# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - November 16, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 16, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5965 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5965?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-11-16 - **Last revised**: November 16, 2023 - **Length**: 33,165 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission convened on November 16, 2023, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd floor of the LFUCG Government Center at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The commission addressed four agenda items during the session, with mixed outcomes that included two approvals, one tabling, and one postponement. The Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 Development Plan and the Joyland Crossing, LLC Zoning Map Amendment both received approval from the commission. However, the Black Soil: Our Better Nature, LLC Zoning Map Amendment was tabled for future consideration, while the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment was postponed. Throughout the meeting, commissioners conducted seven motions and votes, and heard from four members of the public who provided comments on the various agenda items under consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the November 16, 2023 meeting: • Ivy Barksdale • Judy Worth • Janice Meyer • Mike Owens • Larry Forester • Zach Davis • William Wilson • Graham Pohl • Bruce Nicol All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The commission took action on seven items during the November 16, 2023 meeting, with all motions passing unanimously. **Postponements and Continuances:** [timestamp: 00:02] William Wilson motioned to postpone the Botts/Cravens Homebuilders @ Paradise, LLC item until December 14th, seconded by Judy Worth. The motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 00:05] Graham Pohl motioned to postpone PLN-MAR-23-00016, the Stavroff Land & Development, Inc Zoning Map Amendment and Lyndhurst Subdivision Development Plan, until December 14th. Janice Meyer seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. [timestamp: 05:45] Mike Owens motioned to continue PLN-MAR-23-00019, the Black Soil: Our Better Nature, LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Galbraith Subdivision Development Plan, to December 14th. Janice Meyer seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 06:00] Graham Pohl motioned to postpone PLN-ZOTA-23-00006, a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment, to December 14th. William Wilson seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote. **Approvals:** [timestamp: 02:30] Mike Owens motioned to approve PLN-MJDP-23-00030, the Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 Development Plan, with the condition that Providence Place Parkway be connected to Russell Cave Road upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 60th unit. William Wilson seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. [timestamp: 03:45] The commission unanimously approved PLN-MAR-23-00018, the Joyland Crossing, LLC Zoning Map Amendment. Ivy Barksdale provided the second for this motion. [timestamp: 04:00] PLN-MJDP-23-00054, the Jones/Cottrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC Property Development Plan, was approved unanimously with the condition to denote cross access to the two parcels to the east. All votes were conducted without recorded individual vote tallies, indicating unanimous consent among commission members present. ## Public Comment Four residents addressed the council during the public comment period, focusing on two main development-related issues. **Providence Parkway Connection** Two speakers expressed opposition to opening Providence Parkway to Russell Cave Road. Patty Drows raised concerns about traffic and safety issues that would result from the connection [timestamp: 02:45]. Catherine Perkins echoed these concerns, specifically opposing what she characterized as a premature opening of the Providence Parkway to Russell Cave, citing similar traffic and safety considerations [timestamp: 02:50]. **Development Projects** Mike Sloane addressed the proposed Joyland Crossing development, expressing concerns about both the height and density of the project [timestamp: 04:15]. He also raised issues about the potential traffic impact the development would have on the surrounding area. In contrast, Ashley C. Smith spoke in support of the Black Soil KY project [timestamp: 05:30]. Smith emphasized the project's positive community benefits, particularly its role in providing local produce and improving community health outcomes. The public comments reflected ongoing community discussions about balancing development growth with infrastructure capacity and quality of life concerns, while also highlighting support for projects seen as beneficial to community health and local food access. ## Contested Items Two development proposals faced significant community opposition during the November 16, 2023 meeting. **Black Soil: Our Better Nature, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** Community members raised concerns about the proposed zoning map amendment for Black Soil: Our Better Nature, LLC. The primary issue centered on potential uses that would be permitted under the requested B-1 zoning classification. Residents expressed apprehension about what types of businesses or activities could be established under this zoning designation and requested that conditional restrictions be placed on the property to limit future development options. The community opposition focused on ensuring appropriate land use controls rather than opposing development entirely. **Joyland Crossing, LLC Development** The proposed Joyland Crossing, LLC development generated resident concerns primarily related to traffic and safety impacts. Community members who spoke during the meeting expressed worries about how the new development would affect traffic patterns in the surrounding area and raised questions about potential safety issues that could arise from increased vehicle and pedestrian activity. The opposition appeared focused on infrastructure and public safety considerations rather than opposition to development in principle. Both contested items involved community members actively participating in the public process to voice their concerns about proposed developments in their area. The nature of the opposition in both cases centered on specific impacts and implementation details rather than blanket opposition to the projects themselves. ## Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 Development Plan [timestamp: 02:00] The board discussed the development plan for Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 during this agenda item. Key speakers included Tom Martin and Mike Owens, who presented details regarding the proposed development. The discussion centered on the development plan's compliance with local zoning regulations and necessary infrastructure requirements. Board members reviewed conditions that would need to be met for approval, focusing on ensuring the project meets all regulatory standards and infrastructure needs. The development plan was ultimately approved by the board, with conditions related to infrastructure improvements and adherence to zoning compliance requirements that must be satisfied before proceeding with the project. ## Joyland Crossing, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 03:30] The board considered a zoning map amendment request from Joyland Crossing, LLC to allow for a multifamily residential development. The proposal involved changing the zoning designation to accommodate the planned residential project. Key speakers during the discussion included Daniel Crumb and Dick Murphy, who presented details about the proposed development and addressed questions from board members. The speakers outlined the scope of the multifamily residential project and explained how the zoning change would facilitate the development plans. The board reviewed the zoning amendment request as part of their consideration process for the proposed Joyland Crossing development. Discussion focused on the technical aspects of the zoning change and its alignment with the intended residential use. Following the presentation and board discussion, the zoning map amendment for Joyland Crossing, LLC was approved, allowing the project to move forward with the necessary zoning designation for multifamily residential development. ## Black Soil: Our Better Nature, LLC Zoning Map Amendment [timestamp: 05:15] The commission discussed a zoning map amendment request from Black Soil: Our Better Nature, LLC during agenda item 3. The proposal involves establishing a grocery store operation, which prompted discussion about the appropriate zoning classification and permitted uses. Key speakers during the discussion included Chris Glendenning and Ashley C. Smith, who addressed various aspects of the zoning amendment request. The primary focus centered on the implications of B-1 zoning designation for the proposed grocery store development. Commission members raised concerns about the potential uses that would be permitted under B-1 zoning beyond the stated grocery store purpose. The discussion highlighted questions about what other commercial activities might be allowed under this zoning classification and whether the current proposal adequately addressed the scope of permitted uses. The zoning amendment represents Black Soil: Our Better Nature, LLC's effort to secure appropriate zoning for their grocery store concept, but the commission's deliberations revealed the need for further clarification on zoning implications and permitted uses. Following the discussion of the various concerns and considerations raised by commission members, the item was tabled for further review. This outcome suggests that additional information or clarification may be needed before the commission can make a final determination on the zoning map amendment request. The tabling of this item allows time for the applicant to potentially address the concerns raised about B-1 zoning uses and for the commission to conduct further review of the proposal's implications for the community. ## Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment [timestamp: 06:00] The Planning Commission considered agenda item 4, a proposed zoning ordinance text amendment aimed at modernizing certain zones and providing density bonuses for affordable housing development. Chris Duncan served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposed amendments to the commission. The discussion focused on updating existing zoning regulations to better align with current development needs while incorporating incentives for affordable housing projects through density bonus provisions. The proposed text amendments would modify zoning requirements to allow for increased development density in exchange for including affordable housing units in new projects. This approach is designed to encourage developers to incorporate affordable housing components into their developments by offering regulatory flexibility in return. However, the commission ultimately decided to postpone consideration of the zoning ordinance text amendment. The postponement suggests that additional review, public input, or refinement of the proposed language may be needed before the commission is ready to move forward with a recommendation. The decision to postpone indicates that while the concept of modernizing zoning regulations and providing affordable housing incentives has merit, the specific details of the proposed amendments require further consideration. This delay allows time for additional stakeholder input, legal review, or modifications to the proposed text before it returns to the commission for future consideration. The zoning ordinance text amendment represents a significant policy initiative that could impact future development patterns and affordable housing availability in the jurisdiction. The postponement ensures that all aspects of the proposed changes receive thorough review before any final recommendations are made. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Postponement of Botts/Cravens Homebuilders @ Paradise, LLC until December 14th - **PLN-MAR-23-00016** — passed (0-0): Postponement of Stavroff Land & Development, Inc Zoning Map Amendment and Lyndhurst Subdivision Development Plan to December 14th - **PLN-MJDP-23-00030** — passed (0-0): Approval of Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8 Development Plan with conditions - **PLN-MAR-23-00018** — passed (0-0): Approval of Joyland Crossing, LLC Zoning Map Amendment - **PLN-MJDP-23-00054** — passed (0-0): Approval of Jones/Cottrell Property & Joyland Crossing, LLC Property Development Plan with conditions - **PLN-MAR-23-00019** — passed (0-0): Continuance of Black Soil: Our Better Nature, LLC Zoning Map Amendment and Galbraith Subdivision Development Plan to December 14th - **PLN-ZOTA-23-00006** — passed (0-0): Postponement of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to December 14th --- ## Full transcript Or even better, they can attend a continuum of care meeting and get to know more about the providers and the strategies here in Lexington. Great. Is there a web address that they would go to typically to engage with you guys? Or is there a phone number? What's the best way for that to take place? Yeah, so calls from my office go through the Department of Grants and Special Programs. They can be reached at 859-258-3070. People can also go to the Continuum of Care's website. Locally, our Continuum of Care is branded as the Lex End Homelessness Continuum of Care, and that's going to be located at lexendhomelessness.com. Well, that's great. And then lastly, some of my constituents would like to be more involved and maybe play a more active role. So how could some of them engage to do those things? Yeah, so as a small office that doesn't do a lot of direct services, most of the time we're going to be looking at opportunities that people can connect with that live with our community partners. This time of year, there's a need for donations to help people who might be in an unsheltered situation stay safe. things like hats, gloves, scarves. We're definitely happy to connect them with the organizations and help them figure out what the needs of those particular organizations might be. Additionally, we're going to have some opportunities coming up in the near future, such as our LexCount event, which happens in January of each year. That's our annual census count of persons that are experiencing homelessness. We use volunteers from the community to help us conduct our street count and get an accurate number of persons in an unsheltered setting. So that's definitely a little bit more of a direct service kind of way that people can get involved. That's great. I appreciate all the information that you provided me and the folks of District 10 today. Any last words, anything that you really would like those folks to know that might help us all work on this situation? Yeah, I just would really remind people to remember that a person that experiencing homelessness is a person and we really want to be a compassionate community that helps steer people towards permanent solutions. We want to connect them with the resources that we have and the services that are available and see them enter permanent housing, a better situation for them and for the community. So definitely reach out, go to our website, download our resource card, become familiar with the resources or even better, print them off and hand them out or contact me and I'd be glad to supply you with some. That's fantastic. I really appreciate your time today. Thank you. Thanks so much, Jeff. It was great. And to the people at District 10, thank you so much for listening. and if you have any questions please you can engage my office use 311 or deal with Jeff in his office directly thank you so so much for being with us today Thank you. Good afternoon. Welcome to the November 16th meeting of the Urban County Planning Commission zoning items. The first item on our agenda today is the approval of minutes. No? It's okay. So the September 28, 2023, that's not... Is that correct? Okay. All right. Postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Simpson. Thank you. Bruce Simpson on page 8, Bots Cravens Home Builders. We actually requested a postponement of this prior to the subdivision committee meeting and the zoning committee meeting, who took no action or did not review the plan. We received the staff report shortly before those meetings and met with them very briefly, and then afterwards on some changes that are needed, and we'd like to postpone this until next month, please. Thank you, sir. For which date next month? Whatever your all zoning committee meeting is, Christmas date, it's the second Thursday and- December 14th is the next planning commission hearing. All righty. That is item number four on page eight. Postponement to December 14th. Is there any discussion or a motion? Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement of PLN MAR 23-28, Box Cravens Home Builders at Paradise, LLC until December the 14th. Thank you, sir. Is there a second? You've got it. From Commissioner Worth, thank you. Any discussion? If not, we will put that to a vote. Carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, I am Fred Eastridge with Vision Engineers. On page three, item one, standoff land and development zoning map amendment, and then her subdivision development plan, I'd like to ask for a postponement to December 14th. Thank you, December 14th as well? Yes. Thank you, sir. Do we have any discussion or a motion? Mr. Chair, move to postpone PLNMAR 2316 to December 14th. Thank you, Mr. Polk. Do we have a second? Thank you, Commissioner Worth? No. I'm sorry, Jan. Any discussion? If not, we will take a vote. There we go. That carries unanimously. That is December 14th, Chris. Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? All right. Do we have any staff postponements or any items, Mr. Martin? Any postponements? No? Okay. All righty. That being the case, it looks like we are now on page four, item number two. This is Joyland Crossing. Sorry, we take the development plan items first, and it's a little awkward, but it's right at the bottom of page one on the front of the agenda. There's a development plan that was postponed a week. We are at the bottom of page one, item number one. Thank you. The development plan of Kingston Hall, Unit 1, Lot 8. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The first item on your agenda is a final development plan. It does start at the bottom of page one, continues over to page two. It is Major Development Plan 23-30, Kingston Hall Unit 1, Lot 8. And we also, you should have a nice lovely orange handout with revised conditions for you. This is a development plan for the Kingston property. I've got to remember I can do it this way. Hard habit to break wanting to turn and look. But this is Kingston Hall, you know, on Lot 8. This was a plan that was postponed at your last hearing, and it is located out on Providence Parkway between Newtown Pike and Russell Cave Road. And if you look at the, here would be Newtown Pike. This is frontage. Here's Providence. It runs through the property. Here is the Russell Cave frontage for the property. And, of course, I-75 is at that location. Let's go back to this for a second. Now, this is a final development plan for the development of this property located here, roughly in the center of the development along Providence Parkway. And, of course, it backs up to the urban service boundary and the rural area to the north. This is interesting in that this is final development plan. You recall that we talked about a hotel that you approved at your last hearing. It's a supplemental use in the ED. This is a residential proposal, which is also a supplemental use in the ED. Now, these supplemental uses have certain criteria under special provisions. You may recall, again, that with the hotel and commercial uses, they are based on square footages on the final development plan. The residential component, on the other hand, was based on acreage. So, it is based on the total acreage on a final development plan, and they get a percentage, 8.5% of that acreage. So in an effort to reconcile numbers and continue to work on the numbers with this plan, they postponed last week and continue to work with staff and look at the numbers. So here is the proposed development. The plan that you see before you is roughly 16 acres just over that with the plan. If you look to the left and right, you'll see areas that were on the original plan that were reduced to meet the acreage requirement to comply with the ordinance. It's approximately 15.8 to a little over 16 acres as shown on this plan that was worked out as being the appropriate acreage. The acreage, again, is based on final development plans. That's a key. This area has multiple plans, and it's got several areas that haven't been developed that are not on final development plans per se. So, again, it was a matter of really reconciling a lot of different numbers and the sources for the numbers. to get to where we are today. Now, the plan itself, you can see, proposes a mix of townhouses and apartments. It's 325 total units on this particular plan. 127 townhouses, 198 apartments, distributed, as you can see, in eight buildings in the center. The townhouses are distributed along the perimeter. They're aligned along Providence Parkway. They are oriented outward. These townhouses are, for the most part. They're oriented outward to Providence Parkway. They're oriented outward along the rear to the green area, the green space. And then there are two access points. Excuse me. There are two access points. Those are necessary for emergency response. This is the main entrance that leads you up to this area. And here's the amenities, the clubhouse, the dog park, a pool, those sorts of things. As you can see, that is part of the overall centralized open space, particularly around the apartments. What did it do to me? Ah, there we go. And again, here is an access easement along these townhouses. They're rear loaded. Those are garages that you see at the rear with private green space available to the townhouse residents. And then they have their townhouse. The parking for the apartments is centered, as you can see, near the apartments around the green space and central interior location with this. Now, the issue above and beyond meeting the acreage requirement, which had to be worked through in numbers and source of numbers and reconciling numbers had to be done. There's a couple of other issues that are important on this plan that we want to bring to your attention. One is this access right through here. Now, this is labeled as a public street. And that came about due to the BOA case just to the north for the soccer facility. where there was access had to be through this property, according to the BOA action, from Providence