you can't have a second kitchen because it might create a second and dwelling unit, there's sort of an attempt to circumvent the ordinance I think sometimes that we really wanna try to clear up. So we are also modifying the definition of kitchen facilities to say that a detached accessory structure should not be able to contain kitchen facilities unless it is an ADU. If you're providing kitchen facilities and other living facilities in a detached structure, it most likely should be an accessory dwelling unit with the exception for what we're calling a wet bar, which can include a single sink and a refrigerator, and as long as they're not bathroom facilities associated with that use, unless those are fully separated and independently accessed. So there couldn't be a door in between the spaces within that structure. Let's see. So just wanna touch on the things that are not changing. With this text amendment, these are the requirements that were adopted two years ago that we're not touching. So a pre-application conference will still be required for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit. ADUs will still be allowed in the same locations that they are currently, so that's one ADU per single family dwelling unit per lot. The lot size, size of an ADU, floor area ratio, and yard and height requirements for ADUs will not be changing. There is no parking requirement for an accessory dwelling unit, end zones where there is a parking maximum. So that's going to be inside our infill and redevelopment area for single family typically. Those are typically limited to two parking spaces. If you have an ADU, you could have a third parking space. The design standards are not changing. Those are pretty minimal. That's really just ensuring that there is not a second door or a stair to a second floor on the front of a house that kind of takes away from its single family character. And then the maximum occupancy limit for an accessory dwelling unit is also not changing. So while staff, sorry, so we are recommending approval of the text amendment. We have found that the text amendment is in agreement with the comprehensive plan for several reasons. Theme A, goal one, objective B, to accommodate the demand for housing in Lexington responsibly, prioritizing higher density and a mixture of housing types. we find that accessory dwelling units provide opportunities for gentle density in established neighborhoods. Theme A, Goal 1, Objective C, to plan for safe, affordable, and accessible housing to meet the needs of Lexington's aging population and residents with disabilities. ADUs and accessory living quarters will support needs for affordable and accessible housing types to accommodate aging in place. Additionally, the text amendment is in agreement with Theme A, Goal 2, to support infill and redevelopment throughout the urban service area. Accessory dwelling units can provide an infill opportunity throughout the urban service area and not just in the infill area, offering equitable access to the entire community. And theme A, goal three, objective A, to enable existing and new neighborhoods to flourish through improved regulation, expanded opportunities for neighborhood character preservation, and public commitment to expand options for mixed use and mixed type housing throughout the county. Making ADUs more feasible will provide greater flexibility to all residents to create and utilize additional dwellings that are modest and compatible scale with the neighborhood. And I will take any questions that you have, and Chris Taylor is also here to support me in that role. So we're happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We do have one question. Mr. Nickel? I do have a question. I understand that one of the barriers to the adoption of this ADU program that we've worked on so diligently has been the owner occupancy requirement. Can you show me where that has been addressed in the red line documents? Number one, show me where it's been addressed to remove the owner occupancy. So that is in Article 3-12, Section N, just struck. Owner occupancy, the owner of the property must occupy either the principal dwelling unit or the ADU as the owner's permanent residence is what this text currently says in our adopted ordinance. So we are just proposing to strike that language. And my understanding is that that language is in, I guess, compliance or looking towards the possibility that it may be illegal to require an owner-occupant. I think that I can defer to the law department on that. And also, Chris may have something to say. Please. We don't have any specific case law in Kentucky that says that it is illegal. There are other jurisdictions outside of our jurisdiction that have reached that conclusion. So we're not bound by those. So I can't give you a direct answer in Kentucky as to what the courts might do here. But there's not a prohibition at this time in this state against having an owner occupancy requirement or not. Okay, and the reason I'm bringing that up is as this is a new dwelling type or housing type that's offered all over the country. I was trying to see how other communities are dealing with that component, and I do know from some research that it has been concluded to be illegal to have an owner-occupancy requirement. And I just wanted to make sure that seeing that this is removed, we wouldn't have to make any adjustments if it were ruled illegal to have an owner occupancy requirement in Kentucky. We don't have that in Kentucky right now, and I'm not aware of a significant number of jurisdictions, but there are some that have found that it is an onerous requirement. Okay. But that's been addressed with this text. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Owens? Yeah, since we're on that subject, I appreciate the legal's response that it's not illegal here in Kentucky to have owner occupancy. I've said this before in the last month or two and feel compelled to say it again. Again, this discussion about ADU started eight, ten years ago. And during that time, owner occupancy was a key component of that. The thought was provide a caregiver to live there, to let a physically challenged person to have their own independence, to even rent it out. Or the owner could live in the ADU and rent out the other house. One of the two could be. I simply feel that striking that opens up a whole can of worms, and as Frank Penn would often say, unintended consequences in the fact that if you consider what has occurred before council got involved and stopped it. You look at Elizabeth Street that turned into nothing more than vinyl boxes bigger than the size of a house on there, and it's all rental. I'm not opposed to one of the two being rental, but I am opposed to striking that language for it being owner-occupied. I simply think that it simply turns it into a investment and rental situation all the way up and down the board. And I know the Montclair area is in a ND1 overlay, but just to use that as an example, I mean, I could see that being nothing more than sprawling out to allow for more college housings with rental on both the main house and the ADU. So I'm sorry, I'm opposed to that. If we can put the language back in there, I'll vote for it any day. Thank you, Mr. Ellis. This is really a question and it's related but not the same thing. There's a provision, I think, in there that has to do with ADUs being used as short-term rentals. Can you talk about that a little bit? Sure. So I'll go back to that. So the current regulations that were adopted for ADUs say that any ADU that's being used as a short-term rental has to be a conditional use. the text that was approved by council for short-term rentals would allow for an ADU that is hosted to be utilized as a short-term rental as an accessory use. So that would mean that an owner or another primary resident lived in one of the two units. And if that primary resident is a renter, they do have to agree to be the primary resident. that that would be an accessory use if it is an unhosted unit where both units are being rented out either short-term rentals or one is a short-term and one is a long-term but that long-term tenant isn't interested in being the designated primary resident. Those would be a conditional use. I'll tell you why it's on my radar right now. I live three and a half blocks from the house that had 100 people with gunfire and three people injured. Now that's strictly an Airbnb. It's not an ADU, but it started me thinking about ADUs, no occupancy, and unhosted short-term rentals together, and whether that's an enforcement issue, whether there's a code that doesn't, you know. I don't know. I'm just raising the question because I need more information. I guess what was your question? Well, I think it's really more of, is that more of an enforcement issue? Yes. Yes, I think so. I do think that the majority of ADUs with the limitation on 800 square feet, and we are still in this text referring to the occupancy for an ADU. That may not be on your screen. But the maximum occupancy for a short-term rental of an ADU would be limited to the occupancy for an ADU, which is two adults and any children. So an ADU would not legally be rented out to a large group. And the reality is it could be somebody's private home, and they could give a party, and it could get out of control. Right. I understand that. I just wanted a little more information. Thank you. Autumn, thank you so much. And we talked about this at the committee level. I have no opposition to ADUs. I share Mr. Owen's concern about the striking of the owner occupancy provision. And I cannot agree with the comparison of saying, well, we don't regulate duplexes the same way. But if, like in some of our older neighborhoods, if you have a single family home zoned, I guess presumably R1, and it's next to a duplex zoned R2, if I was a buyer for the single family house, I know going in that I'm next door to a duplex. No big deal. But if I purchase a house or whatever the case may be and an ADU goes in next door, and I don't think that's necessarily fair. Again, I can't compare the two equally. So I agree with Mr. Owens. I think we do need to retain, and I agree that I don't care if one of them is rented, it doesn't matter. It's just that I think is very important. