# Planning Commission Subcommittee (Subdivision Items) - November 2, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 2, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5954 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5954?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-11-02 - **Last revised**: November 2, 2023 - **Length**: 16,796 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Subdivision Committee met on November 2, 2023, at 8:30 a.m. in the Phoenix Building, 3rd Floor Conference Room. The committee considered seven agenda items, taking seven motions and votes during the meeting. Three members of the public provided comments. Of the seven subdivision amendments reviewed, five were approved: the NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 21C Amendment; the Givens Property, Lot 2 Amendment; the Cove Lake, Unit 2 Amendment; the Jones/Cottrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC Property Amendment; and the Galbraith Subdivision, Lots 19 & 20 Amendment. Two items were postponed: the Hamburg Place, B-5P & B-6P Highway Commercial Amendment and the Coleman Property Amendment. ## Attendance The following 19 individuals were present at the meeting on November 2, 2023: * Vaughan Adkins * Eve Miller * Eric Sutherland * Ben Cornett * Greg Lengal * David Filiatreau * Rob Volpenhein * John Cornett * Boyd Sewe * Chris Dent * Craig Prater * Traci Wade * Tom Martin * Cheryl Gallt * Autumn Goderwis * Daniel Crum * James Mills * Paula Schumacher * Tracy Jones No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included seven motions, all of which passed unanimously or were postponed as requested. **PLN-MNDP-23-00006: NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 21C Amendment** [timestamp: 0:05:49] Approval passed unanimously with 12 conditions attached. **PLN-MJDP-23-00065: Givens Property, Lot 2 Amendment** [timestamp: 0:06:25] Approval passed unanimously with 17 conditions attached. **PLN-MJDP-23-00068: Hamburg Place, B-5P & B-6P Highway Commercial Amendment** [timestamp: 0:16:40] Motion to postpone passed unanimously with 17 conditions attached. **PLN-MJDP-23-00069: Cove Lake, Unit 2 Amendment** [timestamp: 0:21:48] Approval passed unanimously with 16 conditions attached. **PLN-MJDP-23-00054: Jones/Cottrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC Property Amendment** [timestamp: 1:02:50] Approval passed unanimously with 13 conditions attached. **PLN-MJDP-23-00070: Galbraith Subdivision, Lots 19 & 20 Amendment** [timestamp: 1:17:37] Approval passed unanimously with 13 conditions attached. **PLN-MJDP-23-00059: Coleman Property Amendment** [timestamp: 1:54:21] Motion to postpone, made by Bob, passed unanimously with 18 revised conditions attached. ## Public Comment Three members of the public provided comments during the meeting. **Amy Clark** [timestamp: 0:16:10] addressed development plan concerns, specifically raising issues related to traffic and pedestrian safety. **Stacy Underhill** [timestamp: 0:51:10] spoke on behalf of the Old Paris Place Neighborhood Association regarding neighborhood concerns. Her comments focused on traffic impacts and issues affecting the Paris Pike corridor. **John Woodall** [timestamp: 1:48:31] raised concerns about the Coleman Property development, addressing three specific areas: stormwater management, emergency access, and construction logistics. ## Contested Items **Coleman Property Development** A proposed Coleman Property Development project generated community opposition during the meeting. Concerns centered on three primary issues: stormwater management, emergency access, and construction logistics. Attendees raised questions about how stormwater would be managed on the site, the adequacy of emergency access routes to and from the property, and the logistics of construction activities. These concerns reflected broader community worries about the project's impact on neighborhood infrastructure and safety. Rather than reaching a resolution during this meeting, the discussion was postponed to allow for further deliberation. This deferral indicates that the contested issues require additional analysis, community input, or clarification before a decision can be made. ## NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 21C Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MNDP-23-00006 The meeting included discussion of an amendment to the NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 21C [timestamp: 0:01:05]. Kevin Lasher presented on this agenda item. The amendment addressed several site modifications: * Depiction of site improvements * Creation of a second drive-through lane * Reconfiguration of the parking layout * Removal of usable open space The amendment was approved. ## Givens Property, Lot 2 Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-23-00065 The meeting included discussion of an amendment to the Givens Property, Lot 2 project. [timestamp: 0:06:25] **Presentation and Content** Eric Morf presented information regarding the amendment, which concerned the depiction of development of Lot 2 for a dental office. **Outcome** The amendment was approved. ## Hamburg Place, B-5P & B-6P Highway Commercial Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-23-00068 **Overview** This agenda item involved discussion of an amendment to develop a new outlot featuring a restaurant with an accessory drive-through and parking facilities. **Presentation and Discussion** Matt presented the proposal during the meeting [timestamp: 0:10:17]. **Outcome** The item was postponed and did not proceed to a final decision at this meeting. ## Cove Lake, Unit 2 Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-23-00069 **Overview** The meeting included discussion of an amendment to the Cove Lake, Unit 2 development plan regarding the depiction of a vehicle sales establishment on Lot 2. [timestamp: 0:17:21] **Presentation and Discussion** Rory Kaley presented this agenda item to the body. **Outcome** The amendment was approved. ## Jones/Cottrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC Property Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-23-00054 **Overview** The meeting included discussion of a proposed multi-family development plan for the Jones/Cottrell Property and Joyland Crossing, LLC Property. The plan depicts 165 dwelling units and was presented in support of a requested zone change. **Key Speaker** Dick Murphy presented on this agenda item. **Outcome** The amendment was approved. **Transcript Location** The discussion on this item occurred at approximately [timestamp: 1:02:21] in the meeting recording. ## Galbraith Subdivision, Lots 19 & 20 Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-23-00070 The meeting included discussion of a plan to depict the use of the site for a grocery store in support of a requested zone change for Lots 19 & 20 of the Galbraith Subdivision. [timestamp: 1:06:09] Chris Clendenin presented on this agenda item. The discussion focused on how the proposed grocery store use would support the zone change request for the property. The item was approved. ## Coleman Property Amendment **Identifier:** PLN-MJDP-23-00059 **Discussion Type:** Amendment Zach Cato led the discussion on the Coleman Property Amendment, which focused on tree canopy and stormwater management issues affecting the property. [timestamp: 1:41:25] The amendment addressed concerns related to tree canopy preservation and stormwater management on the Coleman Property. These two issues formed the primary focus of the discussion during this agenda item. **Outcome:** The Coleman Property Amendment was postponed and did not proceed to a final decision at this meeting. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-MNDP-23-00006** — passed (0-0): Approval of NDC Property, Unit 1-A, Lot 21C amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00065** — passed (0-0): Approval of Givens Property, Lot 2 amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00068** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Hamburg Place, B-5P & B-6P Highway Commercial amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00069** — passed (0-0): Approval of Cove Lake, Unit 2 amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00054** — passed (0-0): Approval of Jones/Cottrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC Property amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00070** — passed (0-0): Approval of Galbraith Subdivision, Lots 19 & 20 amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00059** — postponed (0-0): Postponement of Coleman Property amendment --- ## Full transcript Good morning. We'll get started with our subdivision meeting. Turn it over to the staff. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. And we have a relatively short agenda today. Excuse me. We are being recorded today, and so let's make sure we're using our mics as much as possible. He's already happy. One little note before we get started. You may have heard that Bobby Knight passed away, the coach at Indiana. So in honor of Coach Knight, if anyone wants to stand up and throw a chair, we'd like to take a moment and allow that. So, Mr. Simpson? As everyone knows, we have a long competition here at the U.K. with the University of Indiana. But with that, we're ready to start. We'll start on page one, Major Development Plan 23-6, NDC property. Okay. I'm sorry. This property is located over off of Ruscio Way. This is Reynolds Road, and Ruscio Way circles around. We have the railroad tracks and Nicholasville Road is up this way. We're looking at the Culvers located inside here. They have come in, and they're wanting to add a second drive-through lane, a second parking lane. They did some modifications to the parking layout. They changed this to just an exit point out of here. So they've been working on trying to clean this up, and they've done real well cleaning it up. We're just down to the first nine conditions as far as sign-offs. We just needed to ask for additional proposed and existing utilities. They said they had added it on the, see they have a version here, a smaller version here, and I guess I missed the utility that I was looking for, so I'll go back and look at that again. Document compliance with Article 21.7, that's opening an account with Linn Imaging so that at the end we get copies for our permanent records. and to pick the order point for car stacking. They are required to have five cars stacking after the order point. They're showing five cars here, but this is their order point, so they need to add an additional car for the stacking. So with that, I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions from the committee? Okay. Okay. Applicant. Kevin Lasher with Morley. As a former Purdue graduate, I share in your guys' sentiments with Bobby Knight as well, for the record. Do you have anything that you would like to say to the committee? Not if there's no questions. Any questions? The order point, this building is existing, right? Yes. Well, it says that, yeah. And I guess, okay, so that order point, that's where it is now. So, okay. That's where it's been. How will the second drive-through lane operate? will essentially some of the stacking be in that second, because now there's a second lane, right? Correct? Yes, and that will act as somewhat of a bypass lane, as it were. There's a potential for stacking in there if needed, but primarily it'll be the inside lane. I was thinking the owner, did they mention they'll do some tablet ordering as well? I'd have to verify with him on that. Okay. Okay. That's what he said at the . Okay. That they said there would be some tablet ordering depending on the hours. I guess the . . . At the tech meeting he made the comment that there could be an additional people making orders by tablet depending on how many cars they have at the . . . Okay. I just want to make sure as far as stacking goes it seems like it should be an improved condition basically. I think they also talked about constricting that one access point as well. That makes sense. And then you all said they did the open space, I guess, with the removal of those parking and adding. That's good now? Well, it's going to have to be good on the plan, yeah, that's submitted for certification. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any audience comments? You can be excused. Okay. If not, may we entertain a motion? Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN MNDP 23-6, NDC property, with the attached, I think it's 12 conditions. Second. I've been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor, please raise your hand. All right, it's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to move on to page 2, item B, Major Development Plan 23-65. This is the Givens property, lot 2. So, we are out here at the Givens property, which is located at Georgetown Road, Citation Boulevard, at this location. You may recall when the original plan came in, it was for the publics and associated development on this lot. It has a modified access off of Georgetown. You may recall the discussion about that as well. And then, of course, access off of the side street in this location as it comes through the property. This specific development is for this lot right there. It's a dental office they want to place. So it's right next to the large detention basin. You can see it's a rectangular building with associated parking in the front, and it has been reviewed by your tech committee. It has a standard development plan sign-offs and a few cleanup items to denote building height and feet. Addition of Lot 1 statistics. This is not unusual, but when they did this amendment, they dropped off the Lot 1 statistics, gave us their statistics. Well, this will continue to develop as a development plan and will carry everything forward. And because when the next person comes in to amend, we're going to give them this plan and go start here. So they've got to carry these statistics forward on the entire development. The Royal Spring Deocuifer Committee is a review. They're going to review each individual development plan that comes through. They looked at the first one for the publics. They're continuing to look at each individual use as it comes in. As an example, so you'll know they took a look at the car wash just recently, took a hard look at that car wash and how they recycle water and how that functions. So, again, Royal Springs Aquival Committee review. Dimension, the proposed building, they gave us the square footage. We like to see dimensions on the buildings. And to that end, they gave us a graphic scale. We need a written scale. That's one of the requirements of Article 21. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Any questions for staff? Enough? May we hear from the applicant? Eric Morf, Good morning. My name is Eric Morf. I'm with TAR Group. I don't have anything to add. He does such a fine job of presenting it for us, but I'm happy to answer any questions you guys might have. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Any comments from the audience? If not, let's turn it back to the committee. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLN and JDP 2365 Givens Property Lot 2 with these 17 conditions. All second. Moved and properly seconded. All in favor? Ms. Shann? It's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. We're moving right on down page two to item C, Major Development Plan 23-66, the Web Properties Unit 1, Block A. Got withdrawn yesterday. And it got withdrawn yesterday. It got withdrawn completely. That's correct. They couldn't seem to make the five-car stacking for the drive-thru window that they were wanting to propose, so they decided to withdraw the whole plan. Thank you. Yeah, I was just ready to keep on rolling. But that's good. So we can move, we can do better than that. We can move on over to page three to item D. This is Major Development Plan 23-68 Hamburg Place, the B5P, B6P Highway commercial. Okay. We're, whoops, this is Sir Barton Way. Here's Winchester Road. I-75 is up this way. We have Walmart and Lowe's up in the back area here. Down in the front, they're wanting to add a Chipotle right here at the front off of Surbart and Way. So with that, we had listed the first 12 conditions are typical sign-offs. We had addition of building line setback, addition of bearings on the new lot, and the record plan information. They don't have a lot at this current time. for the property, but they are trying to create a lot out in the parking lot for this property itself. So that's why we're looking for record plat information. Clarify lotting between the development plan and the plat. Document usable and vegetated open space. On the back page, we have discussed conditional zoning restriction that limits the maximum gross building square footage. When this property came in and was rezoned, there was a conditional zoning restriction on it saying that they could build the maximum of 532,000 square feet. At this current time, they have over 535,000 square feet on the previous development plan, so we're a little over before we add. So I know they've been working on trying to verify all the building square footages for the property. So with that, I will leave it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Any questions from the committee? Matt. We'll hear from the applicant. Matt's right here. There's the list of the conditions. Good timing. I just walked in the door. So as Cheryl said, we know that we're over, but what we're trying to do is go back, check each building. We have found some that are wrong, so it's going to take a little bit of time, But we're going through each building, checking the square footage, and then we'll see what we ultimately come up with. It may take longer than by next Thursday to get this accomplished, so it's a possibility we'll have to postpone. But that's kind of where we're at right now. So hopefully hopefully we'll come in under and If not an option would be to do a zone change to change You know ask for the square footage to be raised But we want to we want to find the square feet if we can Thank you any questions for the applicant Just a clarification for Matt. On the record plan, they're proposing to subdivide this lot. They can build off this development plan. The lot does not have to exist for them to develop this restaurant. It's just that what we see on there is that they're proposing a lot. But I don't believe that's been filed. No, we do have it ready to file. We're kind of waiting to see where this goes. and then we'll file it. Again, it really shouldn't impact this development plan and approving the development plan. The most important thing is the square footage and reconciling that. So you just kind of confused me. I was about ready. When I first heard this, I was going to say, is this a resolvable thing? I'm listening to Matt. He said, well, we may have to postpone. So I said, okay. He even mentioned have to come back with a zone change. So is this resolvable, or should we just leave it as discussed? We're recommending postponement because they have to figure out their numbers. Okay. Yeah, they absolutely have to because that is a cap. That was a zone change. The council put that cap on this property. One thing, I did have one question. And similar to a preliminary development plan in a zone change, can you put a condition that it's approved subject to obtaining the zone change? I don't know. We'd have to talk that with legal. Yeah. I've never done that. And the reason being is that it's a whole different process for amending conditional zoning as a regular zone change or a land use. So that's a little more involved. It has a higher standard associated with it. So I don't know. Just something to look into, maybe. Okay. All right. No other questions for the applicant? All right. Anybody from the public like to say something? Thank you. Thank you. Oh, hold on. We do have someone from the committee, I mean from the public. My name is Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road. I have just a few comments on the development plan. I beg your pardon. Not yet. Wrong plan. Wrong plan? Okay. It's triangular. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Madam Chair? Yes. I'll move for the recommendation of postponement on Plan MJDP 23-68 Hamburg Place with the now 17 conditions. Second. All right. Move in second. All in favor, raise your hand. All right, it's unanimous. Thank you. All right, thank you very much, members of the committee. We're going to move to page four, to item E, Major Development Plan 23-69, Coal Lake, Unit 2. We are located out on Richmond Road at the Franklin Auto Mall. This is a proposal to develop, as you can see in the white, make sure I get this right, there we go. This is a proposal to develop this section of the auto mall development. This is Richmond Road, of course, out in this location. We have the service road, which in parts public and parts access easement, as it serves this property. You've seen development in this area for two different products, two different automobile products that fall under the Franklin banner. This, of course, is a large environmentally sensitive area. We have floodplain and that sort of thing running down towards the reservoir. They're proposing a new building in this location with associated parking, again, for an automobile display and office, et cetera. Sales establishment. So, again, this is a final development plan with pretty standard sign-offs from the various agencies. and then we need them to add lot two to the purpose of amendment. Clarify the purpose of amendment is for this lot specifically. Remove the yellow shading. And one of the reasons for that is it obscures information, number one. Number two, they need to add all the other approved development plan information on this one. Just like the other plan when I told you for givens, they build. They move forward. We want all the information on a final development plan. Because, again, when they come in next time to amend, we're going to want to see it all, and we're going to see the new. So, again, it's just a matter of continuing the information forward on a final development plan. And apparently I hit the button, didn't I? There we go. So they also need to add notes 18 and 19 from the previously approved plan. These were handwritten notes that were placed on that plan, and they just need to add those to this particular plan. Your technical committee did recommend approval to you. I'll be happy to answer your questions you may have for staff. Questions from the committee? All right. Applicant? Rory Kaley with the A-Partners. We're in agreement with an approval. Okay. All right. Any questions for the applicant? Can you remove the yellow shading? I hate to, but I will. No, no, I kind of like it myself. It worked really well on the first plan. Well, if he can show us the information that we want to see and we can see it clearly, we might reconsider that. But actually, we tend to like for shading not to be on a plan. I think we talked a little bit in TRC that just if you can send an exhibit, kind of what your plan is for signage for the 90-degree turns just prior to that. I know it's under construction now, correct? Yeah. And part of the thing about notes 18 and 19, that talked about the timing for the access. And so we had two buildings approved with the First Amendment. The note reads something about prior to certificate of occupancy for the second. It has to be completed. So I'll put that note on there and phrase back to phase one. And then there will be at least a phase three. There's one more car brand out there that needs a new home once these are established and out of the way. Got to update. Yeah, it does. Any additional questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Any comments from the public? If not, let's bring it back to the committee. Madam Chair, I'd like to move for approval of PLNMJDP 2369 Cove Lake Unit 2 with the 16 conditions. Second. All right. We move and second. All in favor? All right. Unanimous. Thank you. Unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to move right on down the page. We're moving down to your zoning development plans. The first item is item A. This is a development plan 23-54 for the Jones Cottrell property in Joyland Crossing. All right. We're going to move on out Paris Pike Look, there's a nice close up there Thank you Paula I didn't realize she had done that There we go, see she did it here But very good I'm going to back up though So we are headed out Paris Pike Oh, here we go Here we have Paris Pike Rogers Road. Of course, the interstate intersection exchange is right down in this location. We have old limestone, old Parris Pike, North Limestone that comes in here at this tough intersection as it comes in and kind of whys into Parris Pike. And we have the railroad here. You can see it's a triangular piece of property. Back a few years ago, you had a zone change on this portion of the property. It was rezoned commercial. It did not include this little corner where the curb, Mike knows the curb very well. This is his stomping grounds. I know where he grew up. And there was a transmission shop there as well, by the way. They are proposing six apartment buildings, 165 units. You can see that there's access