into that property. So they're maintaining that access because that approval still exists. Okay, that development hasn't actually gone away. So access does still exist. However, staff's concern at this time is that it does not meet a public street standards under the regs. So our concern is not as much the access at this point as its status. Now, if they wanted to do a public street at this time, they would need to cul-de-sac it, see, on their property. And then it could be extended later if necessary. By stubbing a public street under your subdivision regulations, it implies a connection to another street system. And that's by no means given at this time on this particular property. So staff has a condition. It's on the back. No, it's at the bottom, 16, on this plan. It says resolve status. and our recommendation is that it be an access easement along with the other access easements on the property and at such time, should they choose to subdivide the property which they could, they will have to come back to you they'll have to get a finding on those access easements and you could at that time even impose conditions on this major street or it could again be dedicated at that time when they want to subdivide the property And they could cul-de-sac it, or you all could grant them a waiver on that type of condition if it was to become a public street. But again, we, staff believe that's premature at this time and just recommends the condition states resolve status. Well, what we are recommending that it be an access easement at this time. The other issue of significance that's been on the table for some time is the connection of Providence Parkway to Russell Cave. That has been talked about for years. It is a collector's street. It's part of the AMP plan for this area. It's always been designed to connect the two major arterials and provide the necessary collector, which then anchors the local streets. And you can see the local street system. Parts of it have been planned. Parts of it exist. The local street systems have to tie into this collector, which then goes to the arterial. Now, at this time, the connection is a fire safety, public safety connection. The full connection and improvements were tied currently on a certified plan to development in this area. Part of that rationale that was presented to you on previous plans was as the industrial development came in, they wanted to make sure everybody was encouraged and got used to going out to Newtown and to the interstate and however they needed to go. That's how they wanted the industrial, the truck traffic to go. What changes the parameter now at this point is, of course, the introduction of the supportive use, the residential use. People are going to live here. People are going to have to get to work. They're going to have to go to the grocery, that sort of thing. Staff believes it's better that they have options, that they can disperse from this location out to either Russell Cave, Newtown Pike. So what we have recommended is, and again, right now it's tied to development of this area. So a lot of times to get improvements to get things done, we have to have a triggering event. We have to have something we tie these requirements to, these improvements. You have to tie them to something. And on a plat, a record plat subdivision, it's very easy. They have to do them or you don't get to record your plat. That's pretty easy. So then you can't build. In this case, what we are recommending is that there's 325 units that are in this current plan that they can build. We're recommending that, excuse me, my allergies have kicked in this past week, that at the time of 162 units that a CO, Certificate of Occupancy, is issued, that connection will be completed with improvements to the approval of Traffic Engineering and District 7, that is a state road. And that's the triggering event that will get that. And then we'll have that base beginning of the residential units out there that can utilize that connection. And that's what staff is recommending at this time. There's another smaller condition on the plan that is item 18, which is resolve the number of townhouses and the apartment dwelling units to make sure they meet the density caps in your zoning ordinance under this Article 23-A. Again, under those special provisions, it's one of the controlling mechanisms. And they're close. See, they're right up against the number. So we just want to be sure that before it gets certified that they have met that number, they're under that cap. Along that line, I would mention that in order to get this acreage, we've agreed to include these two development plans. They've been approved. It's a considerable amount of acreage. But they've not yet been certified. They're in that process. They will have to be certified before this plan can be certified. Otherwise, they're going to lose some of the acreage that is shown on this particular plan. So that's what they'll have to do in that regard. Now, again, excuse me, along with the development plan that you see before you, as you all know, you have to have an EAMP compliance report. And I can tell you it's very similar to the hotel. It's supportive uses. Supportive uses were not anticipated in the EAMP. They came later in the ordinance. So you have to kind of look at them in a little bit of a different way and see how they do fit some of those things that the EAMP strives to achieve. In this particular case, I think the most important aspect of the community design element would be they have a good interior pedestrian system. It's tied to the public system. And in the ED area, that's the key. That public pedestrian system is the key. And there's a trail, a multi-use trail that will be along Providence Parkway as well. The townhouses, again, you can see the sidewalks. The front of the houses are oriented out there. They have nice green space. and they're also utilizing the natural contours of the property to the greatest extent that they can to achieve kind of a neighborhood, a self-contained, you know, a community element in that regard. The other element that is important in your AMP, of course, the future land use. Again, that's a supportive use that is in your ordinance. And then is the infrastructure. And as I explained to you with the hotel, the infrastructure is the sewage pump station that exists up in that little corner, you may recall, by the detention basin at the north side of the property, along with the trunk line that had to be built to serve that, that allowed this entire area to be sewered. For years, they were using a temporary pump station located out near Newtown. But now we have that. That element's now in place. And then Providence Parkway is also an exactable required infrastructure element. It will be continued. It stops now there at Destiny Way and Providence, but it will be continued across the frontage of this property. And as those properties to the east, those already approved plans, in conjunction with the development of that property, Providence Parkway will be extended across that frontage. So again, with that, it's something that's going to be ongoing. with these plans. That's also one reason staff viewed the residential development recommendation to you on the 160 units, which is 50% of the units that you see will trigger the actual full connection to Russell Cave. Staff has recommended approval of the plan to you and also that you make a finding that it complies with the AMP. I'd be happy to answer the questions you have for staff. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, okay. Mr. Mickler, then Mr. Cole, then Mr. Evans. I have a couple questions. One is I do like the idea of an actual fully public street coming through here, and I like the layout that they have between the townhouses on one side and the apartments on the other. Just could you elaborate a little bit on, and it seems unnecessary to make a big cul-de-sac on the end of an adjacency to one townhouse on either side. Could you elaborate a little bit on what kind of waiver they would need for that to remain a public street? Because it does seem preferential to be a public street rather than an access easement, from my perspective. They would need a termination waiver, very simply a termination waiver. And that way you could get rid of the cul-de-sac and allow it to stub, for instance. It's been done elsewhere, that particular waiver has, particularly in multifamily, it's been done. And is that something we could do today as part of the final development plan? They haven't requested it. Okay. And so, again, they have time to do it. They can come back to you when they subdivide the property. And normally waivers, that's when they show up, is during the subdivision of the property, because that's when the public infrastructure is impacted the most, and they've discovered issues with it. Okay. Oh, well, yeah, that's the other thing. Thank you. Robin is that of course that's the urban service boundary and nowhere else do we have a stub street into the urban service boundary because under the subregs again that's what my statement was it doesn't meet the regulations one of those is street continuity and it speaks to that street if it's stubbed it's going to connect to a street system and at this time of course there's no street system in the adjoining property and in the immediate foreseeable future We don't believe there will be one there either. Okay, and then my second question was, could you just maybe educate me a little bit on what they are and the why behind the density maximums of Article 23A? You said one of the conditions was that it comply with the density maximums? Yes, yes. What are those and why do we have them? When the, boy, there's a lot in that question. But I'm going to give you a very, I'd say Reader's Digest, but what's the other? Cliff Notes. Cliff Notes version, thank you. I never use Cliff Notes. I just want you to know that. But when the ED came about, it was all about job creation and using it for economic development of various industrial uses and office uses, etc. Well, after quite a few years, it became the owners of the land, the developers of a lot of ED land came and said, well, it's not just enough to have ED, which is a challenge in a certain regard, but we wanted what they characterized and what staff accepted as supportive uses. And these are commercial uses like hotel, restaurants, fast food, and then residential was another component that was thrown in there. But we developed these square footage acreage and density restrictions so they wouldn't dominate, so that the overall purpose of economic development, job creation, would be maintained. That's the simple answer for that. We just didn't want these uses to suddenly take over our job creation land. Thank you, Tom. Mr. Paul? Mr. Owens? Thank you. Tom, hi. How are you? it seems like we talked about supportive uses it's been going on for some time as you said a couple of questions uh the upper right or the right hand side seems like if i remember correctly there's this may be the third rendition i didn't see the first rendition as far as the apartments but it seemed like it was more rectangular it seemed like we've lost apartments well they have They've lost acreage. So they've lost units. They've lost buildings. They've lost townhouses and apartments. The original one filled out that rectangle completely, all 31 acres. So what created the loss? The restriction on acreage. As far as what's been developed so far? Yes. Okay. And that's exactly one of the things. We were working with them and sharing numbers and sharing sources of those numbers because it refers to gross acreage. And, you know, it's easy to get net acreage, but then you have to go back and work and pull out the gross acreage and ensure that you've got the right amount to allow them what they're allowed. One other question right now. Oops, I'm on. One other question right now. As far as Providence Place Parkway being built, you're tying it or it's proposed to be tied to occupancy. Did I hear you correct as far as number 162? Yes, sir. does that mean they can build 160 or 161 without building the parkway if they were so motivated yes because it is 162 yes sir thank you uh miss worth and then mr nickel a little bit out of the loop here um in terms of the phase one limit that we're seeing on this plan are you suggesting that as other parts of this whole area come online, that there might be additional units added to this? Yes, ma'am. That's exactly what we would anticipate. As other ED uses come in, as you see final development plans and approve them, then their percentage goes up of acreage, and you'll see an amended plan here so they can add more units. And touching on that unit number, by the way, that has been utilized before, which is one reason staff suggested in this case. Specifically over off Georgetown, the apartments back in off that development off Georgetown by the interstate, the far back corner has a considerable apartment number, but they can only build a certain number there. It's fixed until the connection out to Spur Road is completed. For those of you who may remember that discussion, That was the example that staff used to justify this triggering mechanism in this instance. Are we anticipating that Phase 2 would take us back to more of that rectangular design? Yes, ma'am. I would think so. Yes. Okay. Mr. Schickle. Yes, Mr. Martinez, I'm looking at your staff recommendations for approval. There are 16 revised conditions. The 16th condition says resolve status of proposed public street. Are we talking about destiny way here? Or does this include? I'm sorry, could you repeat? On 16, it says resolve status of proposed public street. Is that destiny way? That's the one that Mr. Mickler asked about that runs out. That's destiny way. Well, it's not actually, it says public street. But if it were to be extended. If it was to be extended, our E911 committee would probably want it named Destiny Way to continue, yes, particularly if it was a public street. Okay, so that resolves, so the resolve issue. The resolve issue is its status, okay? At this point, staff doesn't believe it needs to be a public street, because it does not meet our standards for a public street, and it stubs into the urban service boundary. Understood. Yeah. And where is the trigger for the Providence Place Parkway extension? Is that on- It's on the back. It's on the back. 17 and 18. Okay, thank you. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Martin? Seeing none, thank you, Tom. Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much. I'm Dick Murphy representing Anderson Communities and Dennis Anderson is with me today along with Tony Barrett from Barrett Partners, our designer. We have worked diligently with the staff to try to work out the issues that are on this property. And just some of the questions have touched on these matters, but originally when we filed this development plan it went over to the boundaries the rectangular portion miss worth mentioned over here all the way up here back over down here and then across of course across providence place parkway so that plan had 531 residential units on it because we had figured that based upon the total acreage of the property in providence place in kingston hall however the staff pointed out to us that under the ordinance where i think it's eight and a half percent something like that on the on the amount of we're limited to under the ordinance we can't count all the acreage yet because the ordinance required that we count only the percentage would be based on approved final development plans. And we don't have approved final development plans on all this property yet. So it got into an arithmetic exercise as to how many of these acres, this was originally 30 acres, I believe, up here, and how many of the 30 acres we could develop now based upon the amount of approved final development plans for the entire development. And we've come down with this amount, which is in the 15 to 16 acre range, where our arithmetic with the staff has gotten extremely close, I think down to a half acre. So they've said resolve the actual acreage, which we will do with the staff. We'll get the arithmetic agreeing with everybody. but we're down within a half acre of that. So this got reduced down from what we originally filed in the big rectangle to what you see now, which is about half that size, or a little more than half the size, but has 325 dwelling units. We had 531 on the entire track, but this shows 325 dwelling units. so we've reduced it down to i guess somewhere around 60 percent of what we had originally proposed to you on the property this will be workforce housing on it with a with a variety of housing types townhomes and apartments and we have some units that are sort of a hybrid of a of a townhome and apartment as well we have a lot of green space we have as dennis always does an amenity package with a swimming pool fitness facility community room on-site management and all that sort of thing and so we've we've on the roadway here we would we understand the staff's concerns i guess our preference would be to have that as a public road we can deal with it either way but we understand we cannot ask you for public road today because we We have not asked for a waiver on that, so we're certainly agreeable to the note the staff has prepared on that, and we are agree with all the notes the staff has prepared for you on that. The last thing I wanted to talk about was the extension of Providence Place Parkway and when it will connect to Brussel Cave Road. As you know, on the last development plan we've had back here, which is the flex space, is over here on that we agreed to a note that triggered that to some other construction on the other pieces of the property that we would have to connect i think when 80 percent of certain amount of square footage was built which we agreed to we also agreed to the fact that providence place parkway would be brought over to russell cave and we would have an emergency access point operable by the fire department with their remote controls to get in in case there's an emergency. As we have said all along on this property, we have wanted to establish traffic patterns early with people going to Newtown Pike. We're going to have construction traffic in there. Much of our commercial is over here to the Newtown Pike side, which has been, I'm pressing the wrong button, which has been developed already is over there with a commercial between us and Newtown Pike. Rather than having that commercial across here to Russell Cave, we thought it would be appropriate for our residential to go over there and train our residential as well as the commercial to go to Newtown Pike. The other issue is that this end of Providence Place Parkway is a long stretch which currently has no development on it at all. We want to have eyes on the street, as I've learned through Place Builder and planning. Eyes on the street are important for security and safety and just general well-being out here. We'd like to have those eyes on the street before we totally open up the intersection with Russell Cave and Providence Place Parkway. We've talked to the staff, and the condition they're proposing to you is, again, what you see before you is about 60% of what we originally proposed. What the staff is proposing is to take half again, reduce it down to 162 units out of these 325, which we could build prior to making that connection. And once we come in with that 160-second certificate of occupancy, we have to open that intersection totally. And we fully understand that. And we had wanted it to be triggered by this development since it had been reduced already by 40%. But we're agreeable to the even lower threshold that the staff has proposed of 162 units when we will make that permanent connection to Russell Cave Road. And it won't just be an emergency access. It will be full access. And we understand there will have to be improvements, turn lanes, and that sort of thing made on this property as well. And we'll have to get permission of the Kentucky Department of Highways and your Division of Traffic Engineering. So that's where we're at. and we thank the staff for working with us on that we've had to do a lot of arithmetic and figuring out what we what we base our percentages on and that sort of thing but we're at the point where we're in basic agreement with them and we are in agreement with the conditions that have been proposed by the staff both on the front of the page and on the back of the page so thank you very much and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have thank you mr murphy We have to introduce on the record the fact that a sign was posted on the property. Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Murphy? Jan, Ms. Meyer. Murphy, how many units does the applicant, for the first phase of this, this first building to begin, how many units are expected to be built at that time? Do you have a number? We'll start out with 60. on it and then go from there. Dennis likes to phase this because he likes to see what kind of things his residents want in the development. So he gauges that by the first people who come in and if changes need to be made in the layout of the units or the flooring or the cabinetry or the counters he can do that in later units so he'll start with 60 and see how the market reacts to that how they like the units and he'll make adjustments to go on that's that's how he does this Mr. Nicklin. I got a question, Mr. Murphy. So you are satisfied with the revised condition number 17 that requires you to put in 162 units before the Providence Place Parkway is extended? Yes. Okay, thank you very much. Mr. Pol. This is kind of a weird question, but what are the obstacles that prevented you from getting the final development plans approved for the whole property? Well, we had been waiting for, as people come in, potential users come in, we do a development plan for that user. As you know, Dennis is now working on the flex space here. You've approved the development plan down in this area for cross-doc. That hasn't been certified yet. So I guess if we'd been aware of the requirement for a final development plan, we would have done one on the entire tract. but we've been waiting and doing development plans as individual users come in. Is that correct? Dennis is nodding his head yes on that. So are there any changes that could be made to prevent this from happening in the future so that you don't have to jump through weird hoops to get something done? Well, we could have filed, I think other developers have filed, a final development plan showing the entire track. Part of it was when this was brought in the expansion area 25 years ago, the original plan was to the city council, the planning commission approved this plan and the city council was going to rezone everything with one vote. So when you came in with a development plan, it would be already zoned and you'd be coming in with a final development plan. Well, that was changed when the final proposal went to the city council because they said they wanted to see individual tracks come in. So then we filed the zone change on this property. And instead of doing a final development plan, we did a preliminary, as you do with all the zone changes. So we have a preliminary development plan for all this tracked. and I guess in hindsight what we should have done was come back in with a final development plan paralleling our preliminary for the entire site. And then when a user comes in for a particular lot, we'd come in with an amended final development plan for that track. But it worked out with this one where at that point we didn't foresee this issue coming up 20 years later on it. So we have a preliminary for the entire tract, but we have finals for individual tracts as they come in. Just to follow up with you, Mr. Murphy, on that proposed public street up through there, how do you all envision that? Do you all envision coming back and continuing that public street through to the north or is that undecided currently? We had envisioned it the way we show it, stubbing up there. I understand the staff's concern that we may have to call the sack or make another appropriate end to that property and we will certainly take that into account. But you envision maintaining that as a public, or keeping that as a public street? that was our original plan on it yes okay thank you all right do we have any more questions for mr murphy thank you at this time if anyone would like to comment on this development plan we welcome you please approach the podium and just state your name and we we limit public comment to three minutes per person thank you good afternoon my name is patty drows and i live in the joyland subdivision my only comment about this development has to do with providence parkway connecting to russell cave and just to jog the memory of why this road did not or will not connect to russell cave at this point is that Russell Cave between Faulkner, which is roughly across from Providence Road, between Faulkner and I-75 has a lot of fatal traffic accidents over there. And you can look at the rock wall and see what's happened over there. People, once they hit the bridge and are going out of town, they're doing 55, 60, 70 miles an hour on that road. and sometimes it's really scary and there's a fair amount of traffic on there so to add you know to to open that connection as the warehouses get built that was the concern that truck traffic cannot go out on russell cave until that road is widened which i understand would at some point happen and the bridge over the interstate would happen if if that road is opened with this development then as the truck traffic comes online it will be able to get out to russell cave before any widening occurs and i just think that's really asking for a lot of trouble so please consider that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak? If not, we will take... Oh, okay. Okay. My name is Catherine Perkins, I live at 258 Swigert Avenue. I am Vice President of the Joyland Neighborhood Association. And I am speaking on behalf of myself and my board members. We are also against Providence Place opening up onto Russell Cave Road at this point. It was when this originally became ED from the EMP in the expansion area. We were told that this property would develop from Newtown over. gradually it seems like it's jumped a very large portion of the middle section and it's now developing closer to the russell cave roadside with their truck transfer stations or whatever those big warehouses are going to be and we feel that it's a big concern until russell cave is this access is approved by the state that it be allowed for anything other than emergency. We feel that Russell Cave needs to be widened in that area. The whole format, I guess, changed, a light put in. And we're also very, very concerned about cut-through traffic. We experience a large amount already. People don't pay attention to speed limits, But if the semis start coming, I don't care how you train somebody. They're going to untrain themselves when there's a road right there for them to go out onto and then cut through our neighborhood to get to the interstate if they want to avoid backups on Newtown. Or if they want to go south or east, they're going to go that way. They're not going to go to Newtown. So I'd just like you to know I'm not opposed to housing, anything like that. I am opposed essentially to the jump and opening up Providence Parkway to Russell Cave prematurely. And I understand if we put houses down there that gives staff that, well, we can open it up then. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment? If not, do we have any commissioner discussion? Mr. Wilson. I have a question for the staff in terms, I may have missed this, but when is the projection on that road to be widened? Russell Cave Road? Yes, that's all. Mr. Wilson, improvements to Russell Cave Road could happen a couple of ways. One, that section we're talking about, including up to Faulkner on the east side, is in the expansion area, could be developed. And as this area, Kingston, as it develops, that's when those improvements get made in conjunction with development. So that they are upgraded to handle the development. The other way is a big public project to upgrade that road in advance or in reaction to the development. But we would anticipate that it'll develop in accordance with the development. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure direct question to whether it's Tom or traffic. At the present, we're looking at 162 residential units. What sort of traffic would that create? Traffic number would that create? David Philiatri, Traffic Engineering. I don't have the exact number. Generally with residential traffic we see most of a big portion of it in the morning and afternoon just with the rush hour. It's 162 probably in an entire day. I mean at least several hundred trips but I haven't run the numbers on this particular mix. You said several hundred? In an entire day. You're talking about 24 hours a day. Well, I was just thinking, you know, do you have a number as to per units, per residential unit? Yeah, there is an ITE manual. Is that two cars or four cars? There's an assumed number. Generally, I think it's around two, but there's an ITE chip generation number associated with each type of unit. so we can go back and look and see what the anticipated development would be. Excuse me, traffic generated by this development would be. I'd say at the current there will be more traffic generated by the other certified developments. Let me ask you this, Dave. In your opinion, do you think residential unit number one should have the same ability as 162? As far as the same accommodations? Yeah. I don't think the resident unit one would object to that assertion, but I guess it's trying to balance that type of, you know, we don't always require public infrastructure up front on certain aspects either. Thank you. I guess while you're here, it looks like our opportunities for connectivity are pretty limited in this area. It seems like, other than Newtown Pike, is this the only other connection, really, that's possible for people to get in? I believe so. So, you know, you're bound on the south by the interstate, so there wouldn't be, there's no other obvious connection. Of course, the north is all rural, so I think you're correct, yes, it would be the only other option. So it would be, I mean, long term, whether it's on unit one or 162, it seems like it would be important for. Certainly long term, yes. For this connection to be sooner rather than later. It would certainly benefit as far as the traffic patterns and the demand, splitting the demand, yes. Commissioner Wirth? Just a clarification to Mr. Martin. You talked about an alternative for Russell K. would be a big public project. That's a state road, is that correct? Okay. Yes, ma'am. It is a state road. Do we have any other commission or comment or question? All right. Seeing none, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Owens? No, no, no, no. Certainly, certainly. I'm just asking if you're ready for a motion. If we are finished with discussion, certainly. And it appears we are. Okay. Mr. Owens, can you just make sure your microphone's on? Sure. We want to be able to hear you. Thank you. Sure. Sorry. I'm sure it's no secret that I've been a resident of the north end of Lexington for many years. I've traveled Newtown Pike, Russell Cave, Broadway, Faulkner, you name it. I've been up and down all these roads. I see that there's a need. I feel that if we're going to do residential here and that it should be here, you know, I was one of the ones that voted for the supportive uses, and I'm good with that, that they should have full access, whether it's the number one person moving in or 162 or the 500th unit that gets built there i see traffic commercial traffic i see construction traffic coming up and down newtown pike i you know they're going to use they're going to come off the interstate Newtown Pike is much bigger than Russell Cave and the truck traffic is going to be on Newtown Pike. Construction traffic, same thing. There's no reason for them to go out of their way to go down Russell Cave to get to this site. So with that, I'm in favor of this and will support this. I want to tweak it in one little fashion though as far as plan MJDP 23-30 Kingston Hall Unit 1 Lot 8 I will move for approval of this plan with the revised conditions there's 18 conditions I would like to change number 17 where it reads to note the connection of Providence Place Parkway to Russell Cave Road shall be completed to the approval of the Division of Traffic Engineering and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. At the time of Certificate of Occupancy are issued for Units 1 to 162. That would be my motion, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir, Mr. Wilson. i asked the motion to add in there i think compliance with the ema ea emp if that's okay then with that addition i would like to second it okay so with that addition mr wilson seconds mr nickel you had a question i got a question so what you're saying is that the 17 is you're You're going to require that the Providence Place extension occur at the CO of one unit? Is that what you're trying to say? At the occupancy of unit number one. Occupancy of unit number one. Yep. And the first option to make it. Okay. Okay, which is against the, okay. All righty, is there any further discussion to Mr. Owens? I mean, I do, I want to make a statement or try to figure out if I can, let me ask a question to staff then. Sure. I'd like someone to answer this question. Do you think that the requirement of putting in additional infrastructure will reduce the number of units that are able to be constructed now? I don't know if it will reduce the number. It will just trigger the improvements basically at the beginning with the first phase of development on this property. As you heard, they intend the developer would go with 60 as his first general phase. And obviously, townhouses and apartments, you don't build one unit. So there's going to be multiple units built to some number. 60 was the number that you heard for his first phase. Staff, again, felt that due to the time frames involved, with the fact that we've got more development approved and coming to the east, which will help get improvements done, including Providence Parkway, that they could be coordinated in this fashion with this condition. I guess from a procedural standpoint, is there a possibility to vote for the recommendations that the staff has approved? Can I amend the motion to include, how do we work here procedurally? Parliamentarian. My experience colleague, my left said yes you can amend the motion. I would like to amend the motion to reverse back to the staff's recommendation of 17, which doesn't require the improvements to be started until their certificate of occupancy for unit 62 is issued. Okay, so I'm going to pause for a moment. So Ms. Jones, we have a motion on the floor, a second. We're having discussion. Mr. Nickel wishes to make an amendment to the motion on the floor, which is just the original. Right. Yeah, so it's like stumped the process day today or something. I'm not sure. The motion was to change this condition, and it got seconded. So if you were going to amend that motion, I believe that you would amend it to something different other than just changing it back to what was recommended. If you were going to prefer to do what was recommended, you would just vote no on the motion and then go back to the original recommendation. But I see Mr. Wilson's getting ready to jump in with his parliamentary knowledge, so I'll listen to what he has to say. I think you're absolutely correct. The bottom line is that he has a right to amend the motion. Now, the amendment is different from what the original maker of the motion. he owns he does not own that emotion anymore so at this time the body now has to vote on that amendment if he votes on the amendment then you go back to the original motion as you set it forth so it should be voted on the amendment first and then you go back to the main motion if necessary okay so there is there is a distinct difference between that because we're talking about number 17 being one unit and the other one going back to the original operation of the staff so does Does Mr. Nichols' motion have a second? His motion to amend. It needs a second. It would need a second, exactly. So does it have a second? I'll second, but I'd like to have a discussion. Certainly, yeah. That's the only purpose. Excuse me. Mr. Graham, that's the only purpose a second has is just to get it on the table for discussion. So now you're at the discussion mood as it relates to the amendment. So could I ask Mr. Martin to explain the logic behind the original wording of condition 17 requiring that the extension be completed when 162 occupancies are issued? Are you asking for a rationale? Yeah. The time frame involved in development and the fact that we have other approved plans to the east, which is going to bring Providence Parkway into play. It's going to get constructed over this time period. Also, it does allow a residential component to get established and can be evaluated. And then there's a five-year period on a development plan. The fact is he could get this approved and sit on it for five years. so we took all these factors and kicked it around and we were trying to take into consideration everything that's happening out there and kind of take a middle road to something we felt was reasonable something we've done before as i mentioned over off georgetown road where there was a large number uh 290 or so units that they're only allowed about 100 and some of those until they build a connection out to Spur Road. So again, we use that precedence because it's consistent with our past practices that we felt it was an equitable compromise. And so the logic would assume that if it were limited to one, if just one unit would trigger the extension requirement, it would unduly burden the developer by requiring something to happen before they could get anything on the ground. Well, infrastructure does cost money and time and investment, and we are anticipating it's going to be done with these other plans that have been approved and be certified. So that they'll be a collaborative process out there as these properties develop, is what we see. And again, one unit, when you talk about, you were talking earlier, it was asked about traffic generation and studies and that sort of thing. You have to remember it's not just the number of trips that a unit generates. There's a distribution of those trips, and that's one reason we want the connection, but we want the connection to be tied to a reasonable number of trips that will be generated. One residential, there is a residential use out there, as a matter of fact, but it's an existing farmhouse and a single-family residential house right by Newtown. I mean, does that person have any motivation to want to drive out to Russell Cave through the development? Probably not. So, again, we were just trying to craft what we felt was a reasonable compromise on getting this developed. And remember, right now, it's tied to development that hadn't occurred, that there's been no final development playing on. So, yeah. Mr. McClure? Did you have a comment? I have a question just because I'm trying to also understand exactly how much work this would be fast forwarding or not fast forwarding. The current flex units that require Providence Place to connect as an emergency access road are already under construction. Is that, or are they not under construction? I know that we've got a certified plan out of work that's already been out there since. Oh, is, yeah, could I ask that of the? Mr. Anderson. We have a plan approved for six buildings. We're building the first building now. Just like the 60 units, we like to put our toll in the water before we jump in and we want to make sure that our thesis and the market wants what we're presenting to them. If it would save you all some heartache we could cut it back to 60 units. It really is a burden to build it. It's not what the neighbors want. The road isn't ready for it and you know feel strongly that it should be deferred to a later date. As we bring other plans in it is going to be built. But you know the developing habits and the more intense units are over towards Russell Cave as they get in. I guess what is the trigger now for the Providence Place to connect as an emergency access? 80% of the ED users, 162 units is what they're suggesting. No. We have a trigger for the emergency is the development of this lot in the middle. That lot in the? And that's that we're pending final. That's pending final development. Pending final certification on that. It's been through you, you have to get it certified. And before we can start on that middle lot, we have to make the emergency connection. And that will be very soon because we got the clients, the crosstalk people want to get started on that building. So the emergency entrance will be started on that. It's geared on that particular development plan. What Dennis just proposed was if you're not comfortable with 162 units, making the trigger to be 60 residential units. That, as he said, lets us get a toe hold on this, get started. It's not nearly a fifth of what we want to do on there. Thank you. Mr. Nickel. One more thing. I just want to make a comment on what Mr. Martin said. The objective is to provide housing units here, and the recommendation was something that was reasonable. And as we're dealing with housing, and in my estimation, all housing is affordable housing, we need to be as reasonable as possible with the requirements put on people. So that's the reason I amended the motion. Mr. Owens? let me offer this with what mr murphy and mr anderson just said i would be willing to accept the province place parkway being finished or developed when the 60th unit occurred all right so mr owens made a motion mr wilson seconded it mr nickel amended it back to the original staff recommendation it was seconded by mr poll we had discussion an applicant has now said that there They're willing and happy to make a concession to 60 units. And upon the issuance of a CO for unit number 60, they will have Providence Place finished. So do we, I'm guessing you don't amend an amendment. That's correct. So you either have to withdraw the amendment or you have to vote on the amendment and then you can make another amendment if you choose to. Or withdraw the original motion once you vote on the amendment. Which would also withdraw the amendment if the original motion is withdrawn? I mean, I think you need to either withdraw the amendment or vote on the amendment and move forward from there. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I'm glad you're here. You saved me a lot of time and effort. Right now, the amendment does not belong to the motion. Once it's stated on the table, on the floor, it now belongs to the body. So all we have to do is vote to withdraw it. Period. Vote to withdraw it? Draw the amendment. Okay. Is that? Okay. Okay. A motion to withdraw the amendment? I'm going to vote to withdraw with the understanding that we'll get an amendment for the original motion to turn it down to 60. I'll second that. Okay, so that's a motion to withdraw the current amendment. I see. Okay, and that's a second from Mr. Mickler. Is there discussion on this motion? Okay, I guess I misunderstood. I was thinking you were saying you couldn't make another amendment to the amendment, that we either had to vote it up or down. I was asking myself. I mean, but you made a motion. I added a note to that motion that I had an understanding that that's what's going to happen. Oh, okay. Okay, I thought he just made a motion. I thought you had made a motion this word. Yeah. To withdraw. Okay. Okay, that's what I'm saying. You're making a motion. you're making a motion on the amendment the amendment and then but i was thinking we couldn't do another motion so well okay i'm no don't want to get in the weeds but we're in the weeds that's okay it's very simple at this stage of the game if if the body agrees that the easiest way to deal with this is to withdraw the amendment that's the easy way out okay and we could go through some more competition yeah i wanted to but i don't think okay so okay again we have a motion to withdraw the amendment on the floor from Ms. Worth, seconded by Mr. Mickler. Is there any discussion to that? If not, then we can vote on the motion to withdraw. Okay, that carries unanimously. So, is the original motion still on the floor? Or did that just withdraw every, that was just the amendment? So, Mr. Owen's motion is still, is now on the floor so mr owens mr chairman you have the same option with that main emotion because the motion doesn't belong to him it belongs to the body okay so someone can make a motion to withdraw the main motion all right now you're back to even then you can start all over or we could amend the way you could you could do that too the easiest way i'm trying to get you out of this okay I'll make a motion to withdraw the original so we can start with a clear. Thank you so much. Commissioner Barksdale, seconded by, well, Commissioner Nichol. Any discussion? If not, we will vote on that. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Owens. Try one more time here. Change my motion, I'll move for approval of Plan MJDP 23-30, Kingston Hall Unit 1, Lot 8 with the 18 conditions under revised staff. Changing number 17 to re-denote the connection of Providence Place Parkway to Russell K Road shall be complete to the approval of Division of Traffic Engineering and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet at the time, a certificate of occupancy of the 60th unit. Okay, we have a motion. Mr. Owens, would you also add in compliance? Oh, and yes, thank you again. And yes, the motion would include that this is in compliance with the EAMP. Thank you. Mr. Owens, we have a second. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Ms. Meyer, any discussion? If not, we will put that motion to a vote. All right, that carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I believe our next item on the agenda is now we are at page 4, Joyland Crossing. Daniel. All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. I just passed out to you. We have received several letters of opposition for this request. There's also a supplementary staff report that you all received yesterday for your review as well. But beginning staff's presentation, this is a request by Joyland Crossing, LLC. It's to rezone approximately 5.24 net acres of the properties at 2200 Old Paris Road and 2324 Paris Pike. These properties are currently zoned B3 and single-family residential R1B. The applicant is seeking a medium-density residential R4 zone in order to establish a multifamily residential development. Within the letter of justification, the applicant chose a place type of a corridor and the development type of a medium-density residential development type. Staff agrees that both the place type and development type chosen by the applicant can be appropriate in this location. We'll dig into that a little bit later on in the presentation. As far as public outreach, the applicant provided some information about a meeting that they had with the neighborhood associations since the most recent committee meeting. The applicant stated in their letter that there were some concerns from the neighborhood regarding traffic, screening, the height of the structures, access to several public services, and some other concerns. But those are also detailed in the letters that you've received that are being passed around there. But moving forward to the request itself, the subject properties are, let's see here, located in the center of the screen. And this is Broadway as it passes the interstate and transitions into Paris Pike. Old Paris Road curves in alongside of it and connects near the property at 2200 Old Paris Road. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can get a better idea of the zoning characteristics of the surrounding area. So the subject properties are these two parcels shown here. Currently zoned B3 and R1B. They were both originally zoned R1B. However, the larger the parcel located on Parris Pike was rezoned recently in 2017 in order to accommodate B3 development. So the development that was approved at that time was for multiple restaurants as well as a gas station slash convenience store. At that time, the Urban County Council put several conditional zoning restrictions that are listed in the original staff report that include restrictions on uses, as well as a buffer to protect the adjoining properties that are zoned residentially. So that B3 to R1B and R1C were established at that time. That included a 20-foot landscape easement and some required plantings. In the immediate vicinity, you do have a mix of uses, though. This is one of, Paris Pike is one of our major corridors. As such, we've got some pretty standard B3 zoning. So these are the commercial uses located primarily on the opposite side of Parris Pike. As you head out, this is still primarily residential as you extend to the urban services boundary. To the rear, the subject properties are bound actually by a railroad. This railroad also serves as a kind of a divider between other areas that are outside the urban service area. So this light green color here is a series of properties that are outside of the urban service area and have residential and agricultural uses. There is existing residential in the vicinity, so you have R3 with the strawberry fields development here. Across Parris Pike, we've got the Joyland subdivision with some various residential zoning. Here we have views of the subject properties. So the larger the parcel is primarily undeveloped. The parcel at 2200 Old Paris Road has had several uses. So it was the curbside bar. It had an auto repair use as well as a small residential use that was tucked into the corner there. The applicant is seeking to rezone both of these properties in order to establish this proposed multifamily residential use. It is worth noting that the subject properties are located on Paris Pike. So they are not located within the Parris Pike overlay, which occurs further down, which establishes some specific development standards. However, it was brought to the Parris Pike Corridor Commission, where they reviewed the request earlier in October. At the meeting, they echoed some of the same concerns with the neighborhood regarding traffic in this area, regarding the proposed access to the site, which we'll get into in a little bit more detail momentarily. but at that meeting the Paris Pike Corridor Commission actually recommended disapproval. So it has been before that body and the applicant has met with the neighborhood which both have some concerns with this particular request. But from this aerial image you can see sort of the relationship to several different uses. So across Paris Pike we have existing commercial development with gas station and some other commercial more intense uses, single family residential as well as what appears to be a residential and horse farm use further up Paris Pike, as well as the existing residential uses that are essentially on the other side of the railroad. This area is somewhat limited by its access to multimodal transportation. So there is a bus route that serves this section of North Broadway and Paris Pike. However, there aren't any stops on this side of the development. So the stops are across the road, across this major arterial on Parkside and serving kind of the interior neighborhood on the opposite side. So at this time, there isn't any transit that is serving the side of Parris Pike that the subject property is on. This section of Parris Pike, as well as Broadway almost all the way to New Circle, lacks sidewalk facilities. So this is a development that is sort of limited in its ability to connect to a multimodal system that simply kind of doesn't exist at this time. So staff will have kind of a larger conversation of that as we move further into the presentation itself. So here are some views of what the subject properties look like. So this is 2200 Old Paris Road. So this is the curbside bar that had operated for a number of years as a nonconforming use. It has since been closed. This was used in conjunction with an auto repair use. And then tucked into the rear of the property are some dwelling units as well. The other property involved with this rezoning is undeveloped. So this is essentially, as of a year ago, was primarily cleared. So there's been some vegetative growth since then with some mature perimeter trees that line the railroad as well as the adjoining property lines. But otherwise, the B3 use that was approved there never was actually established. So it is still remaining undeveloped. Here we have a view of Paris Pike as sort of as you're looking north. So the access for the site is going to align as proposed with Rogers Road. A reminder that this is maintained by the state, so the transportation cabinet will be involved in the final development plan as the access for the site is sort of finalized if the rezoning is approved and it moves on to that step. Here we have a view of the opposite direction with Paris Pike. So the tail end of the property at 2200 is here. So you see old Paris Road as it curves in and connects to Paris Pike here. There is, at this time, no pedestrian facilities along this section here, nor a designated kind of crossing mechanism for pedestrians to cross from this point across Paris Pike. So they are looking at a lighted intersection there, but with a significant amount of traffic as it is a major arterial roadway. So here, this brings us to the development plan for the subject properties. As I stated earlier, this is a multifamily residential use. So these are going to be essentially four-story structures. What you are seeing with these markings inside of these brown outlines for the structures are first-floor parking. So there is going to be a first-floor parking deck with three floors of residential above for a total of 45 feet in height. The units proposed for this particular development, there are 165 units, and they are sort of anchoring in on the center of the development here with the clubhouse, amenity space, and open space. One thing that was noted in the letter of justification for the applicant is this is going to have a number of designated accessible units. So these are units located generally at the ends of each of these multifamily structures that are specifically oriented first floor units to be accessible and to deal with individuals that need those accessible units. The structure here does not include a first floor parking structure, but instead solely has first floor units. Mr. Martin will be on to discuss the development plan in a little bit more detail, but the primary access is designed to align with Rogers Road. There is the access that served the property at 2200 Old Paris Road. That is proposed to be an emergency-only gate, so that is going to significantly limit the access to that particular portion, which was always a concern and one of the reasons that this property here never received that initial B3 zoning that they sought subsequent to this larger parcel being rezoned, because of concerns over access being one of the primary overriding factors. So this is going to be limited to an emergency-only gate needed by emergency services based on the number of units being provided. But this site will have an extensive pedestrian network that serves internally that will connect the different structures to each other as well as the centralized open space. And then showing along Paris Pike and Old Paris Road is a pedestrian system. So this would be a sidewalk and would really be the only sidewalk in the immediate vicinity. Now, if development occurs as the adjoining properties are located within the urban service area as well, and there is a potential planned park potentially occurring about a third of a mile northeast with some property that was given to the Fayette County government, a potential for future connections if those develop in the future. but the site itself is somewhat bound by, from making further connections past what they've shown by the railroad to the rear, as well as their arterial roadway here. So connections that are kind of addressing the interior connectivity and everything that they can provide on-site, short of doing off-site improvements. In our initial staff report, staff had some concerns and questions on how bus transit would be accommodated. The applicant has stated that they are willing to contribute funds or to construct a bus stop at this location. However, they indicate that at this time, Lex Tran is not interested in establishing a bus stop on this portion of Parris Pike, so on this side. So transit service is available in the area. That may change as transit service is reactive to demand. So additional housing units builds up the feasibility of future transit service in the area. But as of right now, this does not have a way to kind of accommodate that unilaterally without LexTrain also deciding to service this location. With regards to the multifamily design standards, let's go back a little bit. The applicant has provided some general renderings. One thing to note is that these were generated a little bit early in the process. So the structure that is, so this is Parris Pike here. This structure here has been modified to be just the accessible unit with no first floor parking. So this structure here has a somewhat different design, but overall the design of the development is largely accurate to what is being shown on the proposed development plan. So you've got structures that are sort of forming a vertical wall and edge on an arterial. It's providing sort of a mixing of materials and a mixing of sort of facade articulation. There are requirements because they are choosing to do first floor parking. There's requirements in our zoning ordinance that speak to having an adequate number of openings and demonstrating that they are articulating that area, activating it to pedestrians. The applicant has gone through in their letter of justification and touched on several of those. But at the time of final development plan, they will need to show compliance, full compliance with the multifamily design standards and any requirements of the zoning ordinance in order to have these developed. So once again, these units fronting are being oriented towards the corridor with internal open space, internal amenities. With regards to screening, there is, let me go back again, apologies. There was a point of discussion in the rezoning with the B3 on this property here, the relationship to the adjoining residential uses. They're showing throughout this section here, there's a sort of 20-foot setback shown with some scattered trees and plantings. We, staff, in review of this application, did not feel the need to include specific conditional zoning restrictions relating to landscaping in this area, as they did in the previous request, because the B3 development is more intense and behaves differently than a residential development to a single-family residential development. The zoning ordinance has specific standards that apply and will be enforced here in this particular instance. However, if the planning commission feels or wishes, they can impose any additional landscaping they think is appropriate in order to reinforce this particular use. There is an existing tree line that sort of lines the edge of this property here. So there is some setback from those adjacent residential uses, but that relationship is something that staff considered in their respective staff reports. Moving on to place type and development type, here we have kind of a textbook definition of a corridor. We have a major arterial roadway and the traffic and the intensity that it's called for within the corridor place type. There is a recommendation for medium density residential at this four stories. There are really three floors of residential with one floor of parking structure. Staff found that that met the qualifications for that medium density residential. And the applicants proposed zoning. The R4 zone is a recommended zone for this particular place type. Development type, like we stated earlier, this is multifamily structure, primarily multifamily units. And so staff found that this met the criteria for medium density residential. With regards to the comprehensive plans, goals, objectives, and policies, this met a number of them. So really an overarching sort of trend within the comprehensive plan is this accommodating demand for housing. So identifying these areas that are potentially underdeveloped, utilizing them along a corridor for a higher density residential development are things that our comprehensive plans kind of call for. It's meeting these policies that are speaking to complying with multifamily design standards, location suggestions for this higher density residential development, as well as some design considerations as to how you are presenting this, orienting towards the arterial, keeping car parking areas and other kind of design considerations internal to the site in order to reinforce some of our most important roadways. With regards to multifamily, with the development criteria associated with the place type and development type, it talks about respecting the context of the area, but also meeting this intensity that's called for along the corridors, providing for, as best as they can, pedestrian-oriented and activated ground levels. So that's articulation, ensuring that this development has visual interest to pedestrian and that pedestrian facilities are being provided as appropriate. Once again, it speaks to meeting requirements regarding to parking buffering and being willing to accommodate the mass transit infrastructure. Like I stated earlier, LexTrans serves this area. They do not have a stop that corresponds directly with the applicant's proposed development, but the applicant has committed to providing that infrastructure, and that can be detailed and shown on the final development plan to accommodate some of the transit considerations with that. Finally, the development criteria talk about providing that vertical edge and kind of setting and reinforcing that streetscape, especially at one of our more important major corridors. So with that, staff is recommending approval of this request. We find that it's in agreement with the goals and objectives of the new 2045 comprehensive plan, specifically talking about providing this additional housing, doing it in a reasonable way, and doing it with the intensity that is called for in a corridor, especially when we are dealing with a lot that has gone underutilized for a significant period of time. We find that it's in agreement with the policies of the current comprehensive plan, meeting the multifamily design standards, providing the density that is being called for, providing for adequate green space, and in addressing parking areas and vehicle reuse areas appropriately. We find that it's in agreement with the development criteria of the comprehensive plan as it relates to site design, building form, location, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity, as well as green space and environmental health. This rezoning, as always, is subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan that Mr. Martin will be on to discuss momentarily in a little more detail. But at this time, staff would be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the zoning component. Thank you, Mr. Kroon. Do any commissioners have questions for Daniel regarding the zoning? Just a comment, because it's anticipating what we're going to hear when we talk about landscaping regarding the development plan. in the subdivision committee we did talk about ramping up the landscaping and we did recommend that landscaping along paris pike be consistent with the paris pike corridor landscaping and we recommended additional buffering next to that active landscaping zone so i'm going to put that out here for everybody thank you mr owens uh daniel i don't know if really this for you or for mr martin however you mentioned it in your staff report so i'll start with you now on the first page you're talking about future development of residential property to the north within the Auburn service area. In addition, land has been acquired by LFUCG for a park at 2490 Parris Pike, a third of a mile northeast of the subject property. Do you by chance have a map that may show any of that? So just, we'll see, we'll bring it back up. So here we have the subject properties shown here. These are the adjoining residential uses. That red line that is shown on the screen there, that is the urban service boundary. And so the land that was given to the government or the government has slotted for that parks is that adjoining piece to the south of that urban service boundary there. If I'm correct, just to the what I call north or northeast of that red line that's Lexington country club yes okay all right just reference point thank you thank you my job any other questions for Daniel if not thank you very much and we're ready for Mr. Martin are we are we ready I think so Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the plan associated with the zone change is on page 5 of your agenda. It is a major development plan 23-54 and this is a preliminary development plan associated with this zone change. will see, should this go forward and be approved, a final development plan on this property. Now, here we go. As Daniel explained, you can see the property in its triangular shape. It is constricted, bound by, of course, Paris Pike through here, and then, of course, the railroad. road, here we go, on this section and it comes to a point down here with the intersection of Old North Limestone at that point. And again, as you can see, the shape of the property is roughly triangular and that's dictated the layout to a great degree, which makes a lot of sense. They have the six buildings that they're proposing. They are 165 total units. They're oriented along Paris Pike on that perimeter outside the setback and there's also a large, it's a 30 foot water main easement along adjacent to the right of way that runs through this property as well. They are as was mentioned proposing a pedestrian sidewalk along the frontage. Parking is a total of 198 spaces. It is, oops, there we go. You can see the surface parking at the rear oriented to the railroad and then on the interior and access, as Daniel pointed out, into the underneath these buildings where they're going to have interior parking. There is a lot of open space on the property. It was kind of spread out. This plan shows it a little bit better than your normal submission with black and white, with the centralized location of amenities in this area, along with some green space. The discussion about the screening did center along through here, and they are now showing a 20-foot buffer. Now, there's a condition that addresses that that says resolve at the time of final development plan. They can't build off this. That will allow them ample time to work with the landscape examiner and staff to determine not just, you know, the width is 20 feet, and that's a nice buffer, but also the appropriate materials. Because one of the issues that comes into landscaping when you really truly want to buffer a use is opacity. And so what is the most appropriate material that you would want to utilize in that buffer? And that's why staff at the time of a final development plan believes that's the time to specify that and put it on the plan. Because this will exceed your normal Article 18 requirements. So this will be something that the development plan will impose on this property. There has been some discussion about the relationship to Paris Pike. They have talked about the possibility of a horse fence. We're horse country. We have a lot of horse fences. They've talked about that. along with some spacing with trees. Now, that's what the Newtown ordinance basically specifies as well. That, again, is important to recognize the conflicts that exist along the front, the need for a pedestrian facility, the water main 30-foot easement. So that front's constricted. So in order to get that buffer in there, you have to take all those things into account. So again, at the time of the final development plan, And staff is confident that along with the applicant, we can bring to the planning commission a recommendation that should work and should reflect the character of the Paris Pike corridor. Excuse me. The other thing that's been interesting about these properties, now that they're together, and those of you in the subdivision committee may recall I mentioned this, The addition of the little triangular piece where the curb was has facilitated the overall development in terms of infrastructure. They're able to add their detention basin in this area, which is adjacent to the existing public stormwater system. Important. When it was just this piece, they had to get there. And that's always an engineering design problem. And how do you get there and do you need easements, et cetera. In addition, the sanitary sewer. Now that they're here, they can bring their sanitary. They have to go back down the old limestone under the railroad to get to a pump station that exists by the Strawberry Fields development. Still online. That one was not removed when the one you just heard about out at Providence was built. A lot of pump stations on this end of town, the city was able to take them offline. Not that one. They're going to have to get to that one. That's one of the engineering challenges on the infrastructure. The access is generally a good idea. Line it up. We promote that pretty heavily. That allows for the best possible decision making from people that are entering and exiting the property as well as Rogers Road relative to the traffic on Paris Pike. That doesn't mean that there might not be some other alternatives and things to look at. So, again, that will be resolved at the time of your final development plan. There's an ulterior design that will make it better. We would like to have the best possible, safest access that we can possibly get. Again, as you heard, this is a state highway. They have something to say about access just like you do. And everybody's, they're going to get access. So it's a matter of getting the best access we can and get the best design that we can that both the state and our traffic engineers can agree upon. With that, your subdivision committee did review this plan and recommend approval. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have for staff. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do we have any questions? Mr. Mickler? Yeah, I've got some questions regarding access. I will make one comment on just one aspect of the landscaping. I think horse fences around apartment complexes look about as natural as vinyl-sided shutters glued to the side houses. I don't think they're building a farm and they don't need a farm fence. It just looks dumb. If they want to do it, fine, but requiring them is absurd. One question about access. This. when they're leaving, to go to Lexington is to the left, right? And to go to Paris is to the right. I'm not, I don't have any data in front of me, but I would guess that staff and traffic's presumption is that the majority of people leaving would be headed towards Lexington rather than Paris. How many lanes of traffic without a signal will they need to cross to go left? They have to cross, I believe, two lanes. Plus two turn lanes. So they have to cross four lanes without a signal? They would have to cross at least three, I think, to go. Well, this shows four. I'm trying to... One, two... Okay, yes, it appears to be four. Without the signal. Yes, sir. And I understand that on the corner there, where they're coming in by the railroad track for emergency access, that that wouldn't normally meet any standards. But I mean, I'm just trying to think about the residents here. and that street has significantly less traffic and it has a signal on old Paris. Was there any discussion about letting residents exit there so that they can actually make a signalized left turn towards town? No, not to any great extent, no. There's bad angles. It's a bad intersection, and during rush hour, It's tremendously backed up, and that light does not have primacy over the Paris light. So it creates a problem, and introducing traffic right there in that intersection is generally not a good idea. There was discussion about the possibility of a light. So it's a better idea to have them cross four lanes? I'm just asking. It may be, yes, sir. It may be. In rush hour, there's no good alternatives. There was some discussion and again, the recommendation to resolve it at final development plan and see if there may be a better design. If there's something that could be done to assist in that movement. But it's going to take our engineers, the applicant, and the state to agree on an alternative design there that might assist with that. Was there some concept that was proposed? I mean, I'm asking because I understand the constraints of the site, and maybe it's worth approving despite the fact that it's a terrible design. But it seems like a terrible design to say that probably 90% of people are going to be going left. We got no signal for them, and we're asking that they cross four lanes on a high speed road. Yes, well, there's problems associated with the spacing of signals as well that impact not just these residents and these people, but the traveling public. And all those many thousands of cars during rush hour that are out there, we have to take them into consideration as well. So it's a balancing act. There was a little bit of talk about moving the access point and having them exit right and then do a U-turn back. That was discussed briefly, but that has not yet been resolved, and that's why we're recommending we do so at the time of a final development plan. And also, in line of this same sort of challenge about access and the fact that this really does look like a not, even in the best of circumstances, not an ideal exit point for the residents here. to the sort of northeast there along Paris Pike that's currently in the urban service area. The way that this shows it now doesn't ever show a possibility of connecting there, or is there going to be an easement so that if that were ever developed, we could get these residents maybe to a better access point? I think that would be a great discussion at the final development plan to discuss that, certainly. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? Seeing none, thank you very much. um we i suppose we discuss at this point do we discuss the oh never mind sorry i was thinking of something else all right so um do we have any mr murphy yes of course sorry it's me again dick murphy i'm representing the joyland crossing llc pleased to be here today on behalf of joyland Crossing, Corey Johnson and Fabi Singh are with me from Joyland Crossing and we have Fred Eastridge over here from Vision Engineering along with Mark McIntosh and Brandon Powell from Million Architecture. Jay Million and Brandon Powell have been our architects and have been involved from day one on this and have been involved in our meetings with the staff, especially Ms. Friedman, Mr. Sewey, on the design of this. We're very pleased to present this to you. As the staff recommended to you, or mentioned to you, my folks purchased these properties about two years ago. In about 2017, I represented the owner of the northern lot, the big lot, on a zone change from R1B to B3. That was the Jones and Cottrell family back in 2017. It was rezoned B3. The southern piece, the... Oops, I'm sorry about that. There. The southern piece, where the curb bar was, was not owned by that family that I represented. So that was not part of the zone change application back six years ago. However, after the northern piece was rezoned to B3, the owners of the southern piece, the curb bar piece, came in and requested a zone change to you, I think, for B3 also. Now that was hung up because that piece was not going to be allowed to have any access at all to Old Paris Pike. They were just told you cannot have access to Old Paris Pike. All access would have to come through the adjoining property. I think because of that, the zone change was postponed indefinitely and had not been brought back to you on that. So the curb bar property remains zoned R1B at this time, but it was because of the fact they weren't going to be allowed to access it on Old Paris Road. Now, my clients have now purchased both properties, so they do have the advantage of being able to serve it through one access point. That is the access point that we have been told will be the access point for this property, except for keeping this open as an emergency access for vehicles only. I'll talk about traffic a little bit later, but I wanted to tell you a little bit more about this property. We're proposing a 165-unit apartment complex. It's a brief workforce housing. It will have on-site management here. The manager's office will be in the middle in our central lawn, along with the swimming pool and the recreational room there. We have, as Mr. Martin mentioned and Mr. Crum mentioned, we have definite boundaries on this property, the biggest one being the railroad here, which is certainly a boundary and a barrier. Paris Pike itself is a boundary here. On the north side, the one lot next to us is a two-acre lot with a single-family house on it, two-acre lot up here. And we have a, I've done it again, I'm sorry. We have a 13-acre horse farm lot which curves around this one and we have a little bit of a common boundary with that property right there. We have a 30-foot wide Kentucky American water easement running through the property. and Kentucky American is very protective of that easement because that's a 24-inch water main that serves Toyota up in Georgetown. I didn't know the water came up from here to the Toyota plant through here. But we are taking advantage of that 30-foot setback to do additional landscaping along Paris Pike because, as you know, under regulations, and we certainly support those, You cannot do parking between the building and the highway. It has to be behind the building. So I've done it once again. And we will use that for a, the plan now is a graduated grassland starting with lower grasses toward Paris Pike, working up the higher grasses on our side of the easement and shrubs to soften the first floor of our buildings from paris pike and give a sense of enclosure for for our people a little bit bit of enclosure from the traffic on paris pike through the grasslands and other plantings we'll have on that 30 30 foot easement for kentucky american water company so we tried to turn that easement into a positive of the property and I think our architects have succeeded very well doing that. As Mr. Crum mentioned, we do agree with the comprehensive plan. We provide greater density along this corridor. Our buildings provide a vertical edge along Paris Pike. We're intensifying an underutilized property. We provide workforce housing and we're mitigating the visual impact of this on paris pike and getting back to the particular issues we had a neighborhood meeting and we did hear the issues that we have with traffic in this area and i think traffic is probably the major issue that we do have and bearing in mind that this is a preliminary development plan and we will have to come back to you with a final development plan before a spade of earth is turned on this property we've had a lot of discussion about where our access goes and as i mentioned to you our information all along for the last six years has been that this entrance point has to be closed because it is too close to this light there's a curve here and you can see it's a comes in at an angle so we have been told that this cannot be used for access to this property other than the emergency access point we have to have one access in all in and out we have shown it at this point now we understand that the ultimate configuration of that access point will be up to the city division of traffic engineering and the Kentucky Department of Highways. We will have to do whatever they say we have to do. If they say to us, put in a left turn lane, we'll put in a left turn lane. If they say you have to have a light, Joyland Crossing has already volunteered to contribute money toward that light. At the neighborhood meeting, we heard that Peterbilt, When they came in, I think, catty-courting from us, I think it's up there, agreed to contribute money to the light several years ago as well, if a light is needed at this point. We're aware that the state could say to us, well, you've got a right turn in and a right turn out. And our residents, when they leave, might have to turn right and then make a U-turn in one of the openings on Parris Pike. So we don't know how that access is going to play out, but I want to tell you one thing I do know. And I want to pass this out if I can, maybe put it up on the screen as well. We have done a traffic calculation showing what the traffic generation we will create versus what would be created by a B3 development on this property. Bearing in mind, most of this property is already zoned B3. When I helped the Jones Cottrell family rezone this back in 2017, we had a development plan approved, a preliminary development plan, which was certified, which showed a gas station convenience store right here. It showed a fast food restaurant with a drive-through window here. And it showed a sit-down restaurant with a drive-through window here. And based on that, and assuming we will have a small building, there could be a small building there, a 1,200 square foot restaurant without a drive-through window, we asked Mark McIntosh to do the calculations. And you can see that the traffic we will generate as a residential development is about 20% of the traffic that would be generated by a B3 development here. In every category coming in and out, we are having much lower traffic generation than we would if this was B3. We have a daily traffic count of just over 1,200, as opposed to 6,300 as a B3 development. I think the highest percentage we have is AM peak, outward bound. We generate one quarter of the traffic that a B3 development would be generating at that point. And I'll ask you this, too. when you have residents living there they learn how to come and go the best way possible if they have to make a right and make a u-turn on paris pike to get back down there they learn that b3 development with people coming in from the interstate or wherever in and out they don't learn that so not only will b3 development have four to five times the traffic that we will It will be traffic that has not learned the area and learned the way around. So we think by this development, we are making this safer by closing the access on Old Paris Pike, limiting our access to one point with the acknowledgement that this is not the final decision on how that access will be. It's not a final decision on whether there's a traffic light there, whether there is additional turn lanes, whether it's a write-out on that. That will all have to be explored with the Kentucky Highway Department and with city agencies here when we come back to you with a final development plan. But I want to make it clear about the traffic we're generating versus the traffic that would be possible in the existing B3 zone on the property. I would add, too, we have 500 feet of sight distance either way at this exit point. The state of Kentucky would require us to have 450 feet of sight distance on here. We have 500 feet of sight distance at this location. I want to discuss the fact we're on a Lex Tran route. We are on a Lex Tran route that comes in and it comes up Paris Pike and it turns left on Rogers Road. I have talked to Mr. Filiotru in the Division of Traffic Engineering. He has made inquiries about Lex Tran. And again, Joyland Crossing has agreed to make a contribution toward a bus stop shelter on this frontage. And what we receive back secondhand through Mr. Philiatru is that Lex Strand is not interested in doing that at this time. However, they're still agreeable. My folks are still agreeable to making a contribution to a bus stop or bus shelter on this property. we anticipate that there will be further development up paris pike i understand that the two lots beyond the two lots that are next to us have recently sold at auction 32 acres for four million dollars that's 125 000 an acre for the property on our side of paris pike further out 125 000 an acre is is development uh cost for it it's not it's not horse farm or agricultural use cost for this property we anticipate that that property will be developed we have no connection with it i have no direct knowledge of it but i have received that information from at least three different sources about that recent sale at an auction so we anticipate that there will be additional development farther out paris pike similarly we have a sidewalk here there are no sidewalks on this side of paris pike from old paris road north but we are building one we are we will have connectivity to whatever access we have to Lex Tran on that sidewalk and we will allow additional connectivity to properties to the north the in both those in Lex Tran and the pedestrian sidewalk I guess you can say well Lex Tran doesn't want to stop there now or well you got a sidewalk but there's nothing around to connect to although we do have a connection down to the stoplight at old paris road where you can cross the road again my clients are willing to contribute to cost of pedestrian improvements down at the traffic light there on that as well but what we're doing is we're laying the foundation i think in the staff report they have said that by doing the sidewalks in the pedestrian facilities being willing to contribute to a bus shelter for lextran we are laying the foundation for future connectivity future planning for future development in this area and i think by laying the foundation that is what planning is all about we are doing our part on this property to lay the foundation for future pedestrian connectivity for future transit usage and for safe automobile access because we know we're going to be subject to whatever the highway department in the city requires us to do I wanted to add on this I forgot to mentioned that the we will have 165 units going back to the can I go back to the site plan here there we go the our units will on the ground floor you can see we have largely parking areas but in each of these buildings we have accessible units so ground floor level level entry on ground floor accessible units those units will have immediate access to a garage that will be for that unit so they can get into the garage from their unit directly the other parking we will have parking generally available underneath the buildings with a one-way traffic system underneath them and we will have obviously the additional parking especially along the the railroad track the railroad track is somewhat elevated from our property so it gives a somewhat of a barrier as well so once again we are pleased with the plan that we have presented to you i think we've got an excellent plan given the shape of our property given the fact it's only about five acres here total on here and we uh given the fact that we cannot make connections to the south or to the northeast although we could keep definitely keep that possibility open to the northeast on here so we're we're we're planning for the future not only of this property but we're planning for the future of this area and i and again i said we're We're proud to present this to you and we'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Thank you Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Mr. McClure. A couple questions. You've, I guess, had with the different zone changes, you've had a lot of discussion on that entrance point against old Paris Pike. Was it ever discussed as an entry only point or was it always discussed as a either yes or no? To be honest about it, since we were told, I was aware of this when I worked on the northern properties six years ago. I was aware of that access problem and I was aware that the city was going to say that the access point on Old Paris Road could not be used, period. We have not questioned that because we understood that was the answer. We're not coming to you to say we cannot use it. We're coming to you because our understanding was that we could not use it. Sure. And then in terms of your last comment about exploring sort of opportunities to connect to the East there, although the property immediately adjacent isn't available you're sort of looking towards that future of seeing development in that area is that something you all would be expecting to explore on that final development plan yes thank you any other questions for Mr. Murphy thank you Mr. Murphy At this time, we will take any public comment that we may have on this application. Again, please approach and just state your name, and everyone will be limited to three minutes of public comment per person. Thank you. My name is Catherine Perkins. I live at 258 Swigert Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky, 40505. You want my date of birth? No. I am a vice president of the Joyland Neighborhood Association, and I'm also, but I'm not speaking in this capacity, but I am a Paris Pike Corridor Commissioner, and I include this so that you know that I have a vested interest in the development of the corridor and also in my neighborhood. And I've also spoken to many neighbors about this development and zone change, and I feel confident that our biggest concerns are traffic, water, buffering, and beautification of this property. And think that, I want you to know I'm not against this zone change at all. I'm not against this development, but I am a firm believer that conditions need to be put on the preliminary development plan and on the zone. Conditions were put on the zone when it was granted for the B3, and I think that we should consider some of the same conditions or similar. I'm recommending conditioning the buffering to be consistent along not only the north, but the east of 20 foot with mature trees. This is not a development that is representative of what are compatible with what Paris Pike is. There's nothing in the area that would be this tall. All the apartments across Rogers Road that you cannot see real clearly from Paris Pike are two stories, actually three, one below ground and two above. So I do believe that you need to condition buffering to, let me get my piece of paper, be continuous buffering 20 feet in width with large deciduous trees along the front and both sides. You have ag property behind that is going to be affected as they take all the trees down and put up fence and you have four stories that's going to affect the ag property on the other side of the railroad tracks. And also there's a little ag property that can sort of adjacent from Garnettas. I know the property next to Garnetta Graham's is ag, currently used as a farm, an active farm. And so they can see this property easily with four stories. So I ask that you condition this buffering fencing along the, that was a fast three minutes. Was that it? Do you have a final? No, ma'am. Are you going to speak, Matt? Matt, have you three minutes? No, we had the planning commission policies. We do not allow the yielding of time. You don't give three minutes? All right, we'll wrap it up. So I think that you need to condition the zone to include buffering. I think it needs to be conditioned upon approval before development can start approval of the access and the like. Because construction traffic to this site is going to be very hazardous for anybody, especially during rush hour. Thank you. But I think that that needs to be conditioned access and buffering. Thank you very much. That was fast. Good afternoon again. My