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. Yes, thank you very much. I do understand that the conversation has changed over the past eight years, going from providing auxiliary dwelling units for caregivers and for elderly people that wanted to age in place, But during that time, we have seen a major housing crisis, and we've seen it cause many debates in our community, the housing crisis, the debates that have talks about the word gentrification. but what I'm most concerned about is displacement, and in my opinion, being able to create a new housing type on an existing lot or to modify a housing type for an auxiliary dwelling unit does the opposite of displace. There is no displacement. It's adding a new housing type that can increase the supply and reduce the price per unit. So could you please talk about displacement and gentrification and how we should be considering those? Or Mr. Taylor, how we should be considering those? And to really understand them as we move forward, now is probably a good time to discuss. Well, given that this came up at committees and prepared a few slides in anticipation of this discussion, There is extensive research that restrictive zoning is one of the primary drivers that cause affordability issues in cities, and that affordability issue is what drives displacement. One of the things that I wanted to hand out to the commission, Again, this is some of the studies and literature that staff reviews and has reviewed over the years as it relates to affordability, displacement, and accessory dwelling units. One of the things that we point out in additional studies, and this is as recent as 2021, is that ADUs are a mechanism for infill and adding overall housing stock. Um, it's, as you can see from, let's see. Give me a second. Yeah. What are you handing out? I'm getting there. Okay. But is this for everybody to share? Yeah. It's just, I don't expect anyone to sit here and read all of those. I just want, I want, and they're referenced in what I'm, in the slides I'm putting forward for you. They are just some of the literature and the studies that staff reviews as part of evaluating the policies that we bring to the planning commission. And you can see here that the number one thing in terms of potential to prevent displacement is just housing production. And accessory dwelling units fall under a medium term solution for potential to prevent displacement. But again, accessory dwelling units are really just housing production. HUD, as recently as 2018, identified a number of solutions to addressing displacement. One of them is to encourage greater housing development that's not just limited to affordable housing. So, again, the encouraging greater development is an important part of that. If you look further in that report at the very bottom, at the very bottom it talks about allowing for accessory dwelling units that can address a greater trend toward intergenerational living and, again, to produce additional housing. I don't know my slides are all out of whack. One of the things I did want to point out was that there's been three states that have overridden local governments and taken on this issue proactively to eliminate the ability to do an owner occupancy permit or owner occupancy requirement. And other cities, again, cities that are serious about having a housing policy that promotes ADUs, that promotes gentle density in areas that are at risk, including neighborhoods that are at risk, is doing away with our own occupancy requirement. The key thing to understand here is that building neighborhood capacity is a neighborhood stabilization strategy. It's not the end game. It's not the solution. But it is a solution. And it is not, and again, with the literature that we have, indicates that there is any displacement that results from creating an investment, investing in the existing housing stock. To not allow that sort of investment to occur can further create opportunities for people to buy the properties, tear them down, and redevelop them altogether. So I'm happy to have any additional questions that you all might have on this, but I just wanted to sort of give you all some of the reasons why staff is bringing this to you as we do, because we take very seriously the concerns of what the impact of these ordinance updates might mean for low income and historically marginalized households. We try to follow national best practices and bring those to you, and we're very comfortable with this language. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Pohl and then Mr. Wilson. Mike had raised the same issue in our zoning committee meeting. Yeah. And I think we asked staff to research whether there was a relationship between eliminating owner occupancy and increased frequency of rental creation. Do you have any... Not to whether it creates rental units. I mean, the data indicates that it is not a force for displacement. It unquestionably creates housing stock. Nationally, only about 15% in cities that have big, robust ADU programs, where they don't have an owner occupancy, only about 15% of those units are built by people who are looking to buy a property, build an ADU and then sell both of those or rent both of those. In the overwhelming percentage of cases, they are built for an owner who lives there to either receive additional income on their property, which is no different than what people are looking to do with short-term rentals. And again, I would come back to the fact that right now in our zoning ordinance, we have a housing policy that has a stated preference by way of regulation for short-term rentals. It's easier to do a short-term rental in Lexington than it is to do an accessory dwelling unit. And staff is concerned about that. That has a more disruptive impact than having an 800 square foot, maximum two occupancy dwelling unit on the property. So given the statistic that about 15% of the new ADUs are created for rental purposes, not for income or intergenerational purposes, how many ADUs are expected to be created in Lexington, just say, in the next year? In the next year. If this ordinance were to pass as it is right now, we might see 10. Maybe. And is that projected to increase dramatically over the next 10 years? A number of other things need to happen in the ecosystem for accessory dwelling units for that to happen. There needs to be additional building code changes. There needs to be additional work on the professional community that deals with these lending appraisals, all of those things in the building community. They have to see it as a market. Those are all things that take many years to mature. It's not something that happens overnight. The thing that is important for us to get right is the regulation so that we can begin working on other things like having grant incentive programs for low-income households to take advantage of these things. Pre-approved site plans. There's other programs. There's other elements that staff needs to spend his time on promoting to make this ordinance viable and workable for lots of people, but none of that matters if the ordinance isn't workable. As it is right now, it is not a serious ADU ordinance. It's just not. These are the numbers we will continue to see for the foreseeable future. And if that's where we're at right now, then that's where we're at. But staff, just to be clear, staff had an issue with the owner occupancy requirement when we did this two years ago. We're very concerned that that is an exclusionary restriction in the ordinance. Plain and simple. It creates a different class of person and restricts them. We're not comfortable with that. We will continue to advocate for its removal, but if the community is not ready for that, then the community is not ready for that. But I think the staff feels strongly about that issue and comfortable with the literature on what's happening nationally in this regard. Mr. Wilson. Just a couple of points. One of the things that I indicated that I was asked to serve on this neighborhoods in transition here. Okay. We put a report together. I don't know if you had a chance to review that. The word displacement, if your data is based on that, it's going to be far different than the data based on involuntary displacement because displacement as a natural flow of things will happen. I mean, that's something it would be difficult to prevent. I mean, if someone wants to buy a house or sell a house, that would be prohibited. But involuntary displacement is what that report is predicated on. But, again, I look at your data here, and the information you have is primarily based on just displacement, period. I don't know how to delineate that as such, but I would say offhand that, well, let me be just blunt about it. I agree with my colleagues, Mr. Owens and some of the others here. I think to have that into that ordinance is important to have because your community can be severely damaged, and everyone knows, without having a whole heck of a lot of data, that if you have people renting as opposed to people owning something, there is a differentiation in terms of how that property is kept up. Mr. Mickler? Chris, I've thought about some of these same issues. I live a couple blocks from campus, and I think that nightmare scenario is where the investment is worth it to buy out all of the homeowners, And it sort of creates that 90% sort of rental street, which dramatically looks different than the sort of averages from the city and those sort of Elizabeth Street sort of scenarios that then the commission comes back and they put a lot of restrictions on. One of the things that makes me feel that that won't happen here was touched on, I think, maybe better in the committee meeting. Will you just, the two aspects that make me think that's unlikely that that would be the situation here if we change that, that you touched on, were, one, the actual statistics that we saw from Louisville, which does not have an owner-occupancy requirement, where the numbers of approvals are not off the charts and causing major sort of movement in the purchasing market. And then the other one, which was touched on just on a line item here, is stating that the restriction on the size will not change. But my understanding is we have a pretty limited size restriction, which elevates the sort of cost per square foot and makes it not very attractive for scooping up properties as investment. Could you just touch on those? And just to be clear, Louisville does have an owner occupancy requirement. They do not have the detached restriction. And that's part of why their numbers are similar to ours, but a little better. Part of the reason I think some of these are very difficult to build because of the financing aspect of these things. And there's a couple issues there. One, if you've got a restriction such as that occupancy requirement, that changes how people are able to get loans on these things. Just in the last two weeks, HUD through FHA has given guidance and amended policies to allow people to count ADU revenue, income revenue, towards their mortgage application, towards the income on meeting their mortgage application. But that, again, that number, the amount that gets to count varies based on restrictions like this. So, again, for a person who lives in a home who wants to take advantage of this and invest in the property, the owner occupies the restriction makes it harder for them to even go get the loan to do it. And as Mr. Mickler pointed out, in campus areas and areas where a lot of those properties are probably in need of a much more full reinvestment than just adding an 800 square foot unit, that as you pointed out, the cost per square foot is exceedingly high so that you can only put two more people in it. The economics of that don't make a lot of sense. In fact, the economics of ADUs don't make a lot of sense for most homeowners. They're doing it for a specific living arrangement reason. And that's why it's around 85% of people who do it are people who live in that or bring in someone to live in it as a caregiver. And eventually they sell the property. The point there is they can sell it without the restriction. It creates title issues. There's all sorts of issues and headaches when you attach that restriction down the line to the next homeowner. And the fact of the matter is it just doesn't make that much of a difference in terms of what you see on the ground, what the outcomes are. So I understand all of the concerns that you have. And, again, staff is, you know, we'll make our pitch, and, you know, the commission can take that as they will. But I think it's unlikely that you would see investment happen around strictly adding ADUs to properties. This is just sort of a, I find it hard to think about ADUs without thinking about short-term rentals, obviously. But we had talked about other cities' experience, and I noticed just a few weeks ago, New York City is modifying their short-term rental ordinance because what they're attributing a good bit of their housing shortage to is short-term rentals, not ADUs. That's correct, and they've also lost tens of thousands of units to duplexes and triplexes, converting back to single-family homes over 20 or 30 years. So, yes, there's a multitude of issues there. But short-term rentals, it was tens of thousands of units, yes. Any further questions for staff? Mr. Nickel? I do have a question. You said something along the lines of you do not want to create two types of citizens, those that are renters and those that are owners through this proposal. Can you please describe to me how you all made such a thoughtful effort? Well, the insinuation that a renter needs an owner to oversee a property so that they can live in it is, I think it's just an inappropriate language to be in our regulations. Staff is not comfortable with something that dictates that a particular type of occupant needs a different level of oversight from a property owner. It's not consistent with the rest of our zoning regulations. It's just not. It's not something we have anywhere else in our ordinance and staff is not comfortable with it. I mean, we are, yeah, I think that's enough. Thank you, you clarified it and I appreciate the effort to make sure all of us are treated equal. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. You got something? For clarification, that is not an insinuation. I would make Evermade felt I believe everybody should be treated equally too. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so that kind of helped me understand why remove it, because before I'm hearing things of, you know, you want to allow people to stay in place and, you know, intergenerational and that sort of thing, which, you know, in consideration of that it makes me lean toward you know requiring owner occupancy you know in order to do the accessory drilling unit but now that you brought it to that point from the staff with regard to you know being allowing others to rent without having oversight direct oversight of the owner that makes more sense to me now so still a little bit torn because part of me feels that without the restriction if the idea is to keep people in place and you know do the enter you know allow intergenerational living then keeping that restriction and helping aid those who can't afford to build the accessory dwelling unit. It makes sense that we won't have a lot of people leaving now because as an owner, I now have access to a particular grant that would allow me to bring in more income so I can stay where I am. So I'm just kind of a little torn on Because one, without the owner occupancy, that says that an investor can come in and rent both units. And that's what would happen. And so the person that they're buying out ends up being displaced. So I'm kind of torn on it. It's a question from Mr. Nickel, from me. Mr. Nickel? Bruce. Yes, sir. You're in the construction business. How costly will this be to actually build? I'm just saying if they're using 800 square feet times minimum $150 a square foot, and that's pretty low. So that's kind of what I would be, I think that's a fair estimate. I'm just curious. So that would be $80,000, $120,000, no $140,000, something like that, $120,000. For an 800 square foot. And again, there's other conditions that add to the expense because of the bathrooms. There cost more price per square foot and then also any type of service you need to connect to the building. So that's something that investors will have to pay attention to because it's about their return. I don't think it's going to provide a very high return for investors. Okay, I'm just curious. Thank you, man. Okay, thank you. Before we move on, I want to make sure that if there are citizens that would like to speak and have comments on this, yes, ma'am, you can do so by stepping up to the podium. Good afternoon again. My name is Patty Drouse. I live in Joyland neighborhood. Please remember the public outcry opposing ADUs from one year ago. And please review comments from the community from one year ago. Please continue to require owner occupancy for any ADU. We need this requirement to keep out of state rental companies from lining their pockets by crowding additional renters on R1, R2 and whatever else properties. If the intent is to help families, grandma, grandpa, kids, whoever, requiring owner occupancy should not be a deterrent for them. I had to take care of my mother for seven years, and she was in my house. I couldn't stick her out in the backyard, that's for sure. And as an aside, rental property registration and inspection is still needed. Please require a setback, if we're talking about building additional structures, please require a setback to be the same as the main dwelling. An 18 inch setback is very uncomfortable for current neighbors. And potentially it will end up shading current landscaping, existing gardens. It eliminates any privacy for the neighbors and can change water absorption on the neighbor's properties. And it also seems that separately built ADUs should require a board of adjustment approval for some of those other reasons. It seems like we're trying to find a solution for something that is not really a problem. If you really want to keep your family on the property, you should be able to work this out without having to eliminate all these other requirements. And eliminating the owner occupancy requirement will create unintended consequences for all the neighborhoods. I appreciate that Mr. Owens brought up that Elizabeth Street neighborhood. My boyfriend was basically driven out of that neighborhood because of the change in the characteristics there. And he fought to try to keep that neighborhood intact, and it is not any longer a community. You try to build community in these neighborhoods, and then cramming all these other people in there is just not right. Anyway, it'll create unintended consequences for all the neighborhoods that don't have HOAs or historic overlays. And so this really is a method of increasing the population in Gardenside and Cardinal Valley and Joyland and other neighborhoods that don't have HOAs. And I think that's it. Thank you very much for listening. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I think there's actually several people here on this. My name is Jenny Daly. I live at 136 Burley Avenue. But today I'm here on behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council with my colleague, Walt Gaffield, which, as you know, is an umbrella organization representing neighborhoods throughout the entire county. FCNC has several serious concerns regarding the proposed text amendments. We understand that some of the changes are proposed to bring ADUs and accessory living quarters in line with the newly adopted ordinances regarding short-term rentals. Not a problem. However, we believe that some of the proposed changes can actually be detrimental to growing and maintaining healthy neighborhoods. One of our primary concerns, and I'm so glad that you all have brought all this up, but one of our primary concerns is that neighborhoods don't turn in to havens for short-term rentals and erode the healthy underpinnings of a neighborhood where folks know and are accountable to each other, both as homeowners and long-term renters. We understand the need for existing neighborhoods to bear the responsibility of increased density and the need to provide a broader range of housing options. However, we believe that these proposed changes can occur in a way that is healthy and not destabilizing to existing neighborhoods. What we want to curtail is an overproliferation of short-term rentals where property owners do not live in the neighborhoods where they're building rental property, short-term rental property. I think you have to ask, who is citing the owner-occupied requirement as a barrier? Who is that a barrier to? Lexington needs more housing and more affordable housing for our residents. much more than we need housing for tourists in our neighborhoods. To that end, we recommend the following. Do not remove the requirement that the owner must occupy either the principal dwelling or ADU as the owner's permanent resident. Once again, who is that a barrier to? Two, that properties with ADUs be prohibited for short-term use, short-term rental use, unless the actual owner of the property lives on site. and that's different from the whole hosting of an ADU. That doesn't have to be the owner to be the host. It's worth noting, as kind of brought up, that Louisville requires the actual owner reside on the property with any ADU that is used as a short-term rental. Lastly, do not allow both the principal residence and the ADU to be rented at the same time, and that should apply to either short-term or long-term rentals. Fayette County neighborhoods will benefit from a more refined approach to balancing the need for more residential housing options versus the over economic benefits of short term rent panels. We hope you'll take this balance seriously and consider the proposed changes to this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Walt Gaffield, 2001 Bamboo Drive. I'm also here on behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. I want to bring your attention to accessory living quarters. They're exactly like an ADU except for some differences. I think they have to be open to the principal residence and that sort of thing. And staff has been very successful in allowing more and more accessory living quarters. They can have full kitchens. They can have a bedroom and this and that. And so actually the number of places for people with, for housing for families, seniors, people with disabilities, and caregivers has greatly expanded because of the staff effort with Accessory Living Quarters. You should ask how many times or how many permits they've issued. One thing they're not doing is they're not registering the Accessory Living Quarters, and I think that's something, that was a mistake with short-term rentals. I don't think that should be repeated. I think they should be registering people who are getting accessory living quarter permissions from staff. Kentucky firms are advertising themselves as producers of modular or manufactured homes, which would be allowable in this ordinance, that meet code. But they say what they're actually advertising are trailers or mobile homes with siding and roofs. Now, I think there needs to be something in here in relation to context and design and possibly modified trailers and mobile homes shouldn't be allowed as accessory dwelling units. That's something for you to think about. I don't think most neighborhoods would approve of that. The location and height of an accessory dwelling unit matters to many neighborhoods, particularly neighborhoods with small lots. And I think the language in here would allow the same height and 18-inch distance from the fence as for the principal residence. And I think that's going to be a real problem, and I think that part should be struck out. It's more of a conditional use question. An EDU used as a commercial short-term rental, not a residential use, should never be considered accessory like a garage. It's a different animal. The current pre-application process needs to include nearby residents and neighborhood leaders like Louisville does. The one thing I want, a couple things I want to say, I've got 24 seconds. I looked at the study on Portland, Oregon, which is a national leader on ADUs, and roughly half of their ADUs are used for short-term rentals, and that's a major concern. And this study is a couple of years old. It was done by Portland State University, and it was an extensive study, and they got most of them in the entire city. Thank you very much. Thank you, Will. Yes, sir. Blake Hall. I live in Kenwick. I'm going to address some of the comments that were brought up because a lot of the concerns about renters come really close to denigrating renters or putting a stigma on renters, which is especially concerning considering I would consider probably the majority, if not everyone in this room, owns the house they live in. So let's not cut off or stigmatize over half of our population because you're afraid that they don't keep up the building. I have in my old neighborhood existing ADUs. They're not a new concept. Happy Days had the Fonz living above a garage. This is not new. It's a re-legalization, and the thing we did previously was there was no occupancy requirement. If renters are so bad and you can't have people living next to you that don't own the building, why aren't they required for duplexes? Why isn't an owner occupancy, why doesn't the owner of the Lex have to live inside the giant building? We're getting really close to having subtle dog whistles of stigmatizing a whole section of our, and a growing proportion of our population. The population that is most susceptible to the housing shortage and that needs any units. The concerns for displacement, the concerns for intergenerational living, those are not mutually exclusive with providing more rental housing. The short-term rentals, unhosted units, which would have nobody living on the property, the property includes both the primary building and the ADU. So I don't see that as a concern. You don't have renter problems. you may have landlord problems, which can just as easily be neighbor problems. I've had neighbors that don't keep up their yard as well or whatnot or their building. We don't talk about having requirements for, like, insane requirements for them before you can build a house. It's been shown over and over again in cities all across the country that are adopting ADUs that owner occupancy is a poison pill. in addition to the financing concerns, whether or not you can even get a loan for it. We should not throw out renters out of a bunch of fear-mongering and pearl-clutching that hasn't been shown. The vinyl boxes were brought up, so much so that we had a moratorium on ADUs. That moratorium has lapsed. Right now, you can build a bigger accessory unit that can be a giant vinyl box for an existing rental. Is that happening now? then why are we worried about it happening for ADUs? Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good afternoon. I'm Amy Clark, and I live at 628 Castle Road. I have to say I regard owner occupancy as essential to any provision for ADUs, and especially detached ADUs, and more especially ADUs. used as short-term rentals, I'd like to reflect for a minute on what accessory means in an accessory dwelling unit. It means subordinate and customarily incidental to the principal structure and use. Subordinate, it is smaller, doesn't necessarily yet catch subordinate. yet catch subordinate, customarily incidental to what's principal. I do not see how such an accessory use can be subordinate and incidental to the principal unless there's owner occupancy. I just don't see it at all. less if there's short-term rental i want to ask you to put a pause embracing short-term rentals as you add new-built detached eighty use to the eighty ordinance we've seen that they're prolific short-term rentals their volatile their location, operation, their impact on our community is not yet well apprehended or understood or experienced. I would argue that they are cloaked in secrecy, if not longstanding deceit and noncompliance with Lexington's ordinances over the years. It's not a good idea to add a big thing, detached ADUs, And another big thing, their use as short-term rentals when we don't know what we've got in this short-term rental animal. Please just consider it as a possible later stage. Finally, I want to say that I regard the accessory living quarters as the absolute best and most promising element of this ADU ordinance. and I ask that you make it right before you adopt it. What's missing is it needs to be a conditional use. It needs to be that because otherwise it's a stealth ADU. It's a way of saying we have a building code that says if they're separate, they have to have fire separation, air separation, and so on. Conditional use would give an opportunity to attach conditions and have meaningful enforcement, complaint violations, annual review. And that's what it needs to be to be an ALQ. And very welcome to the community. That's what we need these accessory areas for. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Not seeing anyone else. Mr. Taylor, do you want to add anything? I just want to clarify one thing as it relates to manufactured housing. This is what, when you do ADUs at scale, in a market that is appreciated to a point where there is builder support and an economy around them, This is what manufactured ADUs look like, and it looks like an estate that is building them. They are not on a trailer. They're no different than any other house constructed. They're just constructed off-site and affixed to a foundation the same as anything else. So I just want to make that clear here. We're not talking about mobile homes. Thanks. Chris, could you speak to what the current status of the city's efforts are with regard to regulating short-term rentals? Well, the most I can probably speak to is what we're aware of in terms of additional software that's going to be coming online to track them. It's part of the registration process that goes through revenue. So we will know where all of the licensed ones are. So anyone that is reported that is not on that registry, it makes enforcement considerably easier. That is a tool that was essential in that discussion for the short-term rental. But a lot of that is housed in the Department of Revenue because that's where they have the license and the permit that sort of is the real crux of them being able to operate. It's not really on the zoning side. So I know that software, my understanding is that that software is coming and that the registrations will be housed there, and that will be a key component of enforcement. What's the timing on that? I just told you as much as I know, I'm not entirely certain. I can add a little bit to that about the permitting process, if that would be helpful. These do require zoning compliance permits. We've been issuing those. The short-term rentals were given until January, 6 or 6 months, if they were operating prior to the adoption to get their zoning compliance permit, regardless of whether or not it would be one that would in the future be a conditional use. We are seeing conditional use applications starting to come in for new unhosted short-term rentals as well. So that's kind of where that process is. I don't know if that answers your question or if you have more questions. Thank you. Ms. Worth. To both of you, there we go. To Ms. Clark's comment about making these a conditional use versus an accessory use, how do you see that impacting the already we only have a six-year issue? Do you think that would make people more concerned about? Well, it will take the six we have now in two years and probably drive you to one or two. So it's called an accessory dwelling unit nationally for a reason. It's accessory. They're not conditional dwelling units. is part of what makes them prohibitively difficult to get built. Adding a public hearing to something like that is, again, not a hallmark of an ADU ordinance that is looking to build ADUs. I would also add that conditional uses are uses that are generally appropriate in a zone if there are certain conditions placed upon them and if there are adequate services and that sort of thing. And when you're looking at something like an accessory dwelling unit, the situations to make that determination. It becomes hard to turn them down other than just simply that your neighbors don't want you to have one. No questions for staff? Okay, thank you. miss clarkis that's you looking at me pretty hard so appreciate that i i wonder if i could respond in in a little more fullness to uh... what they were saying about it is a little bit to their statements when a rebuttal uh... again uh... okay they mentioned non-compliance uh... the fact that an accessory living quarters is very hard to enforce in fact i asked about it and uh... one of the provisions that was in it earlier was it shall not be rented and they said well we still intend that but we're not putting it in because we can't enforce it another uh... problem is it has to maintain continuous access but you can build a door a lock and so on without a building permit. So there's no way to enforce to oversee that maintaining continuous access between the two dwelling areas. Another problem is occupancy. Occupancy is limited to that of a whole family. And I remember Jim Duncan saying once, enforcement is really hard. You can't just knock on the door and count noses. A conditional use permit gives you all these options, opportunities, and it should be possible to simply have the staff attest that the applicant has said it will be for family use only and so on. You won't have to stand up there and say your grandmother is crippled and vulnerable to theft and battery to get such a conditional use permit. I think it would help with the enforcement, which is just an extremely difficult problem. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clark. All right. So, I see heads nodding. So we'll bring this back to the commission. We had a lot of discussion, concerns, all of the above. I have some questions. Mr. Pohl. So as I understand from the testimony from staff, about 15% of ADUs are nationally are rental units. And we could expect about 10 units in the coming year to be built in Lexington. So we're looking at one and a half units that would be rental. Even if it were doubled, we're looking at three. I just think that, so I just make that point. It's a fear-based argument that we're going to have all these rental units. I would also suggest that the regulation of short-term rentals is not the same thing as an ADU. It's an unrelated issue, and it's something that the city is moving toward getting a handle on, as are many other cities in the United States. So I just don't think that they're seriously related issues. I also would point out that after we're done with this decision, we're going to be talking about paving over prime farmland. Because people have argued that affordable housing is so critical to our city that we have to dispense with the most important resource that we have. and yet it appears that some of us are unwilling to move in a direction that increases affordable housing and options for renters within the city that is just obvious and benign and I agree with the suggestions that there is a real danger of stigmatizing renters and I think we need to avoid that. Thank you, Mr. Poe. Thank you for your comments. So that being said, I'll close that portion off. The floor is open for a motion. Mr. Nichol or Mr. Poe, whichever one. All right. Well, then I will make a motion. After hearing the presentation, taking into consideration the staff's recommendation, I'm going to recommend a motion for approval for PLN Zota 23-7 Amendment to Article 1, 3, and 8 for second kitchens, accessory living quarters, and accessory dwelling units as written in the staff's approved text. Okay, we have a motion, a second by Mr. Cole. Any further discussion to that motion? Okay. Please vote via Granicus. Okay. Motion passes. Seven to three. All right. Thank you, staff, for your hard work. And with that being said, we are going to take a ten-minute break. we're going to come back Mr. Duncan you want to move us? Mr. Chair if you don't mind if we could hold on just a second we have about one hour or so in this room and so if you all thought you were going to conclude the work of the urban growth management within less time than that we could stay here and get started if you think you need more time than that we may want to go ahead and think about moving this meeting to the Phoenix building? Preferably, I really just try to do as much as we can in here, and we can move one at a time. I mean, it's not going to hurt anything. It's going to take us longer to get over there. I wonder if we could forego the seventh inning stretch then and just get started. But I wanted to do... Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. But Mr. Duncan has left and walked up plenty of times. Blood flow is in your legs. It's not in mine right now. So we can cut it down to 435. We'll be back. Is that okay? Okay. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. I call this meeting back to order. Mr. Duncan, thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as a reminder to the audience that the Planning Commission is still in open session. So you have the potential to make decisions today. You can take votes. You can take actions as opposed to being in work session when you're really just gathering information and planning for the next activity. So today is an opportunity for you to take action if you choose to do so. And the action we're considering is the project given to us by the Urban County Council through the adoption of the goals and objectives for the 2023 Comprehensive Plan that directed the Planning Commission to add to the urban service area no less than 2,700 acres and no more than 5,000 acres. and criteria were provided by the council under which that land must be evaluated. And then in addition, this land expansion will be followed by a master planning effort that will look at this new land and make recommendations on how it should be developed to meet the council goals of affordable housing, market rate housing, and job development. To do that, Chair Forrester formed an advisory committee that included four members of the Urban County Council, three members of the Planning Commission, and seven members of the community with special interest in these various areas. and that committee met for several weeks, held public input meetings, did site visits, took input from our Division of Water Quality, our Division of Purchase of Development Rights, and with assistance from our GIS, and after robust public input, made a final recommendation to you of the map that is on the screen, and it's just over 3,000 acres of land outside the urban service area that is in various parts of the urban service area. We have discussed this, and you all have asked some questions. And at this point, Mr. Chair, we are prepared to continue that discussion, address any other questions. We have our Division of Water Quality staff here if there are questions about water quality, which is sanitary sewer, both what that would mean for the new service as well as any solutions that would be coming as part of the consent decree. We also have GIS available to make any changes to the map so that you can see and make calculations for acreages. And we have information from the purchase development rights if we need to reference that as well. And we have the long-range planning staff here, Mr. Chair, and we will do our best to address your questions. Okay. Mr. Dunkey, thank you for the overview. Back to the commission. There's been a lot of questions and thoughts. So I want to open this up going forward to see where we are. So the floor is open. And we also have, Mr. Chair and members, we also have the zoomed in version of each of these areas. we can put on the screen if anybody would like to see something. And again, Mr. Dorge is here and he can pull up anything we want to. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. Let me go back to the consultant that we're expected to pull in, him or her, whatever. What is the scope and range of their abilities? In other words, if we make a decision here and the consultant goes out and finds that there are some areas that could be tweaked, do they have the power to recommend that back to the planning staff and back to the Commission for consideration? I think if you take the word tweak and it's sort of the way it's understood, Mr. Wilson, that there's a possibility of that, I believe. That's why that at the point that you would be making a decision about this, it would be accepting for purposes of master planning. So you wouldn't be actually making the final decision on the boundary. So if the consultant found that by moving the line a certain way, that that would make a difference or adding an additional parcel or even subtracting a parcel, I believe that's a possibility. But I do expect that they're going to go in and look at the properties that you recommend and try to make their work fit within that. Along those same lines, though, if they were going to make, of course, the word tweak is an interesting word because some instances a tweak to some could be a substantial change to others. If they decided to make a tweak or a substantial change, does that have to come back before the Planning Commission, especially if it's a substantial change? Would that have to be approved by us or would we simply accept their recommendation? Well, I think that if the consultant, through working with us, recommended that additional parcels be considered or disregarded, that we would want to communicate that to you as soon as that was recognized so that you would know what they're doing. But the bottom line is the decision will still be made by the Planning Commission in about a year or so from now, whether to add or which parcels to add to the urban service area. And so you will be making that final decision at that time. Okay, thank you. Would you anticipate a give-and-take process between the Planning Commission and the consultant as the plan develops? Mr. Pohl, I hope that that discussion is more about how we use the land. I hope that the hard work of identifying the land that we're going to use is pretty well settled going in. And I don't believe the consultant is going to be looking to make any additional land recommendations. But certainly the layout of the infrastructure, the land uses and how they're applied, I do believe that that conversation should take place with the Planning Commission, yes. That's what I meant, actually. Well, you want to roll? Well, I'm going to roll here right now. Hold on a minute. Mr. Owens, you got something? Ms. O'Neill was a chairman. Okay. I've got two things. One, I just feel compelled to bring up the area to the Hume Road that came into and had some discussion and email since our last meeting. And I'd like to at least recognize that. I can feel for the homeowners there that expressed a desire not to be in. However, I dearly feel planning-wise it is something that, as was told to me, would create kind of a donut hole. if you look at what they're requesting, which pretty much is the interior part of that map right there. And, you know, I can feel for them, but I personally think that needs to stay in. I don't know if there needs to be further discussion or addressed further or not. And, Mr. Chair, whenever the discussion stops, I do have a motion for you. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Nickel. I concur with Mr. Owen's statement, especially regarding the correspondences we received over the past couple of days from certain neighborhood associations, then certain neighbors, and you have some people saying we're ready to move in, we don't want to go in, we don't want to go out. Or excuse me, we want to be included, we don't want to be included. We are going to develop, we're not going to be developed. Through that process we've seen there's a lot of misinformation, so it's hard for us to judge. Other than by what the information we're given and have to take that, I guess, with a grain of salt. So my question to Mr. Duncan is in regards to the property on Manowar and the Millridge property on Manowar and Bowman's Mill. There was a proposal that was recommended by Vice Mayor Dan Wu. And I would like to, now that we're looking at the map, I would like to direct some comments towards Mr. Martin to see if he can answer some questions about sewerability. Can I ask a process question here? Did we finish the conversation about Hume's Mill? Sorry, I don't know. I don't know, process. I'll defer. I don't know. Did somebody else want to say anything about that? I'll mop up the water that I just spilled all over myself. I think that's a better process. Sorry for interrupting. I'm ready to move on if nobody else has anything to say. Would it be appropriate for us to vote to keep Hume Road in the mix? Would that be an appropriate way to handle it? Are you asking to talk about that piece specifically? I mean, that piece has been recommended to you to be included. So, I don't know that you need to vote on it separately at this point. I mean, my thought was that if there were things that you all wanted to discuss about changing from what's been recommended to you, then you might have to vote on those depending on how that discussion goes. So if you need a further discussion to determine you don't want to change Hume Road, that's fine. But if everybody's okay with the discussion as it is, you can move on. I have a question that might help. Mr. Duncan, could you conjecture some of the negative effects that might happen in and around the neighborhood as a result of the inclusion? Well, Mr. Pohl, I believe that because we're going to have a rigorous, and I believe ultimately very disciplined, master planning and zoning process for this new land, that our expectation is that all of the development that's going to occur is going to be purposeful. It's going to address the council's direction of housing or jobs. And so I don't expect that we're going to see the kinds of things that we see perhaps in our areas that have been in the urban service area for decades or been in the city limits for decades and perhaps developed incrementally. This is going to be much more of a master plan. So as far as negative aspects of what somebody might think is bad, I can't say what that would be, but I do believe that the development in and around these areas will be purposeful and positive for the community. Thank you. I do have one question because you explained something to me the other day that would help me to see it. you talked a little bit about the projected road development and what that would be with regard to Hume Road or intersecting roads or whatever. Can you talk about that a little bit with that map in front of you? Yes, so that's part of the master planning process is laying out the infrastructure and that would certainly include the arterial, well I don't know if it would be arterial roads, but certainly the collector road system and how that will be laid out. And that will be shown, for instance, if the property on the top here, if the property owner is not interested in developing in the immediate future, there would very likely still be transportation connections coming to Hume Road and coming through this property or coming through here or coming up through here. so that at some time in the next 15 to 30 years when they are ready to develop, that can happen. So laying out the infrastructure, the transportation system, the open space, the sanitary systems will all be done as if property were going to develop now, but knowing that those connections will need to be made at a later time. And so it's important to have those opportunities. And if these properties are specifically excluded from the urban service area, then it becomes more challenging to say that we're going to get some future connection opportunities, especially for sanitary sewer, because that is a challenging issue to get sanitary sewer when it's not in the urban service area, even if you need to connect from one point to another point. So for infrastructure purposes, as Mr. Owen said, the donut hole could be problematic for planning. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Is there any other questions on the Hume Road area? Okay. Mr. Owens, you had a statement that you wanted to make? Not a statement at this time. I'm just reserving a motion for you when you're ready. Okay. So is there any other questions on this map, particular map? I guess the only question that comes to mind for me is that the author of the letter also brought up the attitude of the adjacent farm, but said that he wasn't representing that owner. This is the farm that we received notice from today, the Mount Zion farm, that said that he is interested in being in the urban service area. And that was also represented to the advisory committee at their public input meeting. So the author's information was incorrect? Well, I think they stated that they understood that he did not want to be included, but I don't believe they ever stated they had directly talked to him about that. I think what the last version I saw, the author stated, they indicated they weren't interested in developing now, but did not make a statement about inclusion. Am I wrong about that? And the property owner himself today said that they do want to be included. All right. That's good. Okay. All right. It's like we can move on from Hume Road. Okay. Yes. Mr. Nickel? I apologize for not understanding the procedure, and I didn't mean to rush ahead. We didn't state the procedure. You just went to that, and that's fine. All right. I apologize. The reason I'm interested in this parcel is because there was a lot of additional, there was a lot of misinformation when this came up and was voted on. from the Urban Growth Management Group. And what I would like to do is ask Mr. Martin how including the Vice Mayor Dan Wu's proposal of this parcel would benefit your work and our city's work in improving their sanitary sewer system. Okay, my concern right now has to do with that green dot right there. That is the Mint Lane pump station. And based on what I understand right now is that we're only considering area one. And area one, in order to be able to make it to a treatment plant, has to go through that point. Has to go through that. I mean, it's physically possible to do something else, but I think it would be hugely expensive. very, very difficult to do if you didn't go through Mint Lane Pump Station. Mint Lane Pump Station right now does not have enough capacity to be able to do that. It needs to be rebuilt, and it can't be rebuilt where it's at right now. And I think, I can't speak for the Vice Mayor, but I'm just speculating here, that was what he was proposing was this addition of this additional land in order to be able to provide a spot for that Mint Lane Pump Station to be rebuilt along with a storage tank that's necessary to be able to serve not only the Area 1, but the area that would be tributary to wherever that location went to. Does that answer your question? Yes. So what you're saying is the Area 1 is the area that's already been proposed by the UGM. What you're saying is that Area 1 can't be utilized properly unless the Vice Mayor Wu recommendation is considered? I think I said in one of the last meetings was that Area 1 would be waitlisted immediately if it came in today. Say that again? It would be waitlisted as far as sewer capacity because there is no sewer capacity available. So if they came in today and wanted to develop, we would have to tell them they'd have to wait. Okay, thank you. That's the answer I was looking for. I appreciate that. Let me add some questions that I asked during that committee meeting. A couple of them. One, we talked about if we did not bring in 1C and treated this like any other, this type of sewer problem in the urban services area, how many acres would you actually need to fix that problem? We would prefer to have at least two acres. You know, a large pump station and a storage tank take up a lot of space. And the more acres you need if you make the tank short and big instead of tall and skinny. And usually short and big is nice. So a minimum of two acres would be what we would need to be able to do that. Okay, and so I will say Dr. Allison Davis, who's economic development at UK, said bringing in that amount of acreage to solve a problem that could be solved with two acres, we need to look at use of that land and whether that's the best reason to bring that land in. The other question I would ask, and I did ask you previously, was if we were not in expansion mode, we still would have this problem, right? Correct. How would you address this problem? Wanting to move somewhere downstream into the area that's listed as 1C and build a pump station and storage tank. And you'd have to work with the council and get the money and get it fixed, whether we expand or not, right? Right. Well, I'd have to work with the council because I would be going outside the urban service boundary, which has typically been no. As you recall, I mean, in the sewer ability study, we went as far down as Bowman's Mill Road, because the way we approached that sewer ability study is that we followed the stream downstream as far as we could, staying on what would be a commonly owned parcel, which is Mill Ridge Farm. And so we put that dot there, and then the discussion of the committee and stuff like that, all the other non-sewer factors began to enter into the equation, and it moved back upstream to the point to where it's now still where it's been all along. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any more questions? If I may, Mr. Chair, just to characterize, right now we have a capacity assurance plan that's approved by EPA. It's a capacity bank. It's just like a regular bank. Capacity is deposited when we fix things. It's withdrawn when something develops. Right now, the cap capacity for Mint Lane pump station is about 58,000 gallons a day. That's probably 150, 200 homes. Ms. Murphy, do you want to say something? This is more statement than question. I've said this to a couple of you, but I would like to share with you what I heard when the group made the decision it did to leave out this area. We had on the committee John Phillips, who is owner of Darby Dan Farm, and he got a significant amount of pushback from the owners, not just of horse farms, but equine-related organizations, all kinds of groups out on Bowman Mill. And what they said to him, number one, if we're bringing in people new to our area, breeders, so forth, we bring them in at the airport, we show them Keeneland, and then we take them out to Bowman Mill Road. That's our market. It's one of our key marketing tools is to show them that area. And one of the people that he talked to specifically said, if you start developing that area, it's going to be death by a thousand cuts to the horse industry. And so we looked at the, what is it, $3.2 million impact of agriculture, including the equine industry, and said, that's outside Manowar. We know there's some development outside of Manowar already, but better to keep it inside and not jeopardize that area, and I'm not a horse person. I don't have a farm. I'm just telling you what I heard in the committee, not jeopardize that area by expansion there. We also heard, too, from the airport, Executive Director Eric Frankel, that stated that he wanted it developed. So we've got to say everything we heard. I didn't hear that. He wrote a letter. He wrote a letter. So the difficult part, I mean, it was difficult. So the initial vote, if we want to talk about it, the three of us was up there. The first initial vote was a tie vote for this piece of property here. And then the tie vote killed it. And then it was brought back in place to do 1A and 1B, and John Phillips had a compelling argument and what Ms. Worth just spoke of. So that's kind of, now it's up to us and kind of what we would like to do or not do, just to be full disclosure. I mean, there was compelling arguments on both sides of the table. I don't think it was just one side of it, it was both sides. No, I think you're right. And I think both landowners, they were related, right, or something. But they both said they wanted to be developed. But then again, it didn't happen that way. So just making sure everybody understands what happened. And Mr. Wilson, if you want to chime in, you can too. Because I missed some stuff. I think you said it well. I'm not exactly sure where Ms. Stolens is going with this motion. But there are a couple of things. number one in order to get the consensus that we needed well I think the vote was what 13 to 1 no not just for the whole plan for the whole plan was what was that there was one piece and I was the no vote because there was a section we were trying to bring in it we hadn't really talked about and my no vote was on process that was it was consensus all the votes that we're looking all the map we're looking at right now had a consensus vote except for one piece and i think judy was talking about todd's road yeah it was it was it was it was it came came break below todd's road discuss it and i said i'm not voting for it if we haven't really so that that was just it was only one i'm lost right now and i'll tell you why uh i'm not sure exactly i mean i i wanted to make sure that anyone who had any objections or anything like that or any new information have have an opportunity to present to this committee or to ask as many questions as they had. But as a personal preference, knowing what Mr. Duncan answered before, I would prefer that we approve the plan that was presented by the Urban Advisory Council and then talk with the consultant about any tweaks that we might need or anything like that and allow it to go in that particular direction if that's the case. And Mr. Wilson, with all due respect, I would not consider 1C a tweak. That would be far more than a tweak. I agree with you, Mr. Duncan, on that account. And I think that would be a substantial move. And that's what slightly bothers me because if we are going to open this up, then in my view, then it should be opened up for everybody, not just for one particular section. And that bothers me because I think that I would prefer to see us do the vote on what we've got and then figure out how to tweak it a little bit later. But I would say that if we open it up and then only consider one portion, I would think that it would open up our credibility issue in terms of, well, if you gave those people an opportunity to make a new motion or an opportunity to make a new argument, Why couldn't you allow us to come back and do the same? So I'm for keeping the motion as tightly controlled as we possibly can, but with flexibility in some instances. That's why I was asking about the consultant coming in and what could they recommend, and if, in fact, that would be something that our commission could possibly consider. Those are my cards. Thank you. I can just tell you, Mr. Wilson, as the director, I would not guide the consultant to make a recommendation like this if the planning commission did not first include it. If the planning commission, say, included all of 1C except this little parcel on the south side of Dunbar, and the consultant came back and said, well, that really needs to be part of it, that's different. But this received too much attention. It was too hot at the advisory committee for that to be left to chance. So I think that that decision needs to be made now and settled. Okay. Mr. Michler? Well, I have to say that as a member of the Planning Commission and as someone who is not on the Urban Growth Management Advisory Committee, I look at the work that they did seriously, but I cannot vote to approve it as is. I think that there are each one of us, if we had to draw the map, would draw it differently. And I think that what they gave us is, because of the consensus that they reached, a starting point for where I have to be. But I cannot – there are a couple things that prevent me from supporting it as it's drawn. And most specifically, I think that the biggest issue that prevents me from supporting it as Drone is that we are charged here with expanding the urban service area and providing new places to grow. And this plan does so exclusively through the development of farmland and natural areas. And one of our most underutilized areas that we have outside the urban service area is the Blue Sky Parkway. We have seas of asphalt. We've just approved a plan around the soccer stadium that really underutilizes land, and I think that it's really important that we also have connectivity. And adding the Blue Sky area and the Cane Break area would connect the urban service area without providing a gap. It would also balance some of the emphasis between redevelopment of underutilized spaces and our farmland and natural areas. And so I really think, as I have shared with the members and conversations with staff prior to our last meeting that adding that area in and consolidating it and reducing the impact we have on our natural areas and farmland on this map That is an important step that I think we need to take for me to support the plan. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Do we have a map on that? Yes, Chris can- Which one? The map of what Mr. Mickler was speaking of, the blue sky. So is that 6C, Mr. Duncan? Let's see, this is blue sky proper. This is how it exists right now is the Rural Activity Center as defined in the Comprehensive Plan and the Rural Land Management Plan. With this area where Cain Break comes down and then to the west, all of this being primarily commercial, B5P, B3, there is some industrial in here, but it's primarily commercial along the interchange. And then this area, again, it's somewhat of a mix, but mostly I-1 industrial. And then let's see if we can piece this together. So the advisory committee, and I apologize for these being, the advisory committee recommended including this property, which is not in the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, but it is adjacent to a portion of it on the south side of Athens Boones, where on the east side of I-75. So the advisor committee recommended that. When you look on the large map, that's the little notch down here at the bottom. And then at your public input meeting, you heard from representatives of these properties in orange. that said they wanted to be included as well and the city's ball field is is generally here in the middle and then some of the other properties that you're talking about this the and that's this is that same map consolidated so here's the property that the advisory committee recommended here's the additional properties that you heard at your public input meeting it wanted to be included Again, none of this includes blue sky. And then if you were to look at kind of putting some of those together, here's the Sayre Fields up here off of Cane Break, the properties that were talked about at your public input meeting, and then the Soccer Fields property south of where the Soccer Stadium is located. We did. I did. And then, you all didn't ask about this, but since Ms. Worth mentioned it, this is in the vicinity. This is Cane Break Drive. So here's kind of the top part of Blue Sky. Here's the Sayre Fields. This is Cane Break as it heads north from Athens Boonesboro and ends just south of the Todd's Roads properties that had been recommended by the advisory committee. So these, this parcel is labeled 5B here were considered by the advisory committee, but ultimately not included. They were considered more at the staff's request because of this existing right-of-way and the potential to make a connection between the Todd's Roads properties and certainly the Polo Club properties north of that and Athens-Boonesboro and better access to the interstate interchange. That road would not function in that purpose now. It ends right here in a loop. So there'd be a lot of road construction and improvements that would have to be made over the years to make this work. But speaking to Mr. Mickler's concern about connectivity, this perhaps is the only opportunity you would have to bring these parcels to this road, would be through an improved cane break drive at some point. Go ahead, Mr. Micken. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Okay. Do we have a number on the pieces of that or how many acres we're talking about? So, yes, here, can you read that? 5B. 5B is 146 gross acres. Yes, so 5B is 146 acres, and we'll just speak in gross acres. In fact, it's mostly, they're about the same, but that includes all the parcels on the west side of Cane Break, plus two other parcels on the east side of Cane Break because they meet the council criteria of common ownership with these two parcels. So all of these parcels meet the council criteria of being on a corridor and would therefore be eligible for inclusion. That's about, that's 146 acres. it was 743 acres gross so blue sky itself uh we'll have to i just went to okay so blue sky itself the orange the blue side of the activity center is 472 acres i think we said that uh with the area that the advisory committee recommended. This 6B is 43 acres. These three parcels here, I don't have the precise number because we've also included that, but these would be about 60 or so acres, these three together, 68 acres, I believe. Well, maybe. We've got that somewhere if we need to. And And that's a much bigger parcel. And then we've got the Sayre fields up here. All that's, for this calculation, included is 228 acres. So everything in purple is 228 acres. This is maybe just a small comment, but just so I understand this from staff, if that parking area in the athletic fields in 6C south of Blue Sky is to be shared use, it would need to be brought in. Is that correct? Or over there. This one? No, no, no. In the, yeah, there. No, on the right. No, no, no. Over on the west side of the interstate. Yes. Right now there's parking area on both sides of the urban service area, right? Well, the parking for this is for the soccer fields. It wasn't there before the soccer fields were built. Correct, but technically if it's to be used by the businesses in the Blue Sky area, it would need to be brought in. Is that correct? if it were to be ever shared when there's not games, that kind of a thing. Right. For this part, just this part, there's only the part that would be feasible to share, yes. But that part is just the stadium, right? The stadium is then here. Okay. Right here. Okay. Mr. Nickel. Yes, Mr. Duncan, I had similar concerns with Mr. Mickler about cleaning up this area. And as I've looked at it, we're looking at, from a planning perspective, would it be better to consider the already developed blue sky area, would it be better considered from a planning perspective to address it through a small area plan rather than through cleaning up the recommendations from the UGM? I think there's a couple of ways you could approach this. Right now, the committee has not recommended any of Blue Sky. But if you wanted to include the commercial corners, because they are distinct in their zoning, the V5P, the V3 corners, and they have a good delineation with cane break drive and the new property that the advisory committee recommended. I think you could do that. Ask the consultant to provide some guidance on how to incorporate that better into adjacent land uses and certainly how to make it a better safe interchange. change. I am concerned if the Planning Commission wants to start looking at the industrial portion of Blue Sky at this time. First of all, most of those parcels do not meet the council criteria, so they wouldn't count. I mean, if you, whatever, 200 acres, 300 acres, kind of north of the line here wouldn't qualify and meet the council criteria. So that would be in addition to what you have to add. And then I'm concerned, and certainly you wouldn't want to break it up. You wouldn't want to do something like this and bring in the piano key lots that do qualify and leave the rest out. I'm concerned, Mr. Nickel, that if we do that piecemeal, particularly on the industrial side, that we lose our ability to do a good master plan there. Part of that master plan I envision, I think we would envision this, is not just looking at how do you make that site better, but what else should this site include? And there could be parcels as shown in purple on the south side that would be appropriate to add to the industrial center, maybe even along the north side as well. And then absolutely looking at the infrastructure layouts, the connection possibilities. I believe from our standpoint that that would be better addressed through a separate project, a small area plan as we have consistently called for in the comprehensive plan for the past three plans. And I would hope that that could be something that could be a priority very soon. One other question. 6C borders, a good chunk of 6C on the west side, borders on a PDR farm. And I think one of the criteria that the council gave us was not to develop next to PDR farms. Am I remembering that correctly? No, the council did not say that. The council just said be mindful of agriculture. And so they did not say that we couldn't, no, it doesn't. It does not. It says to keep in mind the horse capital of the world. We shorthanded that, Council Member, Planning Commissioner Worth, to ensure that that's a way of recognizing the government investment in agriculture. Yes, yes, but the council did not direct that we steer clear of PDR. But that was ultimately our guide to you is that these are where the PDR farms are located. This is where the government has made investment in the rural economy. And so we need to be mindful of that when we're drawing this line. Mr. Duncan, can I ask Mr. Martin a question about cane break again? Can you fill us in on our conversations on cane break, previous conversations? It was not all of it. It wasn't in the sewer ability study because, you know, we weren't looking at connectivity as far as transportation. We only did this part of it up to about right here because that blue line is the stream. You know, in sewer world, we don't pay attention to property lines. We're looking at contours and drainage. And so when we looked at this, we only looked at part of it because the upper lots here at the very top, that blue line goes away from the other blue lines and it drains away from the area that was being considered. So that will, in my mind, require potentially another pump station. So you potentially would have two pump stations very close to one another. That same thing goes on up here in this parcel as well. You know, they want to be served by that common point right there. Now, whatever it is that the Planning Commission recommends, we'll figure out how to be able to do that, but that's not the way that we would have drawn it. Okay. Thank you for that. Yes, Mr. Davis. I have a question that I'm guessing we need to leave. Is that right? 530? We've got about 10 more minutes or so. Just being mindful. Yes, sir. Did it kick us out? Thank you. Yeah, we lose track here. Just a question, that portion of Blue Sky, Mr. Duncan, that you referred to, why would it not qualify? Just, I'm uninformed, or I don't know. Okay, the council's criteria were really two-fold, kind of plus one. The property must be adjacent to the existing urban service area, which none of this is. or the property must front on a corridor. And they said corridor, federal highway, collector, higher level system. And Athens Boonesboro would absolutely qualify. Certainly the interstate qualifies. And so that's how the properties along Cain Break are eligible. And that's how the properties right here, and even the ones that were recommended to you on the south side are eligible because of their proximity to the corridor. Blue Sky Parkway itself is a local street. It is classified as a local. It's an industrial street. It's a local street because it doesn't go anywhere. Just loops. So only the parcels that front on Athens Boonesboro Road or parcels that are in common ownership to parcels that front on Athens Boonesboro Road would qualify for the council. So every parcel that fronts on Athens-Boonsboro would qualify. And a quick analysis, we just did a quick analysis, a PVA analysis, and there were some parcels that jutted up in here that were in common ownership with parcels that fronted Athens-Boonsboro Road. So you would get some penetration into the industrial portion here, but it generally stops about where I'm running the cursor. And so you'd end up with two-thirds to three-quarters that do not meet the council criteria for inclusion. And so if you were therefore to include that, you could not count that two, 300 acres towards the 2,700. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Mickler. I would just say to, I guess, my fellow commissioners that I think this area is really important to include for master planning. I think if you look at it from Google Earth or Google Maps or anything, that it is one of the areas that really needs some help with planning. And it also clearly would not make sense to bring in only the front parcels along Richmond Road. And so I would hope that even if the professional opinion of the staff is that the parcels in the back don't count in some criteria, that we would bring it all in because I think right now is an opportunity to make sure that this area gets some attention and some focus as we really try to protect as much farmland as we can and maximize our existing urban area. Mr. Mickler, I hear you. And staff fully agrees that blue sky should have been studied long ago. While it's been a priority, it has not been a priority. And that's unfortunate because it could be doing so much more for us. But the council didn't tell you to find land that ignored farmland. And so you are charged by the council to identify land based on those criteria. I can also tell you that the contract that we have with our consultant will not result in a meaningful master plan for Blue Sky. Because they have to design from scratch all the other land, including the infrastructure and the public input that goes with that. A project like this would require extensive public engagement because you'd be really working with all the people who have investments in Blue Sky, meeting with them and finding out what their needs are and what their concerns are. That is an isolated project that needs full attention, and I hope it will get it. It will not get it. I will tell you, and I apologize that this is sounding threatening, But if the Planning Commission includes Blue Sky as part of this project, it will not get the proper attention it needs because it can't. We don't have the time or the resources to dedicate to this because we're going to have to put it all on that other vacant land first. Thank you. I just want to be clear. One of the council's criteria was not that the land must be either one of our natural areas, one of our natural or one of our farmed areas, correct? They did not specify that it must be natural. No, they said it has to be on a corridor or it has to be adjacent to the urban service area. So they did not preclude underdeveloped parking lots, correct? No, if you choose to do that, you can do that, but it has to be on the corridor or adjacent to the urban service area. So if we followed Mr. Mickler's suggestion that 4, 5, and 6 be agglomerated with Blue Sky, would not Blue Sky then be adjacent to the urban services area? No, no, it won't be adjacent until you adopt it as an amendment to the comprehensive plan next year. And I also caution you, and I would expect we would hear some from the rural interest on this as well. This is called a rural activity center. And I can assure you the rural land management board is going to want to have input on this because they have been watching what happens with the soccer fields and the soccer stadium, what happens with the Sayre application, and they've been very concerned about that. So I would think that we would want to include input from the Rural Land Management Board before we started making changes to the Rural Activity Centers. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Owens? Are you ready to give it a try? Yeah. Okay. So I appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity. I guess. A couple of clarifying points. I guess I'd say, you know, I see this, that the council gave us this to do. Some of us maybe didn't agree with it, but it's in our lap and we've got to deal with it. And we've got to do it the best way that we can. and I think everybody is trying to do that. I appreciate the work that the committee did. They worked hard on everything. They listened to everybody, and there was a lot of work there. I wasn't part of it, but I can bet you that it was mind-blowing. I'll put it that way. The staff's worked hard. They've listened to us. They've responded. I told Jim Duncan when he came in here today that I appreciated his efforts in our last meeting and his response very much, not knowing what any of the questions were going to be, and I thought he responded well. I'm looking at this just a little bit differently. I hear some of the reasonings and so forth. But, sorry, I don't agree with all of them. Here's what I'm going to propose and it will be in the form of a motion. Jim, help me. I don't know how you want to try and identify it. I'm going to go by area the best that I can. And hopefully everybody can follow along. As far as area one, my motion would be to modify the existing to include only the south side of Parker's Mill Road, which is inside of Manowar, which to my tune I think is 163 acres. Mr. Owens? Yes sir. While you're doing that, do you think it would be maybe easier for us when you do that one modification that we can see it up here? Yeah. I don't want to slow you down. That's what I was asking. That's what I was asking, Jim. Yeah. Yeah, just so that. Yeah. So it would be 1B that would be included, striking 1A. As far as Area 2, my motion would be to include all of Area 2, which is, I believe, 1,017 acres. And Area 2, Ms. Owens, is that the Winchester Road? That's it right there. Yeah, okay. I think defined as the Hume Road area. Okay? My motion for Area 3 would be to eliminate it entirely, which is that portion right there. And to eliminate all of Area 3, which would be both sides of Walnut Grove. Moving on to area 4, the Athens-Boonsboro I-75 area, which I think is 641 acres, I would include all of that. What I'm going to call as 4A would be Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. I'm hearing 465, 472 acres. that provides the, you know, may not be now, but it will be connected to the, if all this goes forward. So, Mr. Owens, I'm sorry, I was taking a note. What did you say next? Besides, after Area 4, the Athens-Boonsboro Road, 641 acres. What I'm calling 4A would be the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center, Jim. minimum 465 acres. I think it's ripe to work for a master plan. If the master plan can't do it, and by the time we get to thinking about development, I think we could ourselves do a small area plan on it. So I would like to include that. 4B, Jim, would be the cane break, which was shown on the map there, which is 147 acres, I believe. That area, that provides connectivity. That's, yeah, that provides connectivity to the Todd's Road area, which would be Area 5, which I'd propose to include, which is 350 acres. And lastly, including the Crutcher property, which the staff and the committee recommended for inclusion as area 6, 43 acres. And that gets us somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,826 acres. That would be my motion. I so move it. Excuse me. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and a second, but I would like to see it. Are we going to be able to put it up here? Mr. Duncan, is it too? What, everything Mr. Owens just asked for? Yeah. I know. I know. No, sir. The reason, the reason, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. The reason I ask, because when we did this in a growth committee, when a revision was asked, we were able to at least see it and it was posted up there. So that nobody's just voting based on what was said, they actually can see it. So you can have a visual of it. That's the reason I ask you, Mr. Dunn. I think that's important and we have not done the evaluation. So I don't know if you have identified enough land to meet the council criteria. Yeah. I don't believe you have. Okay. And that was my thing. We've not seen it, this hasn't been calculated. And I don't know that we could do that calculation on the fly. That would, we'd have to do that. We'd have to check the ownership records to see which properties comply. Okay. All right. So, yeah, we do have a motion and a second, but now I'm going to ask for further discussions to that motion. And then that'll open up for discussions and questions. So Mr. Wilson. Just clarification, Ms. Owens on your motion, did you include all of Blue Sky? Yes, sir. Yeah. It's going to, you know, the way I see it, it will be contiguous. And, you know, the way I look at it, it's on Athens Boonsworth Road. You know, some of the outline pieces may have a separate address, but so do piano keys that we've seen that was being considered as well. Okay. I'm just clarifying, and you also cut out number three? Yes, sir. I guess what the question is, I don't know how many acres that is. Number three was 1,700 acres, give or take. No, no. Which one, number three? Number two. We're cutting out three is, yeah. I'm thinking about the Greenbrier property. Okay. 568. So, Mr. Duncan, your position is, I mean, what Mr. Forrest has asked you for is some clarification in writing about what it is his motion contains. And you're saying you need a little time to that? Well, Mr. Owens has done the math and you said 2,800? 2,826 is what we've got. So that's 126 acres above what the council directed. And most of the properties in Blue Sky do not meet the criteria, and so therefore you will not be sending enough land back to the council to meet their criteria. It doesn't go back to the council, does it? Pardon me? It doesn't go back to the council, does it? Well, I'm talking about going back to the community, addressing the council. When they see this done, that they're going to see that less than 2,700 acres was included. If needed, I would offer that Area 3, that is Winchester Road and Walnut Grove. That portion of it, which includes piano keys, backs up to Greenbrier. Could be included. Yes. So I got a question, just a quick question. Just see. Same of that, yeah. Because we had a family that I think it was a justice farm that spoke and wanted to be there and was ready to develop. That's right. I want to make sure that's been voiced. That's it. One of the other. Mike, do you? Yes, sir. In the grow committee, the Justice Farm out there. Yes, sir. They're on the record of, I guess, ready to be developed. And that was one of the criterias that we looked at, too. So is that being taken out of your request right now? The motion was to have it taken out. If according to Jim, sorry, Jim, but I don't agree with what you're saying. Our charge was 2,700 acres minimum. Yeah. The land on the corner of Walnut Grove and Winchester Road that backs up to Greenbrier could be included. Okay. Which I think would get you to, yeah, would be, that would be 3A there. Okay, so. Could I ask Mr. Martin a question there? Mr. Martin is in the back, but council is walking in here right now, so we probably need to wrap this up and go head over to the Phoenix building. If that area got brought in, what's shown up in the 3A and the lower part of 3B, would that allow you to address the Greenbrier sewer problem? 3A and 3B do not help me solve that problem per se, but my problem is impacted whether or not this gets added or not. Okay. So, Mr. Duncan, can we just close this portion out and reopen it back at the Phoenix Building? Yes, so members of the commission and members of the audience, if we're going to go now to the Phoenix building, to the third floor, go to the front door, which is at the corner of Vine and Limestone, and somebody will be there to let you in. And we'll go to the third floor and reconvene the meeting.