proposed on the Parris Pike at this location, a lot of interior parking associated and spread throughout the site with the buildings. They also are proposing garage parking, deck parking in the buildings, under the buildings, to achieve the parking that they believe they need on the property. They are proposing an emergency access, a gated emergency access off of Old North Limestone in this area to come in there. Again, that is a requirement for fire protection and emergency access. Staff, technical committee in reviewing this, this is a revised plan. plan. We have our standard sign offs for a preliminary development plan. You will see a final development plan on this property should this zone change go forward. The urban county engineer, traffic engineering, urban forest or green space, Department of Environmental Quality. And then very importantly, we'd like to see an exhibit demonstrating compliance with Article 20. This is a compliance issue on the plan. And the acreage numbers meet, you know, the numbers meet. But when you look at this plan, you can see there's the clubhouse, there's a pool, you have a large, again, triangular site, they have a triangular interior green space area. Here's a lot of their open space. And they've got open space distributed in some other areas on the plan. We'd like to see an exhibit that clearly demonstrates that all that acreage together is going to meet the requirement. Because as you all know, when we look at these requirements, usable open space is an important aspect of our developments now, what we're looking for. So again, that's an important aspect of this plan. In addition, There are some infrastructure issues. On the previous plane, the infrastructure issues were a lot more serious, and a big part of that had to do with access. That site just to the north had harder access to get to the stormwater system, to get to the sanitary sewer system, that sort of thing. Again, the benefit of picking up the little triangle piece has been that you can see they're proposing detention in this area. Well, this is adjacent to the existing stormwater system, So that will allow them to properly deal with their runoff and allow it into the existing public system. So, again, that proximity has helped this proposal tremendously. As for sanitary sewer, again, by picking up this corner piece down here, because they're going to have to go back this way, under the railroad or along the right-of-way of old Parris Pike, North Limestone, to get to the pump station. There's a pump station that sits back a little bit further. You know there's a subdivision that's been back in there for years, Strawberry Field, Strawberry. There's a pump station there. They'll have to access that pump station in order to provide sanitary sewer to this development. There's some concern about the access. However, what they have done, if you go back, they have lined it up with Rogers Road. That's important. We always try to see alignments. It's a tough site. As you all know, there's a lot of access points through there, and there's multiple lights. You've got the interstate interchange, and, of course, this is District 7. This is State Highway. A lot of this system was created years ago. the spacing, the roads that came in, and then the lights were implemented. These were all State of Kentucky District 7 decisions to deal with the traffic in the area. So access is a challenge. So, again, lining it up is good. There's been some discussion about whether or not it should be moved back further. There's been some discussion about perhaps adjusting the design. to try to address perceived conflicts with the access in this area. Again, this is a preliminary just like the sewer and that sort of thing. This is an issue that can be fully resolved. We want it on the table. We don't want anybody surprised. We want everybody to know this is a concern, but it can be resolved at the final development plan as well. They need to denote that the parking structures shall comply with Article 1611 of the zoning ordinance. That's any structures that are above grade, that are visible, have to be activated, have to meet requirements under the new parking ordinance. And we do have place builder criteria that I believe Mr. Crum would like to discuss with you briefly. Thank you, Tom. Daniel Crum, planning staff. I just wanted to touch base really quickly about the zoning side of this with the place builder. So with the property's location on a major corridor, the applicant has chosen to place this within a corridor place type and has identified it as a medium density residential development. With the proposed place type, with it being on a major roadway, staff finds that that is appropriate, and kind of the higher density, medium to high density, is what's called for within the comprehensive plan. So place type, development type, and zone, staff is in agreement with. With regards to public participation and outreach, the applicant hasn't provided any information of any public outreach efforts, so they should provide further information and clarification on that. staff is looking for some further information on how they're meeting some aspects of the place builder, especially with regards to the multifamily design standards and specifically how this property is going to kind of safely connect the individuals living there with transit. So seeking a little bit more information, but otherwise are in agreement with the chosen place type and development type. And I'd be happy to answer any questions of staff. I'm not sure which of the two of you this goes to. This is intended at rental level missing middle housing. Is that what we're looking at here? Really, I mean, this is sort of kind of at the, I don't know if I would really qualify it as missing middle housing based on kind of the scale and scope, but I think the applicant can also speak to kind of what their target demographic is there. Last then. Okay, thank you. Any additional questions for staff our applicant Good morning, I'm dick Murphy representing the developer on this along with Matt Carter of vision engineering and and this is a zone change as staff mentioned to you the property on the north side i'll see if i can wait this the north side is on b3 you all may recall that we had a zone change about six years ago to the b3 zone from the original owner the lower part is zoned r1b interestingly enough where the curb bar was in the transmission shop for 50 years has been zoned R1B. And that presented a problem. I worked on the zone change on the northern part six years ago when that was rezoned B3, and we agreed to the one access point in and out opposite Rogers Road, which is really the only place we could have it. The track below had actually filed a zone change a couple years later. I wasn't involved in that one. Matt was. But the problem was access because it was agreed by the staff and all the reviewers that the access point right here off of Old Paris Road into the curb was not a good access point. So we've solved that issue by the fact that our clients have purchased the southern piece as well. So now we can incorporate them together. We've eliminated the access point onto Paris Road right near the railroad tracks, although we are keeping that as an emergency access for fire in and out. It'll be gated, so the only person who can get it out is the fire department, ambulance, emergency services on there. So we think we've made a big improvement on access, but the we are proposing a residential community We will go over with the staff with the place builder criteria. We did have two meetings with Miss Friedman miss mr. Say way before we filed to make sure we were on the same page as far as place builder is We will we will do the open space exhibit as you have mentioned This is a this is a missing middle Housing on here. We have set up we're setting up. I've had contact with the neighborhood associations where We've had trouble trying to get a date for a meeting I think it's going to be next week at this point but we but I've been in touch with two of the neighborhood associations on that and Anyway, that's the little summary of it Just a few things I wanted to add. I'm filling in for Fred, so he briefed me on the project, and he wanted me to mention a few things. One, I would ask that the U.S. Postal Service, if we could drop that as a sign-off, since it is a zone change, and we have a short time frame to get the preliminary development plan certified. And the post office, I don't even know if they have anybody in that position right now to sign off, but in any case, they're very difficult to get a hold of, and it's almost impossible to get it done in two weeks. So if at all possible, if we could drop that, they would be, for the final development plan, they would be a sign-off, and we could certainly have more time then to go over this with them. Excuse me, Matt, just a little bit. There have been issues with the post office responding timely. It has been. It's been a serious issue. They currently have someone. We've had four different contacts. Recently there's been a new contact who has been a little quicker and more responsive. But, again, the post office has a lot going on and their own issues and things they're dealing with. They're the ones that requested to be on these plans. So at this point, we won't let a zone change tank over a post office sign off on a preliminary plan. If they document their efforts and they haven't been able to get a response, we understand that. It's happened before. And, again, the post office will be on the final development plan when they actually designate the actual location for their facility. But, again, I think I appreciate Matt asking. I understand his frustration with it. Staff's had some of the same frustrations in trying to work with him. But I wouldn't recommend dropping it at this time. Perhaps at the actual zone change, there may be a justification, a further justification to discuss that. But I wouldn't recommend it to the committee. But thanks, Matt, for asking. I understand. I believe you understand why you're asking. As far as the sanitary sewer, we would like to defer or resolve at the final development plan phase. We know we can sewer it to the pump station on the other side of the railroad tracks, but it's just a matter of engineering, and at this time we just would rather defer that to first see if we're going to get the zone change approved. The access over by the railroad We do show access there, but it's going to be gated and it's going to be for emergency use only It'll have a click and I think it's called click and go system where Where the fire department or or the police or the ambulance can click their mic and get in It'll be on the same frequency that their radios are on so they'll have access but nobody else will Fred wanted me to say that he did add a lot more pedestrian connections Around the property so Vast improvements there I think that's it. We have any additional questions for the applicant? Have you all spoken with the transportation cabinet? I know not currently showing any roadway improvements, but I think that will be. I know it's something we're going to resolve in the final, but just thinking about that. Mark McIntosh is with our office, and he handles the transportation issues. And I'm pretty sure he has spoken with them. I don't know if there's any, like, resolution or if they're in agreement yet. That's ongoing. And it could take a while, so that's something we would also like to defer to a final development plan if we can. And that's fine, yeah. And then I dropped a line to like strand about central style, but they were going to evaluate it. They weren't sure if it would work, but they'll let us know. I'll let y'all know. Okay. I think all those that you were saying that were to be deferred to the final development plan is already showing in here that they'll be deferred. Okay. Thank you. Comments from the public? Okay. Okay. Okay. I don't mind waiting in line. I'm not speaking for the neighborhood. They will apparently have a meeting and speak for themselves, but I know the area really well. And I remember Mr. Murphy working with an earlier plan, and I have to say residential is so much more welcome than a B3, and it's good that that died a natural death. It's also good to incorporate the little piece at the corner, especially for solving the sanitary connection. I want to say a little bit about the larger environs and especially pedestrian connectivity or availability. Can I? Oh, yes. Can you just push the mic? Is it on? You can hear me? Okay. I'm not sure which. Is this easier maybe? So, yeah, it's a very pent-in site. The grading isn't maybe quite as obvious on a plan, but it's 1,000 feet along the berm on either side of the railroad. And Ms. Graham's property here also has something of an incline, So they'll be able to see all of the four stories there. A big issue is this is an R1B property, and she lives there. And this is an R1D, which actually wraps around it. This is about a two-acre property. And the R1D there is used as a horse farm. I guess they train there. They have several rinks and so on. It may be jumping. And so there are actually horses that come up here, and that area is proposed for a lot of parking. On the B3, they imposed a conditional zoning restriction of a 20-foot buffer, and it was to be tall trees. Here you have these four-story apartment buildings That's to say a story of parking and three on top The height is considerable And you've got a dumpster here You have a dumpster here Which is maybe 10 feet from the property And these are a few little trees They don't specify size as far as I can tell I think that buffer is really, really needed. It's a much more intensive use here. And I think the dumpsters need to be thoughtfully placed. It's hard to place a lot of dumpsters for a lot of buildings, but surely we can do better than putting it right up against the edge there, and I really think it needs that tree buffer. The other issue is pedestrians, and you probably saw the exhibit in the file where pedestrians, if they're going to cross Paris Pike, the only signal is here. So they have to come all the way out, and presumably pedestrians can just kind of stroll across here. But this is the only safe place to cross the road, and only if you wait for the signal. The other thing down here, you can see again the contour lines. This is a railroad overpass, and traffic is coming around a curve. And this is very populous down here. There's a whole townhouse development, and parking is chock-a-block, and so there's quite a lot going on there. It's hard to see how it can work without putting a traffic signal at Rogers Road just to get the cars in and out in the morning if they're going to work. presumably they'll nearly all be making a left turn to go downtown. The bus is a bus that's entirely a north side connector. It comes seven times a day each way. So three or four in the morning, three or four at night, seven times a day. And it goes over to Georgetown Street, to the social services, and it goes on the other end to Eastgate Shopping Center, that area. Community Action Center is not community, Catholic Charities. So people who live here are going to be completely bottled in without a car. And in fact, if they want a snack or something, it's also across the street there. I think crossing here is hard because you do have a weird angle there, a weird avenue. So I think it's worth thinking really, really hard about just how many people you want to put in a place this size. and think about being compatible to the uses next door, which are residential but much lower density, but in fact the one is used for a horse farm. I'll just see if I've left anything out. I don't want to take a lot of time. The remark about open space, is it really usable? It would be wonderful to have some usable open space up against the residential property. So really the buffer with large trees, that was 20 foot. The parking demand was done from a 2019 ITE manual. There's a 2023 one now. Who knows whether we'd learn anything worth learning. Really a signal at Rogers was half the conversation. in every discussion of development on either side of the road, and I understand that the signals are too close that way, and I understand they're expensive, but it means this property is uniquely bottled in, both for cars and pedestrians. Possibly fewer units with more beds, fewer cars, would solve a few things. And there's a lot of great stuff across Paris Pike. There's a huge park, there's schools, and so on, and also affordable housing, quite a lot of public housing there. Thank you. I think that's it, and I appreciate the time. Thank you. Would the applicant like to? I've got one question. Amy, just curious, you mentioned the property to the north as possible horse farm, and I think you said Graham property. Are you representing them? I am not. I'm not representing anyone and I did say I'm not speaking for the neighbors, but To my knowledge, she's still alive and enjoying the use of her property garnetta Graham, and this is Jeannie McLaughlin and her husband and daughter and Last I knew they were okay. They weren't they had horses and they have rings and so on you can see on the overhead Mike would know better than I. I believe so. It looked like maybe a little jumping. Probably. It's not a terribly large farm. Maybe 10 acres, not. I don't know. Okay. All right. Would the applicant like to respond to any of that? Thank you. you're making me nervous sitting there the mr. Owen had a same question I did miss we're but we we have had contact with the neighborhood associations and they have reached out to a number of the different neighbors reason we're having trouble scheduling a meeting is because there's two associations and four or five different individuals involved and we haven't been able to come up with a day on which we can find a room that's available somewhere out there we were thinking we're going to do it next week but we have have reached out and we'll be having a meeting on this the on pedestrian connectivity we have worked hard with the staff on doing that and I don't know what happened to the little there it is a little pointer the we do have a sidewalk going all the way down to this light this area here we are dealing with as far as the light at Rogers Road we are connecting our road at the place where we have been told it should be because that's the one safest location for it because you're opposite a different road and as you're coming out you can see the Traffic approaching on them. We will basically do here whatever the state tells us on this It's a it's a state decision whether we have a light here Turn lanes and that sort of thing and that's part of the process. We'll have to go through for the Final development plan. So we will be complying with whatever the state requires on this the We As for the the plan we got approved in 2017 for B3 had a Convenience store with gas station a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through window a second restaurant on there and it was a much bigger traffic generator than what we're proposing here by a level of three or four times as much traffic as we're having here, even in peak hours in the morning. Even in peak hours, it was a much higher traffic generator. So we've really improved the situation here by taking in the curb property, eliminating the full in-and-out access point at the curb right near the railroad tracks, closing that essentially for all traffic except fire and then having our all our traffic coming in at that location up there so as I said we've worked with the staff on this and we hope you vote to approve the development plan on it thank you I'm sorry are you a public okay I'm sorry I didn't ask if there was anyone else come on my name is Stacy underhill I'm the president of the old Paris place neighborhood association and it's nice to put a face with a name dick Received a lot of comments from all the neighbors. Of course, there's many opinions going and Predominantly their neighbors concern is traffic that goes without saying Doing a little research. We were looking into the Paris bike corridor, which I believe the city adopted in 1995 and that pretty much Protects Lexington Sorry, I'm nervous Thank you Lexington's unique characteristics and farmland and Pretty much states, you know what you can do and what you can't do and one of the things is building houses and Kind of minimizes it said something like If you're going to build in the corridor, you need to have like one house or 10 acres. I guess my question is, has anybody researched the Paris Pike corridor that was adopted? We have presented this plan to the corridor committee. Okay. So, yes, ma'am. We're very much aware of the overlay. The overlay technically starts further out that addresses those things that you're speaking to. But we've taken all the properties in this area every time there's been a redevelopment to them for their continents. But the overlay actually starts a little further out. That's why when you talk about the 10-acre tracks and single-family homes, that's much more reflective of that part of the corridor as it goes on into Bourbon County and you have all the farms and that sort of thing. Do you have a date when that was presented to the – I'm just curious if that's – It was presented to them on the 10th. Yes. Okay. I just, being that, I guess, the spokesperson for their neighbors, one of their issues was when we were first notified, half the neighbors received a letter stating that the public hearing was going to be on October the 20th or October 16th. We basically received two letters. Half the neighbors said the public hearing was going to be on one date and another on another date, and I believe a corrected letter went out. So that's our concern is just making sure that we deserve it. Yes, and the Paris Pike Committee expressed a lot of concern about the access due to traffic. That was their big concern. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I believe I can say one thing to clarify. the interlocal agreement that set up the Paris Pike area. Yes, the overlay begins further out in the rural area, the zoning overlay restricting sizes and houses and so forth. The actual National Register district goes all the way to, well, past the curb bar, right there. And in fact this used to be a woodlot and it was cleared as far as we know without any Land disturbance permit So yes, the appearance of that corridor Is important to the corridor as a National Register district another row of trees along the corridor might be in order Thank you All right, any other comments? This is just education for me. Do we have a standard buffering along areas that are active agricultural with animals, without animals, or is that adjusted place by place? We do. We do. We have various standards. Article 18 dictates certain standards, of course. And then we do have a subdivision requirement that addresses whether or not it's used as an active farm. Okay. And certainly there have been many cases where greater buffers have been imposed where justified. So, yeah, I mean, that is certainly an aspect that can be discussed about whether or not we should increase the buffer there adjacent to those properties. Is that something that should be discussed now or further down the road in the process? Well, you have two choices there. You could consider conditional zoning restrictions for it, certainly, or it could be a development plan. Note, either way you want it to go at the time of the final development plan. Both are enforceable through the development plan and through compliance process. So I'm going to yield to our equine representative down here, who knows more about farming than I do, and say, what do you think, Mr. Owens? As far as development with any sort of active agriculture or especially horses that can be a little flighty, any sort of extended buffering, extra buffering would be appreciative, I'm sure. When does that take place? Any time between now and final development plan, I guess. One question I know as to the urban service boundary, some people think when we start talking about agriculture and that sort of thing, that we're talking about urban service boundary. To the best of my knowledge, the urban service boundary is probably almost a mile out the road. It's further out. Yeah, it's further out, yeah. Not that, yeah, as I said, I think there is active farming going on right next to this at that time. So to answer your question, anytime we can get extra buffering, that would be appreciative. I would add that staff would anticipate over time that that adjoining property will be developed. It's currently zoned residential, and it's remaining a horse farm for any extended further length of time. we would anticipate that there would be development of those properties once they become available. And they will. We don't know when, but they tend to. I've got to say, that's the key. We don't know when. We don't know when. I tend to agree with Tom, but we don't know when. We don't know when. Right now, it's still agriculture. And we get a lot of phone calls, and we have had phone calls on these properties and people asking about what type of development would be appropriate there. So, again, a lot of aspects of development in real estate are speculative, and people are always looking and shopping and exploring possibilities. Can we add a note to something like exploring additional buffering with the property owners along those two? I think you can make a recommendation to increase the buffering along that property. Yes, ma'am, by all means. Well, then I recommend that we increase it. We can add that condition, yes. They can always increase that later. Well, hopefully not. Hopefully they wouldn't need to. If there's significant trees, they would incorporate it. Once the trees are in, we'd like to see them stay. And I would also, if we're going to talk about more buffering, If we want to keep that corridor, as Ms. Clark said, let's see if we can add more trees in there if we can. As you all are very much aware, we have, as a staff, recommended to you, and you've approved additional buffering along corridors in many circumstances, particularly with commercial very much where we've recommended berms and understory trees and larger trees and that sort of thing. So certainly a compatible form of buffering landscaping along this frontage is not out of the question. It's certainly very appropriate to the discussion. All right, then I'm recommending that we expand the buffering along Paris Pike to make that more compatible with the landscaping along the roadway and more buffering along the boundary with the equine, not equine, with the agricultural, active agricultural area. All right. Okay. Mike, you have a comment? Okay. I saw you. Sorry. Okay. All right. So with that, if there are no additional questions, Commissioner Worthy, you want to? Are we adding condition number 12 on that? 13. 13, I mean. Could we say, could we add something along the lines, and I think Dick would be comfortable with this, resolve the additional landscaping along Parris Pike frontage and the active agricultural. So we can come back to you with what we've worked out, what we've proposed, what we think is appropriate. Just as long as it's all along that entire boundary. Right. Well, and again, to give you an example, of course, The corridor commissions are getting ready, we believe, to get rid of a lot of the corridor requirements and get rid of the landscaping. They want to take a different approach. That being said, I'm going to give you an example. Newtown Pike had one that was developed that had plank fences along with trees. So here on Paris Pike, again, you're looking at what would be appropriate relative to that character. And because we have different conditions, you know, Man of War has totally different requirements on it. So, again, we would like the ability to resolve that and talk with the client and then come back to you with a recommendation on what would be appropriate. Okay, I'm not sure I can exactly replicate your wording. That's why I call it resolve. Resolve the appropriate landscaping buffer along Parris Pike and the adjoining agricultural operation. And now we'll see if I can read my handwriting. Okay. Madam Chair, I move for approval of PLNMJDP 2354 Jones Cottrell Property and Joyland Crossing with the original 12 requirements and an additional 13 resolve additional landscaping buffer along Paris Pike and the adjoining agricultural area. Second. Okay, it's been moving second. All in favor? Aye. Unanimous? All right, thank you. Moving right along. Okay. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, the next item on your agenda is item B on page 5. The applicant would like to postpone that, and they don't want to present it to you today. They want to come back through the committees after they've addressed some of the concerns in the staff report and in conversations we've had with them. Yeah, I thought it would save you all some time because we're going to make some changes. We're going to meet with the staff tomorrow, and hopefully come back with a cleaned-up proposal for you all to consider at the December meeting. All right. We appreciate that. Is there a need to vote on that? No, they're going to come back to you. Okay. I like it when you act on things because it's easy for us to track it, but they're going to come back to you, so I think we'll be okay. All right. And I would like to add that I restrained myself from talking about Joyland and the park and how my lovely, beautiful, wonderful mother, my sainted mother, used to go out there and dance to the big bands. Her birthday was yesterday, so, yeah. Okay, we'll allow that. I love the name. I mean, Joyland, it was a great place. I mean, you know, a trolley ran out there. Let's talk about urban development and history. You know, they had an interurban to Paris. We had a trolley that ran, a dedicated trolley out to Joyland. All kinds of famous big bands would show up and that sort of thing. Yeah. And they played at the lyric, yes, yes. But, oh, well, I'm waxing nostalgic. Hal's laughing at me. I deserve it. Anyway, we're going to move right along to item C. Major Development Plan 23-70, the Galbraith Subdivision, lots 1918, it says here. 1920, pardon me. 1918. 1918. No, and I don't remember 1918. Here we go. The Galbraith subdivision. Here we go. This is a zone change proposal, and this is interesting in that this is a final development plan. And you see these occasionally, and I know you all are aware why. They're not really doing any physical changes whatsoever, this property. You can see it's a very small piece of property located on Florence Avenue. It's kind of in the middle of the residential development in that part of town off of Georgetown Street. It is an old historic commercial use. There was just a little grocery there, apparently. It operated for years and years and years there. And then the use kind of died out and various things happened. The property, there's an existing building that you can see on the property. and the purpose. They want to go to B1 and repurpose this property to provide fresh food and produce and that sort of thing to the neighborhood. Absolutely, yes, yes. Look, I have a very close and dear friend who did that in Louisville. I mean, he financed a minority company to help do that in the west end of Louisville. So, yeah, that sort of thing is very important. But, again, it fronts on Florence. There's no parking. that's going to be provided. They're going to remove the parking that's in the front of the structure and have a seating kind of a patio area. In the rear, they're going to have an area that they'll put up tents and canopies and that sort of thing, and then they'll have food and available products for the neighborhood. There is a connection proposed that exists now to the rear to a community garden that's back in this section. And you can see they're proposing an access through the property. We've had a brief discussion with them about that access. Some of it was the location, but they want to bring it close to the activities so people can walk. That does leave a gap along the property line. Well, there's trees, and they were thinking, well, that will help protect the trees. Our thinking was, well, do you want to line it up close to the border and open it up a little bit more? But it's not a major issue. It's important. The access is important. The connection to the community is important. So along those lines, we also have a condition just to talk to them and resolve. They're proposing to close it off in non-business hours. We're not sure that that's absolutely necessary. There may be security reasons, et cetera, for that. But, again, it's currently open, and the neighborhood people use it. They cut through and they walk. And so, again, we would just like to kind of work that out with them about whether or not it actually does need to be gated or not. It's not a major issue, again, because the applicant here really envisions being a strong part of the community here. There is a waiver request with this, a variance request along this border. It's an existing building. They can't meet the landscaping when they go to B1 because the building is sitting right there. So they're going to be requesting a variance for the landscaping from you and your entire body. It's a zone change hearing. And I believe, Mr. Crumb, would you like to address the committee? He would. Hello. Just a couple words about place builder with this application. So this is an interesting situation where the site has existed in an existing neighborhood as a commercial use for a number of years. So within the letter of justification, the applicant is talking about putting this as an enhanced neighborhood place type and low density non-residential development type. with this being an existing single story building in the middle of an existing neighborhood with a neighborhood oriented use and really speaking to sort of the neighborhood serving business aspect of that, staff finds the choice in place type and development type to be appropriate. As far as public outreach, there's been several conversations with members of the neighborhood association in the immediate vicinity. My understanding, I think there's still some further public engagement that the applicant intends to do, but there's been some preliminary conversations about that that sort of spurred the project, but staff is in agreement with the place type, development type, and the choice of zone. Great. Any questions for the staff? Thank you. All right, thank you. Applicant? MR. Good morning, committee. I'm Chris Clendenin. I'm joined by Mr. Barrett, hiding behind me here. I think Mr. Martin and Mr. Crum did a good job of explaining the project to you. I did want to add this with respect to the neighborhood engagement. This is a very interesting story. As Mr. Martin lets you know, that this was an existing use. It was operated sort of as an ad hoc grocery store for many years. The use stopped. Originally, these two lots were planned to be removal of that building for a house, and then we were at the Board of Adjustment and got approval for a variance because if you kind of look on this, it shows that the original structure encroaches over onto the other lot. Well, we were approached at the Board of Adjustment hearing by the Neighborhood Association and asking us would we consider reopening the grocery store. so we actually met with them in February of this year and had subsequent meetings with them and the property owners like I like this idea so that's how this whole thing got started so we're going to utilize the existing structure there's going to be some repurposing and rehabbing inside the building it's it's It's been a while since anything has gone on. There is a community garden back there that the neighborhood uses, and we are talking with the city about this. There's been some concerns from the neighbors about whether or not we should lock that up, restrict access just to business hours as far as the sidewalk or not. So there's some pluses and minuses. So we will come to a resolution on that. but the rest of the space what we plan to do is similar to farmers markets that you see when it's seasonally appropriate have produce and things like that available to the public outside and we'll have stands and things like that in addition to the things inside the building so we need a zone change right Right now it's zoned R2, residential, we need a zone change to B1, and that's really where we're at at this point. Do you all have any questions? Mr. Barrett can explain the variance. I'm going to bring him up there for that. Do you all have any questions for me at this time? Just curious, is this in one of our food desert areas for Fayette County? Well, I don't know if I'm qualified to say food desert, but what I do know is this. It's parallel with Georgetown Street, and the closest grocery store of any size would probably be the Kroger on Euclid. And then there is an IGA that's out on Georgetown that's sort of a supermarket gas station. I do know that there's a Publix that's going in out there, but that's still quite a bit of ways. And I think the neighborhood, like I said, we had several meetings with the neighborhood. They're very supportive of this. They say that they need it. A lot of the people in that neighborhood don't have vehicles for transportation, and they rely on LexTran. And although LexTran is great, it's not always fabulous for bags of groceries while you're taking the bus. So the neighborhood is very much in favor of this and very supportive of the project. Any other questions? Yeah, I think that Kroger would be Lee's Town. Lee's Town would be, sorry, you're right. Right. Okay, question. One question first. Yes, sir. As far as the use, I heard seeding out front, and it sounded like more of a produce farmer's market type stand in the back. Is that going to be covered in any sort of way? Well, that's been discussed. I don't know that that's necessarily been finalized. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I'm just curious because if it gets covered, you're going to lose grass, and then you're going to have to go to some sort of other type service. Yes, sir. I don't think there's going to be any permanent covers out there. I think it's more going to be about we'll have tables, stands that are portable, and, you know, December, January, when it's snowing or something like that, we wouldn't be doing this. but the ability to lay these things out there during April and summer and early fall. Okay. Just a thought. Yes. Thank you. Just with regard to the variance, Tom pretty much covered it. Because of the closeness of the existing building to the property line, it's two or three feet. the neighbors driveway is on our property that two or three feet to allow him to park so there's really no landscape area there and we did go to the landscape review committee and they recommended approval as well so we will do we do meet the landscape requirements around the just where the building is is where we're not meeting it so that's the only location any additional questions for that okay we have any comments from the public all right thank you all right committee Madam Chair, I'll move for recommendation approval plan MJDP 23-70 Galbraith Subdivision, Lot 19 and 20, with the 13 conditions. Second. All in favor? All right, you name us. Okay, we have several postponed items we would like to go over with you this morning. And then Hal is here because he wants to talk to you after we go over the postponed items. He has promised to be brief. I will do my best. So let's see here. What have we got? The first item, item two, Major Development Plan 23-3, Kingston Hall Unit 1, Lot 8. Both of the Kingston Hall units we're going to talk with you briefly this morning. The applicant has submitted revised plans. We did not prepare a new revised report at the time. And it's really a simple situation. As you all may recall, we're out here at Kingston. We're out off of Newtown Pike and Russell Cave. You can see Newtown Pike in this location and Russell Cave over in this location. It is an ED area, expansion area. We've seen development happen in stages through here. Front part came in quickly and has developed. Of course, I-75 is down here. You can see the approved flex space development here. And then these two lots have both had approved development plans, haven't been certified. And this is kind of the heart of the matter about what's going on with both of these plans. And this particular plan, the residential that they're showing, again, here's coming in off of the Parkway, Providence Parkway, and you have their proposing apartments kind of centered with a lot of amenities and open space in this area and then townhouses, and they're up against the urban service boundary right here and the zone line. So this is a supportive use in the ED, and it's residential. It is governed by acreage. they cannot surpass 8.5% of the acreage for housing. Now, years ago when the supportive uses came up and the ordinance was amended to allow them, the supportive uses were supported. But the idea was not to allow supportive use to dominate. It was all about timing. And again, ED, it's about job creation. So that's why we had these limits and 8.5% of the acreage. The ordinance further states it's to be shown on the final development plan. So what's interesting out here and what the applicant's been dealing with and what we're trying to reconcile with them is, of course, developments come in in pieces. So we have final development plans here and even here, and we have final development plan in this location. We have final development. There's Kimi. It's never developed. So we've taken the acreage off the final development plans, and we included theirs. We felt like that was perfectly reasonable. The hotel, which is the next one we're going to talk about, that is a final development plan, that acreage. and we took their acreage of the apartments and townhouses, which is about 30 acres. So we totaled up the acreage. We didn't include the preliminary, these areas that are still governed by preliminary, just strictly final development plan. And when these get certified, they can add them to the plan, and they're close to being certified. They're going through their sign-offs and getting things straightened out, and they're going to be certified. That acreage can all be totaled up, can be shown on this plan, and then, and I want to reconcile my math with Tony and his math because I'm using his numbers, but at this point, staff believes that they've got about 17 acres that could be approved and developed as housing, and nothing more until another final development plan comes in and shows additional development. because that's how the ordinance reads. You may recall, Mike, you were off the commission, the Calgill property on Winchester Road in that plan and had a waiver associated with it. We talked about a traffic signal there on Winchester Road. They showed an entire development on a final development plan on that property. I mean, and they had hotels and fast food restaurants and banks and offices, and they did all that in order to meet the requirement that we were looking at. So that's what we're trying to accomplish here. We think on this particular plan that at this stage of the development, they could develop somewhere in the neighborhood around 17 acres of residential on this site. They would have to come back to you with a new amended final development plan to develop the rest of it as residential. Contingent, of course, as I said, on additional final development plans elsewhere on the property. So that's the issue we have here with this. On this particular plan, we wanted to update you because, again, our desire is to be sure. you're going to see this because you have to make a finding that it complies with the expansionary master plan. So, again, you're going to hear this at your hearing. It's going to be presented, but we wanted to update you because they've made a strong effort. They've given us a new plan that you see here. This is a new plan, and they prepared a table, and they broke it all out. Oops, Keena and I do this a lot, don't I? There's a nice close-up. But, yeah, they've done a lot of work, and there's been a lot of work involved. And, again, just the other day, we were trying to reconcile the numbers, and I spoke with the applicant about that, about we just want to be on the same page with the numbers so that when you all hear the plan presented to you and make your finding with the expansion area, we know where we stand on these supportive uses. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So, and other than that, frankly, you know, there were no real issues on this particular plan. So that's where we stand here. Yes, sir. You mentioned that two of those lots out front, Russell Cave Road area, have yet to be certified. Russell Cave, yes, sir. Yeah. So those have to be certified before this thing moves forward? For them to achieve their acreage, it would be beneficial. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Otherwise, that acreage just drops. And often I've asked and been concerned about the completion of Providence Place Parkway. Yes, sir. And that's an important concern. Staffs had that conversation over the years with them. Traffic, we recently brought it up again. The residential component heightens that concern. Of course. It does. Exactly. So, again... The completion of Providence Parkway is an important question. Okay. Yeah. And how do we, do we still tie it to something or do we get it done now? Again, that's important to consider here because of the relationship of the residential is tied to the acreage and they're limited at this point to just a little over half maybe of their available acreage. currently that connection is tied to the development of some of these areas where we only have preliminary development plans but that was again we were dealing with only economic development uses and you may recall that discussion about that and about how they want the truck traffic to get accustomed to going to Newtown as opposed to Russell Cave Road but we're back now The residential is what really is driving our concern on that connection now. That's important. Okay. Yeah, absolutely. We would agree. Staff would agree. Staff at this time on our original recommendation was postponement, and we're not off that yet because, again, staff would just like to be sure the applicant's comfortable with our evaluation of their numbers. So we know we're headed in the same direction, and I think, Mike, it's very important as a part of that to be sure. We're on the same page with the Russell Cave connection. Dick, would you like to, unless you all have more questions for staff. I don't have much to add. We've been in touch with Tom who told us the situation. The housing is limited to the percentage of the acreage, and it turns out that percentage has to be on a final development plan rather than a preliminary development plan. So right now, because we didn't do a final for the whole thing, we're limited to about 17 acres. There's 30 acres total on here. But this was planned to be phased anyway. So we can begin where Mr. Anderson wanted to begin with the 17 acres on there. We'll try to work out the exact fraction of 17 and some fraction acreage on this. But we will work that out with the staff. And we appreciate them working with us and we'll continue to work with them through. Hopefully we'll have this resolved by next week when you hear this. I don't have any further. Any questions? Do you all have any questions? Okay. Just refreshing my memory, have you moved the location of the apartments since the last time we saw this? No. Okay. The difference on the plan is we've added the top total area to demonstrate where we stand with the overall final development plan. The tables to summarize the development that has occurred and the compliance table with the zoning ordinance A, B, C, and D. Just curious as a follow-up to Judy's question as to the location. And I think this got started before I came back onto the commission with the plant. Has it always been on the northern lot or on the boundary? I don't think there was any official action. No, there was no official action taken. And where's the hotel that you all are proposing? That's the question. It's the hotel. Okay. This is Anderson Community's office building. Farm credit. Farm credit, yeah. Can you grab the microphone, Tony? Sorry. Okay. Yeah, this is Anderson Community's office, hospice facility, farmers credit, the hotel, and then this is the residential element, and then the flex buildings, and then Kemi, Kentucky employers, mutual insurance. And those areas above the hotel, there's a detention basin, and then the regional pump station. That was installed. Yeah, this is the retention basin and then the pump station. And on the hotel, this is where the access easement comes down on that side of the hotel to access the pump station. With hospice, has the hospice idea come by the wayside? Police side. Okay. Pardon? Pardon? Dick, you represented those, so I think it has. It's not been officially abandoned, but they've had a change in leadership who I think has a different idea about that. They still own it. They still own it. Yeah, and it's a certified plan. Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you. And then the next item, again, that they wanted to bring back to you is Kingston Hall Unit 2, Lot 4, and that is the hotel. And so again, you can see the overall plan. Here it is. This is the hotel location, and we have the close-up of it. The proposed access into the hotel, into a parking area here, they have access here, access here. Here's the motel with their parking. And again, here's the boundary. One important aspect of this plan is that this access easement is the government's. And it gets our personnel back to that pump station. And that's very important. They have talked with Water Quality about how to address that. Water Quality has certain requirements and standards they put into these agreements. They had one, oh, it's been a while, but the last one that I remember was out off Winchester Road, and back in there near the B5P area and in that residential, there's a pump station back in there, and that easement goes through a commercial piece of property, and an agreement was worked out there as well on how it would be maintained, who would maintain it, its size, and then whether or not a gate would be necessary. So they're working that out. We would anticipate there will be a note on the final development plan referencing that agreement that they would have with the Division of Water Quality for that access easement. That did catch our attention because we said, wait a minute, They're utilizing our easement, so we've got to address that. So again, what we're back to is the numbers game and whether or not they comply with the supportive uses. Now, I mentioned housing is tied to acreage. Well, this use is tied to square footage. and again it is square footage based on all the final development plans. So staff did the same exercise. We went and took a look at all the approved certified final development plan square footages. Now the good news is that this is 70 some thousand square feet of hotel and based on the square footages from all these certified developments that we have, and we didn't have to include these, that benefited them. They currently could build a little over 100,000, maybe 116,000, I think, square feet of supportive uses based on the current certified square footage. So the hotel falls well within that. So we feel confident that they're meeting that standard in the ordinance for this type of supportive use. Unlike the acreage, which was a little touchier, a little more difficult, we've only got part of it, this, at this point, appears to meet the requirement of the ordinance in terms of their square footage. And there aren't going to be any lights shooting up into the air on this one. We asked them about that. We've heard about that one on more than one occasion. You know, whatever that is. I forget the name of it. Tom, as far as the supportive uses, you're saying this is tied to square footage. Falls within the acceptable limit. It's 18%. The overall supportive uses has an acre number, though, doesn't it? No. No. It literally has. The supportive uses has a square footage number. The residential has an acreage number, and they're both percentage-based. I thought the supportive uses was like 18% of the total. Total square footage on a final development plan. That's how it reads. That's the distinction. I thought it was acreage. No, we double-check it every time. We read it every time just to make sure we are correct. And that's because those things run through your head like that, and you're thinking, which is it? What is it? So, oh, yeah, we. And, again, as you know, you were part of that conversation back in the day. The idea is we want ED development, and then we want supportive uses to be truly supportive. Just curiosity On the left hand side Below the area we're talking about Is that where there are Existing hotels in the Cracker Barrel Or is that further south All this area down in here Yes ma'am it's B5P Is it going to be connected It is connected By Hackney Place So people in the hotel can get You can get yes, you can get to the Cracker Barrel. I'm not supposed to tell stories because I waste your time and I'll go on and on and on. But boy, I had a heck of a conversation with the Cracker Barrel about that one. They wanted to build a brand new one while that one was left open. And we said, nope, sorry, you can't do that. Oh, they didn't like that answer. So they renovated the existing one while it was open and didn't. Yeah, but they at one time wanted to build a brand new. But see, that was back when we had parking requirements. And we said, sorry, you just can't get rid of all that parking. But anyway. Oh, now we want biscuits and gravy, don't we? But again, we want to be comfortable with these numbers. And we want the applicant to be comfortable with these numbers. and we feel staff is much more confident about the hotel site in terms of the numbers because of the square footage with this. So we wanted to, again, report that to you. It's going to be presented. There's going to be compliance reports, EAMP compliance reports to you as well. And if you have any questions for staff, be happy to try to answer them. Any questions? All right. We'll hear from the applicant. I don't have anything further to add, just if there's questions. I think the most important question was answered about connectivity to Cracker Barrel. It sets up very nice. The hotel, as you come up Hackney, will be right at the, have a good view of it. Wonderful. Do we act on this? It's not necessary. We had recommended a postponement. If you were to act. Are you still recommending a postponement? Well, I mean, I didn't write up a new report, so I didn't write up a new recommendation. But I wouldn't have said more. Well, I know. And I will tell you that staff is comfortable with the numbers on the hotel. So, yes, it is approvable. if you wanted to recommend approval, you could do so. You're going to hear it because of the A&P report. So whatever you're comfortable with as a committee. Seems like it makes sense to just wait and hear the whole thing. Yeah, we'll just wait. Whatever you are like to do. But we did want you to know where we stood and where the applicant had moved forward. And, again, I like to give credit where credit's due, and they did a lot of work on this, and it took a lot of work. and we're moving forward in a very productive way on these plans. All right. Thank you. All right. I believe we've got Coleman. Yes, and you have a handout on this one, so we're going to request action. This is item five under your postponed and continued items, Major Development Plan 23-59, the Coleman property. And there's been a lot of work on this one, hasn't there, Cheryl? Yeah. There has been. This is Newtown Pike, Coleman Court. This is the Marriott property over here. We have a C-store right here in the front off of Newtown Pike and Coleman Court, and they're proposing a hotel. Now, we had a development plan that was already approved for this property, and it's now been signed. On this plan, we asked for postponement because we had some concerns over some tree canopy. For whatever reason, it wasn't brought to our attention at the first one, and we approved the development plan for the hotel. They were coming in with a modification to the hotel, and all of a sudden, there's 13 trees that popped up that were of concern. We have sat down with the urban forester. We have a new urban forester. His name is Eric Sutherland. Tim Query has retired. And so we sat down and talked with this gentleman and we had a meeting with the hotel and the engineer and the trees are not as big as what they first told us and what made this a concern. There was one tree that was actually right in the middle of where the hotel is, one tree, and that was a red oak, northern red oak or something. And it was of a good size. It just met the minimum for significant tree size. But after the meeting, they agreed that they were going to increase the tree canopy on the overall development to be able to remove that tree. So now that one tree was holding up all of this. So they came in, they gave us a revised plan. We were able to come up with revised conditions. It's agreed upon that they will increase the tree canopy elsewhere since we are going to be removing this one tree. So you can see where the first 12 conditions are a typical sign-off. Then we had a couple cleanup conditions, improved legibility of bearings and distances. It's kind of hard sometimes to read the bearings and distances when the property lines and the contour lines kind of overlap one another. So we just want to increase the legibility. We want to get the dimensions on the new canopy and the plaza that they're proposing on this development plan. and they added a canopy area and then a plaza. We want to make sure we got all those dimensions. Addition of proposed and existing easements. There's some overhead utility lines that are going through the property. And with that, we believe that there'll probably be, you know, it'd be best to make a utility easement, and there'll probably be new easements with sanitary and storm also that are going to be required. Addition of building line setback at 20 feet. They're not showing their building line along Coleman Court. Additional vehicle use screening along Coleman Court. Addition of access easement maintenance note. Because this along the front here that's running parallel to Newtown Pike, that is an access easement. So we want to make sure we have a note that states who is responsible for maintaining that access easement. be an excess easement it's not state it's not the city's responsibility to maintain so with that I will open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions about the tree canopy is and you said the applicants going to increase the tree canopy yes is that going to be shown as on the development plan or is this a condition or how are we going to see that that happens? There'll be tree canopy numbers and there's a note. There's a note under the tree protection plan and under the canopy requirements and that additional canopy will be included in that calculation. Because they have a certain percentage so they're going to increase that percentage. So it'll be shown there in that note. I just want them to be aware that there's a lot of stormwater management that they're modifying and that will be a real challenge in this area. And so there's a lot of detail that we're going to need to see when it goes into construction plan stage. I guess they're working on that with the first development plan, I guess, because They have one development plan already in and approved to build this hotel in this area. So they're probably working with that right now. Okay. And Vaughn didn't emphasize it as strongly as she could. But the stormwater challenges out here are significant engineering challenges. They are. It takes some work, but that's not unusual. It happens elsewhere. Okay. We have the applicant. Zach Cato for the applicant. We're aware of the stormwater. They're well aware of that, or we'll have that under control. We've had a little bit of an adventure on this plan with the trees and gone back and forth. Now that that's been addressed and resolved, we're in agreement with this new staff report. These are basically cleanup items. There will be no problem to get that done and have it in front of the commission. So we're in agreement. I'll answer any questions that I can. Any questions for the applicant? I've got a quick one. Mr. Cato, there's a tree that's by the emergency access. It's shown on the plan. Can you hold on until you get a mic? There's a tree shown kind of in the reference of that access easement that was previously discussed, right-hand side. Can we relocate that? There's one. Yeah. Relocate that here. Is it existing? I don't know. Yeah, well, it's blocking the emergency access. I'm getting a nod from the back of the room that says we can do that. Thank you. Any additional questions? All right, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any public comment? Thank you, Commissioner. John Woodall, on behalf of the owner group that owns the Marriott property next door, just to give you a little background of how our client first got involved in this, I'm not much of a golfer. Couldn't tell you the exact hole, but one of the Marriott golf holes that was adjacent to this property was under a long-term, that part of the property was under a long-term lease, and that lease expired. I believe it was last year or so, and the Marriott folks entered into talks with this applicant about trading some property to keep that in force so they wouldn't have to move the hole and cost themselves a considerable amount of money to do that. They knew that the applicant was going to submit a particular plan for a hotel at this location. That was not any front page news and not an area of great concern because they frankly serve a different kind of traveling public. But nonetheless, there wasn't any agreement reached about trading property to make this adjacent development more compatible with the area. And so we ultimately moved the golf hole, and here we are today. We've got a lot of concerns about this stormwater, chief among them. I mean, the development plan that I've seen, we're going to reroute the storm pipe that's there now that comes out of the retention basin that we own half of and haven't been involved in this process conveniently, I think. And so that's a major concern. We've got a fuel line that we believe is going to have to be relocated, which affects our property. and this access for emergency purposes. I mean, up until right now, there's a tree in front of it, and there's been talk about closing another bump gate that's currently on the property right now. What happens if a fire occurs on the applicant's property and has to be fought or accessed from our side? How does fire get in there? We don't know the answer to that question. We also don't think the construction can occur on this property without a crane being placed on our property. That's not going to happen. So I'll have a representative at this hearing on the 9th to go into these issues in more detail, but my client has significant issues with the logistics of this development, not so much that it's going to be done. We noticed that the 41 parking spaces disappeared. Of course, that's not a city requirement anymore, but the Hampton is a drive-to hotel. Their occupants typically drive there. That's why they require it. So where are they going to park? They're not parking on our property. After I appeared here last time and made that statement, you know, there was a call made to my clients, but it didn't go anywhere. So I know, you know, usually this commission is very big on cooperation with the neighbor. Well, this neighbor's got some serious concerns about this development. Not that it's happening, but just the dynamics of it. A lot of questions we need answered. Those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Applicant, do you have any response? Just to respond sort of briefly, first time I'm hearing about some of this stuff, I don't know where these concerns have been when this had been presented previously. It's not been said to me. If it's been said to somebody else, that's news to me. you know hotel not wanting a hotel to go next door you know I guess I can understand that but I'm not sure what that has to do with the Planning Commission's role as to whether or not this plan should be approved staffs recommending approval some of these issues are you know construction plan stage with the stormwater for example that will be addressed I will also say that the phone lines between our office and mr. Woodall's office work as well as his from ours and if his client has any concerns we can discuss them I don't think we've had a lot of communication with them in a while so happy to talk to you at any point the recommendations approval we would ask that it be approved and take up these minor issues in turn Any additional questions from the committee? All right, thank you. All right, how would we like to proceed? We'll get a motion. I can. I'd like to see the two parties still work at it and get into some communication. And at this point, my recommendation would be for postponement and give them a chance to iron out their details. I don't know if they can be done in the next week, but it seems like there's some significant issues here. I'm sorry. I don't think I was part of the original hearing when this took place, but right now I can appreciate the work being done, or that has been done, but I don't see this as ready for approval at this point. That's your motion? I can make that a motion. Well, that was a comment, but I'll move for a recommendation of postponement to let them work on it on plan MJDP 23-59 Coleman property at this time with the 18 revised conditions. Second. Okay, you had a motion that has been made and second. Are there any questions to the motion since it's calendar? I want to make sure. I do have a question. From a planning commission standpoint, is that our concern at this point? I mean, I'd like to see them talk it out, but I just wanted to get clarification on the process. You're going to find that the government, the planning commission, is going to have a very limited role. in what is essentially private property disagreements and issues, that legally you're not going to have a whole lot that you can say about that. I think that it is absolutely appropriate to express your concern about them not working together and encourage that because, you know, we want that with everybody. However, in reality, there's a lot of private property disputes, a lot of things. And we, your planning staff, we get a lot of calls. Engineering, traffic, we get a lot of calls about private property speeds. And we have to tell them we're limited is what we can do. You're just going to have to work it out. Ultimately, they're going to have to work it out. Okay. So does our postponement help encourage that? I would hope so, certainly. I would hope so. Yeah, I mean, they know they need to talk, and they've got attorneys that they've hired that are good at getting together and talking when they see the need for it. They're going to represent their clients and get together and talk. Based on what you're saying, that's basically the only influence we have here, right? Well, I mean, staff recommended approval of the plan because it's an approvable plan. But are there issues? Yes. I think of a good example, the crane issue. Well, sometimes we have developments in the downtown area that have to request closure of right-of-way to use a crane to get a development done. And those are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. They're not always approved, for example. But that's the only role that we would play in that type of situation. If they have to place a crane on private property, obviously they've got to get permission to do that. And they're aware of that. They would know that. And I suspect we know what the answer to that is, is, well, you're going to indemnify us, and you may have to write a check, you know, that sort of thing, because it's just the cost of doing business. I was going to say, Bob made several comments, too, with regard to the stormwater. Yeah, yeah. And I can tell you that the Division of Engineering and Traveller are going to do their jobs and see to it that our standards are met on all those things that fall under their authority and their responsibility. But these private agreements, those are exactly what they are. They're private. Okay. So this would still be heard at the... From what I understand from Mr. Woodall, yes. His client wants you all at your full hearing to hear their concerns. So I believe there will be a full presentation at the end. Okay. All right. So we have a motion for postponement on the floor. Any other questions? Okay. All those in favor, raise your hand. Aye. Aye. Okay. It was unanimous. All right. And Mr. Bailey has been so patient, we got that. Truth is, you've got to have another meeting to go down here and talk to you all. Thank you very much, and good morning. What I'm here to do is just give you a brief update on the UGM text amendment. We are planning on moving that forward at your November 16th public hearing. We will be bringing a staff report to the Zoning Committee later on today, but it will also come with a recommendation from staff at this time for postponement. We have continued to do our public outreach with members of the community, both from the neighborhood side of things and the commercial operators. With this text amendment, we are proposing to modify five zones, three of which being the residential zones, the R2, R4, and R5, and then two of which being the commercial zones. We have had several meetings with our building industry associates, as well as our commercial property association within our community, and Commerce Lexington, and they have brought up some concerns about nonconformities. With any modernization of a zoning ordinance, specifically zones that we currently use, we will impact certain properties that can create nonconformities overall. So with that, we are trying to modify that language. We had another meeting yesterday morning that was very productive, and we are updating that language as we go along. We are still hoping to get you the updated language early next week so that we can move forward on the 16th. Your December meeting is getting quite long, and we don't want to keep on adding to that. This language has been discussed pretty heavily with the public, as well as with you as the Planning Commission. So we do want to move that forward and take this to the next level. So we will have a staff report today, but with a recommendation of postponement so that we can still bring this to you at the November 16th hearing. Do you have any questions about the text amendment? I know that you have heard this in work session a few times, but we wanted to give you this opportunity at committees should you have any concerns or questions. You're doing a public presentation someplace. MR. Yes, ma'am. On November 7th, we will be doing a presentation to the Coalition for Livable Lexington. That will be held at the Red Mile Pavilion. It will be a group of some of the organizations that have been focused on smart growth infill. And as we have presented to this committee and to our whole planning commission, this is focused not only for our expansion areas so that we can modernize our zones and utilize them for our upcoming expansion project, but also to get the best possible development within Lexington. Without a text like this, we are still going to be promoting the types of development and zoning that has gotten us to the point in which we have to constantly be discussing are we needing to expand? This is focused on infill and redevelopment, focused on building up and not out. So this is really targeted at both dealing with our current urban service area and right-sizing for any future expansion. So I think this came up before, and I don't remember who brought it up. It was not I, but I think it's important. This, the zoning text amendment would not apply currently to the last expansion area, is that correct? No. Is there a way to get this to apply to that? Unfortunately, not at this time. The last expansion area, as you know, has its own zoning categories. That's heavily tied to the exactions programs and that master plan. We are still dealing with what the future of the exactions program is going to be. At that point in time, once that is figured out, we can start looking at updating the regulations and the master plan for the 1996 expansion areas. But until that is really worked out, this will not impact those areas. Yeah, sorry. Yes, sir. You're saying after discussion with various groups and people, you are making some changes? Yes, sir. So those changes will be presented, I guess, at your public meeting? It would be presented at the public meeting, but we are making all changes very clear and transparent to the public, and we will be emailing and showing you exactly where those changes are occurring and why. So part of, and we don't see this as being whole-scale changes. These are minor changes to adjust some of the language so that we are helping those that have nonconformities or would be making nonconformities. The greatest concern that we've heard over the course of the past several weeks is because the B3 zone has not been a preferred zone within our comprehensive plans for some time, many people have gone to the neighborhood business zone, the B1 zone, on our corridors. Those neighborhood business zones with this changing text would lose some of their opportunities to be able to be further developed, updated, utilized to their fullest capacity. We want to make sure that that doesn't happen for those B1s that are on corridors. We would like them to be able to continue to operate their businesses that are working within our community and not to fall into disrepair. There are many nonconformities that occur in our community. What people do is they hold on to those nonconformities because it's the highest and best use from their perspective. It leads to degradation of the building, not the best urban form. We can't adjust it. So we're working on solutions so that they can remain viable businesses. And in the future, if they would like to get more opportunity for land use, they could go through a zone change. So to send this out to us, you've been pretty good as far as highlighting the changes. I'm sure you're going to do it in such a way that it will jump out at us, right? Very much so. We'll be putting it in different colors. We're also working on updating our new website. So we will be making it very clear to the public. Hopefully people can click on something and jump directly to the changes that we are trying to make. Thank you very much. Give me one second. Since we're on TV, I think I can possibly talk about this. And if you'll bear with me for just a moment. I believe that is at 6, but I believe that this is posted on various different websites, including faith alliances, kind of send out of materials. Meeting for the UGM text amendment. Thank you. Thank you very much. I believe that's it. All right. Wonderful. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Meeting adjourned. Thank you all very much.