name is Patty Drouse. I live in Joyland neighborhood. I do not object to these apartment buildings. I do have, as we've been discussing, objections about the traffic. There are many places where traffic is darting in and out at this little stretch of road from Parkside to Rogers Road. I've been hit in the Speedway gas station in the driveway. So cars are coming out of Old Paris Road, number one, onto Paris Pike, which is a terrible intersection. Old Paris Road needs to match up with Parkside Drive. As it is right now, you have cars going every which way, not paying attention to the light to go right, of course, so they dart off of old Paris Road onto Paris Pike or North Broadway. Speedway gas station, they're darting in and out of there, that's where I got hit. Parkside, Rogers Road, Whitaker Bank, all within roughly 300 feet or so. And Kathy's been hit over there as well. We can't come out of our neighborhood right now between four and six o'clock in the afternoon. I mean, I'm retired, so I do have that choice, but it is too dangerous over there. And adding another intersection, I agree with Cathy about adding a condition that there must be a traffic light there. This has to be fixed before this development goes in. And preferably also if the state would connect old Paris road properly. Secondly, the residents of these apartments, how will they get to the park, to Mary Todd Park? Are they going to be walking across Broadway over there? And what I've heard from Mr. Murphy is they'll have 1.3 parking spaces per two bedroom apartment, which all of them are two bedroom apartments. So where will they park the extra cars? Are they going to park in Joyland or walk under the Corman Bridge and park in Strawberry Fields? And that bridge doesn't have a sidewalk under it either. And so there will be pedestrian hazards. And I don't know if an overhead bridge or some other, anyway, there will be pedestrian hazards. They won't be able to walk their dog across the street over there, let's put it that way. And that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Blake Hall, I live in the 3rd District, but about 10 years ago I did live in Joyland. Wasn't planning on speaking to this, so I'm going off the cuff here. I'm against putting any conditions on buffering and whatnot. I don't know why the city has a problem with seeing apartment buildings or something being broadly over two or three stories. But with the water easement, it's already pretty far back. And especially from Parris Pike, you've got a gas station and then a truck dealership across the street. It's not like it's some bucolic ag area. The other reason I'm against those inherently just also because this is already a difficult lot to do anything with. so further burdening it with subjective conditions would just hurt that even more I don't believe we should be telling 160 some potential families no you know we can't fit as many of you in here because we need trees we don't want to see you so most of the concerns have been about traffic having driven through here those are all valid. I don't think it falls to this development to be held up because of that. If anything, it helps enforce the need for those improvements. So yes, I think the traffic light would be a great addition. It also allows those residents access to the convenience store and the gas station and the bus line but for right now especially early in the process i don't think any of those need to be on there and overall i think it's as best as you could do with such an awkward situation thank you thank you hello hi i'm mike sloan i live on the 151 strawberry fields road which is on the other side of the track so i'm the green space that's on the other side of the track my property my grandparents bought that in 1931 and i've lived there for almost 40 years now and uh what they're proposing here i've got really three uh concerns one is the height and the density of what they're talking about putting in here directly adjacent to the urban service area and to ag zone i mean my properties directly on the other side of the track i'll see when they put four-story apartment buildings there it'll loom over the the trees directly adjacent to an urban service to the urban service area and ag i mean that's not what the way zoning is supposed to work you know you're not supposed to have high density housing that close to to agriculture use the second issue is what everybody's talked about the traffic this is an extremely that area between parkside and old paris road is there's been over 250 accidents there over a 10-year period and there's been 21 over in the last 12 months and uh what you're talking about doing here there will be another light there eventually it may take some casualty fatality there will be a light at the entrance of what you're talking about putting in. And when they put the light in there, we already have the traffic backs up on way up Old Paris Road. And the only reason it moves at all is because people are able to turn right, unobstructed, and go to Paris. When you put a light at Rogers Road, it's going to basically prevent those people from turning right, and it's going to jam the traffic up even worse. The third issue is the parking. You know, you've got 198 spots for 165 units. That's 1.2 cars per unit. And I don't know what part of America you live in, but nobody has 1.2. You know, this thing with two bedrooms, each one's two bedrooms, I guarantee you'll be closer to three cars per unit than you will 1.2. So what I think you should do first is I am concerned about that intersection. I mean, I really think there ought to be a way to use that Joel, the bar property, to reconfigure the entrance of Old Paris Road into Paris Pike and to help it line up with Preakness Drive. it would basically alleviate, allow a lot more buildup of traffic after it gets through the overpass. And maybe it could even avoid having a second light there. But basically the main thing is to try to limit the height and to try to, because limiting the height will limit the number of cars, number of people, number of traffic, and it will solve all those problems. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Jan Ehrmantraud. I live at 1977 LeCleed Court, and I'm president of the LeCleed Farm Village Homeowners Association. I want to address the traffic as well. I know it's repetitive. I drive off Laclede Avenue onto Paris, old Paris Road, and then get on Paris Pike and make a left turn onto the road leading to Mary Todd Elementary School. A lot of traffic generated at Mary Todd Elementary School. A lot of traffic comes out of the Bryan Station with their school buses, which take Laclede Road onto the old Parris Pike, left or right. I'm amazed every day when I make that trek that there hasn't been a fatality there. get onto that road and make an immediate left is already a hazard and though I'm not opposed to the development and I understand the need for adequate housing in Lexington although I doubt this will be low-income housing I cannot imagine adding that number of cars less okay maybe a couple of blocks up and then somebody trying to turn left. I think that is an encumbrance that needs a conversation with the State Highway Department. I think if that is not taken care of before development is started. This commission will be responsible for serious accidents, perhaps deaths, and I sure hope one of those is not with one of my two granddaughters in the car coming or going from Mary Todd Elementary School. Thank you. Thank you. Amy Clark, 628 Castle Road. I hadn't planned on speaking, but I've been asked to finish some of the things that Kathy intended to say on behalf of her neighborhood and the Pike. We talk a lot about transit-oriented development. There's been all kinds of talk about how many cars, how to accommodate the cars, how to accommodate the traffic. This is a uniquely constrained site, uniquely constrained, the railroad and the difficulty on the pike. And it would be an ideal place for transit-oriented development that really had transit. And what you see is a development that is planned for each unit to have, I think, 1.3 cars. So then it does constrain the land. There's not the kind of room for trees we'd want and so on. I have a lot to cover, but I just want to say if you're thinking which comes first, the chicken or the egg, The reason we're all talking about adequate access on and off the site for cars and adequate connectivity for pedestrians is so that Joyland Crossing will be a possible development. There was mention that there was a B3 there and how much traffic it would be. That's why it failed to develop. Please don't grant a zone that cannot successfully develop and serve its purpose. These are the conditional zoning restrictions we would like you to consider. We talked about the buffering already, and the fencing needs to be so that people can see the trees, not the fence. It needs to be on the inside. Number two is very important. the property shall be restricted to residential use only. That is to say dwelling units and there's an accessory pool. The reason that needs to be articulated as a conditional zoning restriction is you're about to consider a text amendment that will offer all B1 principal uses as conditional in R4. We don't think this is a location that needs to be drawing and attracting business. If need be, if it's argued that they need to have some services for food basically on their side of the street, we could consider using the R5 present conditional uses. Strike number one on the handout you've received because we don't know what R3 will do next week. But number two offers incidental retail, and it offers, number four, offers restaurant uses. So that if you want some business, you could consider that. We can't prohibit what isn't yet allowed. So the way it's phrased as a conditional zoning restriction would be residential use only. We'd also like dwelling units not to exceed 165, which is what there are now, and either a signalized crossing or, if that's just not possible, the state shall approve vehicular access and pedestrian crossing and so forth prior to the certification of the preliminary development plan. Thank you. So the point is the conditional zoning needs to go with the zone to make a possible development finally to follow. Thank you so much. Good afternoon. My name is Adrienne Gleason. I am the Old Paris Place Neighborhood Association Treasurer, but I'm also a resident. I live at 224 Preakness Drive, square in the middle between the Old Paris Place and the North Point neighborhoods. to tie a bow on the conversation around traffic. A study earlier this year by Enric's Data Analytics claimed Lexington is one of the worst cities in the state for traffic. This corridor, Paris Pike, leads to one of the deadliest intersections in Lexington, the North Broadway New Circle East intersection. And as Mr. Martin claimed himself, that intersection for Old Paris Place and Paris Pike is blind. and we heard from Mr. Sloan about the number of accidents that occur in that area. It is tremendously dangerous. Personal experience, I left today to go to Frankfurt where I work and it took me 18 minutes to get from the stop sign at Old Paris Pike to an area where I could create my own turn lane to get on I-75 North. 1,500 yards, I mean 1,500 feet, 500 yards, it took almost 20 minutes. This is a problem that exists currently prior to any more additional development, including the development that we heard had just been purchased and is slated in the future. It seems irresponsible, if not reckless. I've heard it three times now repeated. Well, this development will create essentially a squeaky wheel that will encourage us to address the traffic problem. We are saying there is already a traffic problem that needs to be addressed before any further development needs to be given permission. And, again, I think it's, as another comment said, it's either catastrophic or deadly scenario that we're creating here. And it's very troubling. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have any additional public comment on this application? you you have one minute left okay all righty again i'm patty drowse i live in joyland and this is a comment that kathy perkins had wanted to make before that her understanding of why lextran doesn't want to service this development is that they can't visualize pulling in and out of traffic and having to make that left-hand turn onto Rogers Road. So unless they're able to go into the development, it would be very difficult for them to service that area during the peak traffic time. So during the morning time and then during the evening from 4 to 6. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Do the commissioners have any questions or discussion? Sorry. Oh, sorry. Mr. Murphy, do you have anything you'd like to respond to? Just a few things I wanted to talk about on this. Many of these issues are why we came in before we even filed and met with your planning staff, especially miss friedman and mr seway about the design of the property that's why we're showing the sidewalk along paris pike that's why we're showing the buffering that's why we're showing the access point where we show it because we are planning ahead and the staff has encouraged us and and giving credit mike to my clients my clients have been very agreeable to every suggestion the staff made on this and i think have adopted them all about doing the buffering about doing the sidewalk about agreeing to a contribution to our bus stop we we understand that lextran had that hesitation about pulling over and making a left turn that doesn't mean we should ignore it and forget about it it means we should be prepared for the time when lextran changes its mind and wants to have a bus stop on our side of the property. Whether that be for whatever reason, more development out the road or changing where they turn left or whatever, routes change with Lex Tran and decision and as Mr. Crum mentioned, Lex Tran is reactive to development. Traffic is an issue. We grant you that. As I mentioned, though, we have one-fifth the traffic of a B3 development. Ms. Clark seems to think that if you turn this down, then the property will lay fallow for several years until a light is done. No, if you turn it down, it will force a development of B3 on this property because it's already zoned B3 for this property. Parking and wanted to mention parking. What the plan is here is that every resident will get one parking pass, and if they want additional one, they would pay for that. And if there's none available when you're coming to rent a place, they will be told there is none available. Do not expect to be able to park more than one car if there's none of the extra parking spaces available on that. We cannot agree to a condition that it has to be served by a traffic light, because you know the condition we have to agree with is that we will comply with the state of Kentucky and your Division of Traffic Engineering to do what they tell us on this after they look over the plan, see what we're planning, and see what their plans are. As I said, my clients have been very, very flexible and very agreeable. They have told me, yes, if we have this access point which we show, we will use that. Yes, if we have to agree to do more turn lanes, we will do that. Yes, if we have to contribute to a light, we will contribute toward the cost of the light. Yes, if we have to do a ride out and people make U-turns, they will do that. They are very agreeable and very flexible on how they approach this. So we, again, feel very strongly, we're very pleased that we have this is planning. We are planning for the future of the area by providing sidewalks, by providing buffering, by considering the access issue, and by bringing a use in here which is much lower traffic generating than what it's zoned for now. So we hope you'll vote in favor of this zone change. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, sorry to interrupt you. On the development plan, I would like to ask that the United States Postal Service Office kiosk locations and easements be waived because the Postal Service told us that they do not have a person filling that position right now. and to get somebody to sign off on this development plan in the time it is required to get it certified so it can go forward would be impossible. We do show kiosks. We do show kiosks. We're showing on the clubhouse an area where the mail will be delivered. So we are dealing with that. All right. I believe we will address that at the time of when we discuss the development plan shortly, but thank you. Daniel or Mr. Martin, do you have anything? Planning staff doesn't have any additional comments at this time. All right. Commissioners, your thoughts, questions? Yes, sir, Mr. Mickler. I have a question. David, are you available? Yes. This is a challenging one. It's all right. I'm looking at the map, and I zoomed out a little bit. And I'm a little concerned here because Old Paris is basically, because of the railroad track, is the only other crossing inside the urban service area until you get way out past the thoroughbred center. And the way it looks like to me is if there's not a way to connect to old Paris, then all future development inside the urban service area will basically all be going on to Paris Pike? That would be correct. Yeah, the railroad presents a significant boundary. It would be very difficult to get an additional roadway through there in any respect. be very expensive and very time consuming so that's correct yes is is that i mean it it seems like despite these obstacles that would put a lot of um weight on trying to find a creative way to get another to get a connection to pair to old paris or traffic feels that it would be acceptable for all the development to go on the Paris Pike? It's a major arterial adjacent to the interstate. So generally, as far as being able to handle capacity, those are two of the highest class routes that there are. So you would expect it could handle generally. Now, that's not to say there aren't alterations that could improve that. I've been clear with the applicant. I think the intersectional Paris and Paris Pike, there will need to be improvements there. They're showing in their parking mitigation demand mitigation study, they're showing utilizing the bus stops across the way, so they're going to need to provide that. I think there's an opportunity there to help clean that intersection up in that respect. And then, again, back to the Rogers Road intersection, whether that could be a stop signal or not, The transportation cabinet generally doesn't approve those until volumes warranted. Generally, that's an eight-hour volume. Residential typically only has higher peak hour volumes, so it wouldn't typically warrant as a result of that. That may not be the case in this, but I think there's opportunities for cleaning up this area. But back to your question, Paris Pike will handle the large amount of demand that is produced as a result of any future current or future development. There's not a good way around that, honestly, given the railroad. Would you, I guess, is there, I guess we're looking sort of at a period now where this sort of wedge between the urban service area and the railroad and old Paris is just, this is maybe the first start of development. It would be unlikely, it seems like, if each property is looked at in isolation to sort of merit a light, is there any sort of conversations that you are having on trying to tie these together on this side to sort of group them around an intersection? or? With this particular, with this applicant. Does that make sense? I guess. Yeah, looking at as a whole, I mean, generally that is how we, that we come, you know, come up with new traffic signals. It's either large developments that are going to, we know we're going to warrant immediately, hospitals, new schools, things like that, or after development aggregates over a period of time, and then either the city or the state will install a signal once, once they are warranted. Again, and they have to meet those specific warrants that are in the immune TCD before the state will generally allow it. That's not always the case, but usually when there's outside of that case, it's because it's a grocery store or, again, a large traffic generator that we know is going to warrant. So, yes, there is a... Well, I guess what I'm asking more is your thoughts on future tying together of these properties on Parris Pike, or you think they each would have their own access onto Parris Pike? I think Tom was one. If I may, when you asked about setting this up and I responded with the final development plan for cross access, we can do that. Secondly, under the land subdivision regulations, any properties that come in that are proposed for subdivision along an arterial require a service road. So the whole idea there is to provide that cross connectivity and and limit the access to the appropriate locations on the arterial. So those mechanisms to answer your question do exist. But this would not require a service road or- Not at this time, no. It's a land subdivision regulation. However, we can set things up for cross access, which we have done elsewhere. Okay, thank you. Jim, Ms. Mark? I've got a question. the letters that we've got talked about traffic studies we haven't had a traffic study what I mean what are our options here do we have any options about requesting a traffic study is one you know we we've got neighbors who have you know asked for it or mentioned it in their letters what are our options here Yeah, I think that's a zoning ordinance requirement, so David may not be the best person to answer it. This particular development did not generate enough trips to require a traffic impact study at this point. There was one done for the B3 development, so we have that data that's available to us. But at this point, the commission can't require it. you can, at the next stage, the subdivision committee can ask for a traffic study to determine of some sort. I don't know if it can be a full-blown one. We'd have to talk about that. To determine what improvements might be necessary for the site. You're saying at the final development plan stage? Yes. I'd like to go back to, can I do that? Back to Mr. Martin's comment. You said we could set this up for, I can't remember the term, cross-access? What would it take to do that, and is that something we could do now? You could require that one of the drive aisles, for instance, extend and stub into the adjoining property. Now, the impact on that adjoining property, obviously, is that to create that access, when it comes in, they're going to have to match up. But that's how we've done it elsewhere. And we've done that in town where we've had properties come in and we knew they're going to come in a little bit at different times. And we've set up cross access for future development in order to tie them together. So that can be done. Generally, we do it at the final development plan stage. So, because that's when they're going to build it. Thank you. And to Tom's point, there are two parcels that abut this property. So you could do it in the front where the dumpsters are located, and then you can do it in the back as well to address both properties. Mr. Owens. Excuse me. Thank you. Dave, while you're still around, I don't think I've missed it. Were there any discussion as to the possibility of a right-in only on Old Parrish Pike? A right-in only? There was some mention of it. Again, it's really close to the intersection. We typically try to keep our approach roads and driveways away. It's actually in the intersection. You would consider that in the intersection. I know it's very close. It's just a thought. Yes. We've discussed it very briefly. Yes. Okay. Do we have any other questions or comments? If not, the floor is certainly open for a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. McClure. I would motion for approval of PLN MAR23-18 Joyland Crossings. Thank you, and is there a second to that motion? Commissioner Barksdale, any discussion? If not, we will vote. This is for the zone change. This is for the zone change. There we go. That carries unanimously. Now for the development plan. I would like to motion that we approve PLN MJDP 23-54 with the conditions proposed by staff striking number seven, the sign off on the US Postal Service kiosk location. and adding that the plan denote cross-access to the two parcels to the east. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Mr. Mickler. Second by Mr. Polk. Mr. Owens. We've got number 13 of the discussion. Should we be removing that? Removing number 13. All righty, is there any discussion to that motion? Seeing none, we can vote. And that carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. All right. Considering that we're going on three hours, the commission would like to take a ten-minute recess. Thank you. The End Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ The End We are now on page six. I'll wait for everybody. Item number three, Black Soil, Our Better Nature, LLC. Good afternoon. Daniel Crum planning staff and Mr. Chair as we are recommending approval we have not received any letters of opposition So this may be eligible for abbreviated hearing Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak in objection to this particular request? Looks like there is so staff will give the the full hearing on this so this request is PLN MAR 2319. This is by Black Soil, our Better Nature LLC. And it's going to request to rezone approximately 0.15 acres of the properties at 760 and 762 Florence Avenue from a R2 zone to a neighborhood service business B1 zone. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to utilize an existing structure and a site that had been a previously non-conforming commercial use in order to establish a grocery store use at this location. Staff in their review of the development notice that the applicant has placed this as an enhanced neighborhood place type and a low-density non-residential slash mixed use development type staff agrees with the applicants choice in both place type and development type with regards to public outreach the applicant has indicated that they've met several times within the process with the surrounding neighborhood to discuss the proposed project this discussions mainly centered around some questions on fencing and security on the property but the applicant can provide more details about those conversations. So looking at this subject properties we are located in very small parcels so actually I think I may be able to zoom in there we go actually very useful tool. So these two parcels are located on Florence Avenue this is out Georgetown Street between Price Road and Douglas Avenue so it's this solidly R2 area so this is an existing residential neighborhood no history of zone changes in the immediate vicinity, so a solid R2 mixed low density residential development. Zooming in a little bit closer, you can see the single family development that's kind of around and adjoining these properties. It is worth noting that this property does have a somewhat unique relationship, so there is the two parcels here. They adjoined to the rear a community garden, so there's actually this history of sort of cross access for the folks on Florence Avenue through the rear of the site through that community garden parcel. The subject properties include the singular property that has the structure as well as a vacant structure that has been demolished for a number of years. The parcel that is vacant did go before the Board of Adjustment within the past couple of years to receive variances in order to construct a single family residence. It was at that time that some members from the neighborhood kind of reacted to that particular request and floated the idea of reutilizing this existing parcel next door as a grocery store again. It historically has operated commercially, so the structure that you're seeing before you here is the view as it stands today, but up until as far back as the 60s has been a sort of convenience store, neighborhoods-scale commercial use. This was a non-conforming use, so it continued to operate until it closed. And so in order to place a new commercial use at this location, the proposed grocery store requires a zone change as that previous use has been discontinued. So this is the view of the subject property. Here is a view of Florence Avenue, a fairly standard local residential roadway. It does have existing sidewalks as well as several transit stops designated in the vicinity. So extremely well connected to transit with existing pedestrian networks. The applicant, in conjunction with this request, and we'll speak on it after Mr. Barton talks about the development plan, is requesting a variance. So this adjoining both current properties, the property at 760 and the property adjoining at 758, currently have residential zoning. However, when the applicant rezones this property, the subject property with this request, it is going to create a need for zone-to-zone screening. So this area in the middle is required to have a landscape buffer. The applicant has submitted a variance in order to reduce this waiver because constructing it and placing it in that current spot is not feasible. So staff will address that as its own presentation at the end, but as a part of the applicant's request in order to make the rezoning work as proposed. This is the view of the adjoining property on Roosevelt. So this is the community garden with the pedestrian access path that leads to the subject properties shown to the rear. So there's that cross access that is occurring between those properties. and that relationship between the two and the fostering those connections was one of the things that staff looked at in this request. Here we have a development plan for the subject property, largely unchanged. So the subject property has the existing structure. It will be utilized. The only real fundamental changes are going to be the removal of the repurposing of the parking areas. Currently, it's sort of a substandard parking area that backs out directly into Florence Avenue. that will be converted into a patio or just open space in general for use as the patrons, so they will not provide any on-site parking that will be accommodated on street. They have a pedestrian path shown that leads to the corner where it connects with the community garden. They are designating this as gated and open during business hours. Staff had some initial concerns about trying to keep that as open as possible, but based on the feedback the applicant provided from the neighborhood meeting, the neighborhood in that meeting kind of identified the rear portions of that property sort of as a security concern. So they wanted to make sure that after hours, after dark, that that was sort of secured and that wouldn't be sort of a cut through or a place to kind of congregate. So based on our information, the neighborhood actually would like this to kind of remain as proposed by the applicant. They do show a portion in the rear for seasonal events or markets to kind of supplement the existing grocery store use, but otherwise are maintaining that existing structure and that existing relationship. Within review of the comprehensive plan, we found that this request meets kind of a number of goals, objectives, and policies. So it's reutilizing this existing essentially commercial building. It's at a scale and a scope that is appropriate for the residential development. It provides for pedestrian connections and provides a neighborhood serving and a neighborhood oriented use. There are no grocery stores within the immediate vicinity and is somewhat close to a food desert based on the access there. With regards to the development criteria, once again, the number of changes to the site are sort of minimal, but they do speak to a couple of things, especially reducing the auto-centric nature, So removing the onsite parking, providing pedestrian connectivity, utilizing existing structures, these are all criteria that are being met with this request. Staff is recommending approval of this request. We find it's in agreement with the goals and objectives of the 2045 plans as it's providing this neighborhood use, providing multimodal options, and is encouraging safe interactions within the neighborhood. We find that it's in agreement with the 2018 policies for many of the same reasons, providing these accessible neighborhood features, providing connectivity, and utilizing kind of pedestrian-oriented type development. We find the justification is in agreement with the site design, building form, and location, transportation and pedestrian connectivity, and green space environmental health requirements as well. As always, it's subject to the approval of the corresponding development plan that Mr. Martin will present, and then I will finish the presentation afterwards with a discussion on the variance that's associated for the property perimeter screening. But with that, I would be happy to entertain any questions you have of staff regarding the zoning component of that. Thank you, Mr. Kroon. Any questions? Thank you. I think we have. I'm sorry, Mr. Wilson. First of all, this is a wonderful proposal. I think this idea of a grocery store is absolutely wonderful. But did you all talk to the community about if that grocery store, let's say the owner hit the lottery ticket and decided to move off somewhere, what would happen to that particular property then? Could we in some way or form protect the community against any type of undesirable things which is not in a condition with the community to protect it, make sure it stayed healthy? Yeah, sure. So from kind of responding that to a couple different angles there. So we have, as you will hear later on this evening, several changes that are kind of planned for the B1 zone to really kind of reinforce it as sort of a neighborhood-oriented neighborhood-serving use. We have received some questions from the community through some email about what happens if this is sold. So if the zone was established without any conditional zoning restrictions, the B1 zone as written would be allowed at this location. It is absolutely the Planning Commission's prerogative if they think that any uses in the B1 are inappropriate to kind of establish those conditions. Most of the conditions that we look for restricting as the current is kind of currently written really depend more on the auto-centric nature of some of the uses. So in essence, the small nature of the site precludes some of the more, I guess, nuisance-ness B1 uses that are currently permitted. So kind of with the size and the orientation of the site, and it's really not applicability with some of the uses we see removed in conditional zoning, It's something that we can absolutely take a look at, and we have copies of the B1 zoning ordinance as it's currently written. If the Planning Commission would like to take a look at those and add any conditions, they absolutely can. But there's no existing conditional zoning in the area to match, and so staff felt that the current B1 zoning would be appropriate, but can add that as necessary. Yeah. Obviously the question is can we see what those conditions are? Yes. What else have you got? Let me. Thank you. So Mr. Martin is handing out the B-1 section of the zoning ordinance as it's currently written. you will be hearing momentarily some changes proposed to that, so that's the current list of uses there. So if from neighborhood feedback or URL's wishes, you wish to add conditional zoning there to buffer any particular type of uses or restrict uses, that is absolutely in your power. All right. Any other questions? Yeah, just a question. I mean, what we're approving today, what you're talking about would not be retroactive. So if we need to protect it today, we need to do it today rather than, do you understand my question? So whenever the property comes in, so this is a final development plan. So any future redevelopment of this site would have to come back before you. They would be judged for the zoning ordinance at that time of application. So until the language here is the proposed ZODA that you will hear kind of coming up, until that is adopted by council in whatever form, then the current zoning ordinance that you have in front of you is what we would use. Okay. Yes, sir. Just one clarification. Has the community seen this? Staff wasn't present at the, I mean, that's just a copy of the zoning ordinance at large. Staff wasn't present at the neighborhood meeting, so I can let the applicant speak to kind of what, and if those conversations came up during their meetings with the community. but I think the conditional zoning restrictions has sort of been a more recent kind of conversation. Thank you. All righty. Thank you. Daniel? Mr. Martin? Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the development plan is at the bottom of page 7 on your agenda. Item C, this is a major development plan, 23-70. Galbraith subdivision, lots 19 and 20. And this is a final development plan. This is not a preliminary. This is a final. And it's associated with this own change for the very simple reason, and you do see these occasionally, and that is that they're not proposing any physical changes to the structure or the site of any significance. They are going to remove existing concrete in the front where there's been parking. They are, the easement, the pedestrian easement that exists will be improved through the property as well. But with that, there are no physical changes. So they're going forward with a final development plan that will allow them to move quicker on renovations to the building and occupying the building and getting the grocery up and running to serve the neighborhood. There is a landscape requirement around the perimeter, as Daniel mentioned, and they cannot meet it physically at all along this area. So that's the area where they're asking for the waiver or the variance on the landscaping that Daniel discussed with you. The conditions that you see on this plan that are on your agenda are very standard sign-off conditions for a development plan, and of course it references the variance. There was a discussion item, and Daniel brought it up. Again, that's the access from the community garden through this property. Staff has discussed this with the applicant. They have stated their preference and that it's the neighborhood's preference as well, that it be gated and not be open except during business hours. The proposed seasonal activities, that was just a little discussion about to what extent would they develop the rear of that property for other activities, really thinking about neighborhood-oriented kind of activities. And the discussion that we had there is that they don't really have any set plans or anything like that to do something that might have a perceived nuisance value, like an outdoor concert, for instance, that sort of thing. So those were two things that were discussed at your subdivision committee. And if you all are happy with what you hear today, you can obviously strike those from the approval of the development plan should you choose to. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for Mr. Martin? Yes, Mr. Mickler. The pedestrian access, is that an existing access easement? Or how does that look today, I guess? It's gravel through what Daniel showed you. I think it's mostly just a goat path through the subject property. And it's just been used for a long time? It has, yes. Yes, apparently so. and yeah I mean I can see the path on Google Earth here when I'm looking at it I haven't been to the site I guess how many people from the neighborhood were involved in the discussion on closing that You'll have to discuss that with the applicant. The staff was not privy to the neighborhood discussion on actually closing that. I certainly, I guess my question is I'm kind of torn on that because I do have respect for the applicants' desires and also people's concerns from the neighborhood. There's also quite a few people who live on Roosevelt, and that would mean that they only had one way out as a pedestrian from that loop instead of what they've been able to do for probably many years, which is two ways out. So that's a concern of mine. It's certainly understandable. Staff actually had the same concern in our discussion with the applicant. All righty. If there are no further questions for Mr. Martin, we will hear from Daniel regarding the variance request. Daniel Crum, planning staff again. The last component of this is a variance. So as a consequence of changing this from an R2 to a B1, suddenly the provisions of 18 article 18-3a1 apply so this is talking about how we handle when business or office zones are adjacent to these residential zones essentially it requires a area 15 feet adjacent to those common boundaries along with required plantings that can be reduced down to five feet with the inclusion of a six foot high fence wall or earth mound. However, at this particular location, there is not five feet. Actually, I should be able to zoom in. So the existing structure, shown in red with the property line shown in black. If you look just above, you can see the proposed tree buffer as it circles the rest of the site. But in order to comply with the landscaping requirement in this area, would require demolishing part of this building. This request went to the landscape review Committee who recommended approval of the variance with no additional conditions. The applicant in their discussion of this noted the location of the existing structure, the fact that any plantings that would be placed there would have a reduced likelihood of ever succeeding, and it would also impact the adjoining property as I believe the driveway for the adjoining use actually encroaches somewhat over. So those considerations were brought forth. Staff in their review of the application, we found that the the variants won't adversely affect the public health safety or welfare as this is operated for over 50 years without landscaping those areas between what has been a commercial use and an existing residential use and that any landscaping in such an area would be unlikely to thrive or grow to maturity. We found that there were some special circumstances regarding the lot shape and the existing development and found that removing those structures would be a hardship that would unreasonably restrict the applicant's use of the property. Staff recommends approval of this subject to the conditions that you see up on screen, standard conditions that follow any type of zone change related variance. So all necessary approvals, the approval of the zone and the approval of all permits and the corresponding development plan. With that, staff recommends approval and we'd be happy entertain any questions you have at this time any questions regarding the variance seeing none thank you daniel we'll now hear from the applicant mr clendenin good afternoon mr chairman members of the commission and staff i'm chris clendenin I'm pleased to be here today representing the applicant, Black Soil. I'm joined by Ashley Smith, who is the president and CEO of that organization, and Mr. Barrett, Tony Barrett from Barrett Partners, who is our designer on this project. Rather than repeat everything that Mr. Crum and Mr. Morton said, I'd just like to say that they've basically done a very good job of explaining what we're trying to do here. Historically, this was a legal non-conforming use operating as a neighborhood grocery store or market. And I'd like to address, for the most part, the issues raised by Mr. Wilson and also the variants and the questions, unless you have stuff about the history of the property. We do need to get the zone change because we now have to if we're going to reinstate this. Right now it is a vacant lot on 762 and then the vacant structure on 760. The variance we need, we physically can't do, even if we erect the five-foot fence, we don't have room where the structure is to put a five-foot fence unless we tear down about two or three feet on the existing structure and then go over two feet and destroy two feet of the neighboring property's driveway, which that's it. Now, we are going to comply with it for the rest of the property towards the rear where we're able to, and there will be a fence around there, thus the issue with respect to the gate. I think Mr. Mickler raised a question about how many. we've been in contact with the neighborhood association especially the applicant and there's been a couple of meetings and this has come up I think at the last meeting what I was informed was there was around 30 people and if I'm wrong I apologize but I'm under the impression that it was unanimous that they don't want the gate open during non-business hours right now it has been historically used as a cut-through and I understand that and I understand the objective about connectivity in the neighborhood but right now there's really nothing there other than the vacant lot and the vacant structure there's a concern not only by the applicant about the safety of the store once we get it operating but the neighborhood has expressed a concern that at times there is some illegal activity that goes on back between the adjoining properties on that cut through and they don't want to facilitate that and we want to do what we want to do with respect to working with the staff but we also want to respect what the neighborhood wants and what the feedback we've gotten is overwhelmingly we do not want the gate open and access during non-business hours I'll have miss Smith because I am I think it's important that you hear at least briefly what black soil is about when considering this zone app zoning application and the development plan so she'll be able to better address when the hours of operation will be but my understanding is it's going to be open seven days a week from like seven in the morning until seven or eight in the evening that's my understanding that may be close maybe incorrect she can address that when she's able to speak as mr. Crum mentioned this came about when I was here about ten months ago in front of the Board of Adjustment and I was asking for a variance based on the weird way the structure encroached on from one lot over to the other and the property owners intention at that time was to try to build a single family house on the vacant lot. So we needed a variance to have more room to build that. The Neighborhood Association approached us about could you consider reopening the store and i took it to the property owner my client and i was informed that black soil was involved my client was very excited about partnering up with that organization and so that's how this came about the first meeting we had was in february of this year and we've had subsequent things and this project has basically come to fruition and we're here trying to get this done in front of all of you this afternoon. I think, and I need to address this, I think the Neighborhood Association is in agreement with Mr. Wilson that they want to restrict the use. My understanding, though, is that they want to restrict the use for B1 if that's approved to limit us to one use only which is the grocery store or nothing and I can tell you that we're more than willing to agree to some reasonable common-sense restrictions because we have no interest really in operating a liquor store or other such things that really don't fit well within the space the the property owner and the applicant are committed 100% to making this grocery store work but in the event that it doesn't there's always things that happen I don't know about the lottery scenario but I understand your point again overwhelmingly 100% committed to making the grocery store work but we don't want to be limited to to one single use in the B1. Without committing to you, my guess is that if the grocery store failed, my client would be back here asking for a zone change back to residential. However, I can't in good faith commit to that today because I don't know what will happen a year, two, three, four years from now. But, and again, we are very much open to some reasonable, common sense, zoning, conditional zoning restrictions on this for the B-1 zone change. But we can't just limit it to one, and I actually think there's some legal concerns with that that you might want to address with Ms. Jones if that actually does come up. Maybe it won't, but my understanding is that that's what the neighborhood is going to ask you today. So with that, I'll conclude my remarks. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I hope I've addressed most of your concerns so far. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions? Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much for your presentation. Yes, sir. And I can understand why you wouldn't want to restrict it too much. You want it to be appropriate to the community and what would enhance the community as such. But going to a B-1 does open up a lot of things. Now, some of the things the staff has indicated wouldn't be appropriate. Probably you could get a funeral parlor. You could use that in a B-1. I don't see that being the case. but the one that I did see down here means private clubs and that might be something you may want to take a look at in terms of what that means in terms of that is applicable to B1 and I say that because if someone came in and wanted to put a private club in they wouldn't have to come back here to consult with us maybe with a development plan or I may be wrong about that would they have to come back here? If they had a B1, if they wanted to put a private club in, would they have to come back to us? So based on what I'm hearing here is that you may want to look these things over very carefully in terms of what might be acceptable to the community vis-a-vis, which would be undesirable. But I appreciate your flexibility. I just don't want you to get trapped. I understand. And the reason, I don't mind telling you, I used to live in that neighborhood. Okay. I used to live on Childs Avenue. Well, I definitely understand and I appreciate I appreciate the candor and I definitely understand I mean specifically to that I think it would probably Matter to my client and to myself as how a private club is defined Again, we have no problem with conditional zoning restrictions that make sense we just I don't want to limit the property to just one be one use that's all and I hope that you all understand that my clients gone to some reasonable but considerable expense to try to get this zone change to make this grocery store happen and if it didn't work out which we were absolutely certain and committed to making it work out but you know things happen you never know so we don't want to just box herself in to either it has to be this or it's nothing that's all and I hope that you all understand that alrighty do we have any other questions thank you mr. Clendon thank you at this time do we we go to public comment now am I right Any members of the public who would like to speak on this application, you're most welcome to now. Please approach the podium and state your name. Good afternoon. My name is Henry O. Kenyon Sr. I live at 467 Douglas Avenue. one time I recited in lot 17 before it was combined with lot 18 on Florence Avenue. Now, I've listened to people talk about going changing. I can remember there was a store at Elm and Charles Avenue that belonged to a George O'Rear who was changed to R1. I can remember Georgetown and Elm Street which was Holloway's changed from B1 to a R1. So these things come about as the future evolves. So I don't understand why we cannot go ahead and have this R2 because it benefits the neighborhood. because if you've listened to the news lately of contaminated food, Listeria, and our contaminated strawberries coming from other countries, here we have a chance for the people in this area to have uncontaminated local food grown and distributed salt. That's why I'm here with this petition to get this building converted to black soil for an R2 for special use soil. Because if it goes to be one in the future, they can come in and do whatever they want in this area. And that will destroy this whole street area. See, this is a great neighborhood. But for anyone to come in and start building apartment buildings will destroy this whole neighborhood. So I'm here tonight to ask you all to please consider Black Salt petition to go to R2. So we as elders, people, and people in the area, because it's three miles from the nearest store. We have to go out of my area to get great food. So Black Salt's gonna come in and do local stuff and give us local produce. And I'm saying this is a great chance for this city and this area to show their improvement that they want to better utilize food for the people that are in the elderly area because this way we won't have contaminated food. I don't know why in 1960, I don't really remember they started giving animals antibiotics and so now we have super super bugs simply because someone decided to give these animals so it's in our bodies in the fat of our bodies so we need to counter that we need fresh produce and so this is a great start for everybody in this area to get local great food. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Do we have any other individuals who would like to comment? Hello. Rolanda Wolfhard, Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association. Take those pictures this morning. That's what you were asking about, the gravel road. We're in support of black soil because we've been working with black soil for a good while and when we I was the one that came to the meeting to say hey that this can be the store with black soil in it we're working on being a blue zone community which is bringing healthy neighborhood activities and things into the neighborhood and this is part of it by bringing fresh fruits and vegetables and meat and connecting with local farmers to bring it into the neighborhood we're yes we want the fence we really do the neighborhood wants the fence in the back also um and that i took side pictures so you can see where it is the better picture where you can see where you can't get the variance in there if she does she's they're cutting off the neighbor's fence um but we need the fence in the back side and around and we're all we are asking for conditional use for the b1 if it has to be a b1 looking at a pawn shop coming there lick store gas station according to your b1 that is a lengthy process of stuff that can go into the neighborhood and we're scared and we have rice we sow because we have seen several things our neighborhood has been is getting to the point it's been gentrified so rightfully so the neighborhood is scared anything can happen we yes we wanted to be the grocery store are we trying to say grocery store only yes but we are working we willing to work with within we can have a daycare center there we're fine with that because we got kids in the neighborhood church we got eight churches won't anymore in the neighborhood I mean it's but you know there are certain things we're willing to work with to get in especially get black soil in there and we really appreciate the mr. Chris's client for saying yes to the idea of even though I was a little bit pushy on this but it benefits the community and that's what we want but we do need some conditions because anything can happen and we just want to protect our neighborhood in the long in the long run since this sticks with the with the area somebody could come back in and change I mean put whatever they in and no we don't want a club we don't need another one and thank you thank you so much Good evening. Don't start me at Chris. I've got to find my notes. I'm sorry. Okay. Hi, my name is Ashley C. Smith, and I live at 1831 Raleigh Road. I am the CEO of Black Soil KY, and I'm speaking in support of the zone change and the variance for 760 and 762 Florence Avenue. Blacksville KY serves as the hands and feet of rural Kentucky farmers reaching deep into urban communities across the state specifically the Georgetown Street neighborhood and corridor since 2020 serving over 2,500 families. Guided by the passion care and leadership of Rolanda Woolfork who you just heard from we have been brought we have been lucky to bring forth a multi-faceted approach to eliminating food insecurity improving social cohesion and promoting community health through black soil ky pharmacy markets this food oasis sustains kentucky farmers as they grow and produce local meats seasonal produce and other farm goods we echo the excitement and hope for this project while simultaneously raising awareness to restrict the types of uses of the B1 zone that allow businesses like guns and liquor stores that seek to jeopardize the community's long-term goals of immovable access and sources to healthy and nutritious foods in their communities. We are actively living the undesigning the red line through this project, and we thank you in advance for your approval of this change. Thank you. Thank you. I think this is terrific, and I've been... It just won't go well. I think it's terrific. I'm Amy Clark at 620 at Castle Road, and I've been following it since the BOA. I got together with them. I've known the Georgetown Street folk for a while. And I just really appreciated Mr. Wilson's concern at the subcommittee for what exactly a wide range of B1 uses might be or might mean. I really have three questions, and one of them I really appreciate Mr. Michler noticing that, it's been used by the public as a right-of-way for as long as anyone can remember. And acknowledging and wishing to heed the neighbor's wishes to close that, I wonder if it's possible for the public to gate it and restrict the hours of it, but let it still have that prescriptive easement, if you will, as a public right-of-way. I appreciate the staff's concern about closing what is a public right-of-way by all reports. Another question I have, if one could just clarify, are these subdivided lots, are there two lots with a building across the lot line? And should they be in a final development plan? I didn't see the subdivided lot, but I haven't seen that they've been consolidated. So I wondered about that. And then finally, my question would be, I totally agree that really it's the fresh food at the center of the neighborhood, a neighborhood that needs that, that's important. That's what everyone is after and wants to support. And I do agree that a wider range of B1 uses becomes problematic. It's also hard to decide. and gosh, what if you cut off the wrong one and then you want it back later and so on. My question is just this. Is there a compelling need to change the zone at all? Because it was R2 all those years and used as a store for years and years and years. And it hasn't been used for anything different since. It hasn't been advertised for anything different since. And I really question whether the existing non-conforming use has lapsed at all. And what people said was, well, it's grown up with the neighborhood as a store. It fits the neighborhood. The neighborhood fits the store. The store fits the neighborhood. And to me, it sounds like a perfect legally non-conforming use. And then there wouldn't be a concern about limiting the uses over much in granting a zone change to be one and then saying, but most of these uses won't fit that neighborhood because it's a narrow street. It's kind of in the, the access isn't great. That's really all I have to say. So a lot of questions, but great idea. Thank you. All right. Mr. Clendenin, do you have anything further? I did want to clarify that as far as the the sidewalk it will be the gate will be unlocked and open when the store is open it's not going to be permanently shut I didn't I wasn't sure if everybody was clear on that based on some of the comments I heard so during business hours there'll be you know access to and from it's just like I said the neighborhood is requested that it be locked and shut when the store is not open that's number one number two like I said the goal here is to make the store operational and the store success I think that everyone the Association black soil everybody's in favor of this we're going to do everything we can to make it successful but like i said in the event that we don't we don't want everyone worrying about this is going to go up and this is going to go up i understand the concern if we have some specific things that you want to to restrict the ability of the property to be if the zone to be zone change is granted then i'm willing to listen my client's willing to listen and i'm sure we can agree as long as they're reasonable and make sense but again just limiting it to one use i don't think i we can agree to i don't think that's reasonable also don't know if it's even legal but you know we can cross that bridge if we come to it all right thank you very much all right let's yes sir Tony thank you Tony Barrett with Barrett partners I just wanted to follow the lead of Fred and ask that the post office condition be removed number 11 there that we're a continuing operating single address and I don't think there'll be any issue with okay Thank you. I know that some of the commissioners probably have questions for the applicant or comment. Well, I have a question, one question for the applicant and maybe also staff. I feel like I'm satisfied with the discussion that we've had on the gate, But I did wonder if you would be, I'm a little concerned about the language gate open only during business hours because thinking into the future at some point the character or the issues in the neighborhood may change. I'm wondering if you'd be open to changing that gate open during business hours. Gate open during business hours? to indicate like you've indicated that the gate will be open during business hours but it does not necessarily preclude or something else is going on that the gate be open I don't have an issue with that I guess my question would also be to then staff I was just concerned about the language gate open only during business hours there's a gate that would be that would be I I I i like it stating that it's open during business hours okay so we can agree to that mr poole so are we going to attempt to identify the uh uses that would be acceptable in b1 zone This is a process question. Is it possible to have the neighborhood black soil and the applicant sign some sort of agreement or covenant that could be attached to without having to slow down this process that we could move ahead and that could be added to the subdivision plan or something like that? It's not going to be a conditional zoning restriction if it's done that way. only you all can recommend the council can impose conditional zoning restrictions they want to agree to something different or some type of an agreement that might be possible but it's not going to be it's not going to have the weight of a conditional zoning restriction unless it's imposed as part of the zone changed and i would also go ahead and answer this one for you you cannot restrict it to one use if you're gonna you know the a zone is listed as a zone for a variety of uses if if it's to the degree that you believe that it needs to only be restricted to one use then maybe that zone is not appropriate so you can't do that can I ask my question differently what's the most expeditious way to move this project forward and allow the the neighborhood and black soil and the property owner to reach some agreement so we don't have to have another hearing is there a way to do that I mean and when you're talking about limiting uses I don't know that there is an expeditious way to do that it so that it will have the authority to make sure those are imposed well I I'm I guess this is a this is a unique one because a lot of the ones that we have been banning on every single B1 zone change are hopefully in the next agenda item about to be removed from the B1 use so I guess the question that we're asking ourselves is are we going to list those maybe one last time mr. nickel Mr. Wilson, do you have any lists that you had in mind before this hearing? No, I didn't because I had heard, I mean, the presentation at the subcommittee was something that kind of raised an alert. that there are some things that the community would not find desirable going in. And I kept thinking, well, if they're the ones who have some specifics that they had, they should pass that along, and then we could make that kind of exception. Now, right off the top, I'm sitting here looking at half these things couldn't get in there anyhow. I mean, you've got driving ranges and things like that. But then I look up the word, when I see the word private club, that does bring an alert because I don't know what that means. And when I hear private club, it means music. It means lights. It means parking. And that's what gets me a little bit concerned along those lines. Now, there's some other things in here. For example, like I said, I don't see how in a way you put a funeral parlor in there, and I don't see how you could do some other things that they've listed here. And I think the staff recognized that most of this stuff couldn't get in there anyhow just because it's not practical. But I have not looked over this enough to know if there's anything other than that one thing that just stood out at me to note. There's a thing in here that says satellite dish antennas. I don't know what that means as such. So I don't know how to approach this. And that's what I'm trying to do is just to simply say, I think what we're all saying, sir, we think this is a great project. We'd like to move forward, but just want to make sure that we move forward in a way that protects the community they don't have to come back years later saying you all approved this and you didn't think through this and what have you and i don't know how to do that in the time frame that we have here i don't know how what the process would be well i do understand that concern if if i may i have looked over the permitted uses and accessory uses in the current b1 now somebody threw out pawn shops we couldn't do a pawn shop even if we wanted to in order to do a pawn shop right now we would have to have that grandfathered in with a per with a permit from like 1990 and so we we don't have the ability to do a pawn shop now so that wouldn't be a restricted use or that we would even need to address uh the way that the zoning ordinance is currently written but if If somebody wanted to say we'd like to put a conditional restriction on pawn shops right now, I can agree to that now. If somebody wants to say no liquor stores, okay, fine, we'll agree to that now. If we have five or six, even ten, that makes sense, we can do that today. I'm pretty sure, depending upon what they are. But I agree with Ms. Jones. I understand Ms. Worf's suggestion. It just doesn't have the enforceability of the weight of the planning commission restricting it. And so it's really up to all of you to say, suggest these are the restrictions we want to place on your zone change, I think. And I'm happy to listen to what those are and say, yes, I can agree to those, or I have an issue with that. Can we discuss it? I'm going to add to Mr. Wilson's comment. We had a meeting about this in our zoning subcommittee hearing, and I was expecting this to be completed, or at least the applicant to come and make some suggestions on some items that they would like to have restricted. Otherwise, we're in a situation where we're doing the work right here on the fly. And I don't think that's appropriate or fair to us. There are ways where it's done where you call just nuisance, you know, nuisance uses. But I don't think we want to sit here and determine what the uses, you know, nuisance uses are. I was expecting you all to come with that for us because we want this project to be successful. And that's what we're all here to do. but we've got neighbors that have valid concerns about what can happen. How can predatory businesses come into their neighborhood? And that's what we're seeing right now. That's a potential for if we approve it as recommended by staff. So I'm looking for you to make some sort of movement. Okay, I understand, and I think that's a fair statement. And just in my defense, I was not made aware of someone requesting conditional rezoning restrictions on this property until yesterday. And so had that been brought to my attention before by the neighborhood, and I'm not shifting blame here, then I probably would have been able to address your concern. But I do understand your point. I'm happy to if you if you all want to have a brief recess for five minutes I'm happy to come back with a whole list up to up to all of you may I suggest a continuation until December 14 because I think five minutes is probably not adequate to address this. The Planning Commission has time to do that. All right. Do any commissioners have any further comment or question? If not, we could certainly entertain a motion. I had a question. So continuing this until December, what kind of position does that put black soil in and what's the impact there? I know you've probably got some plans already going. Thank you for that question. So if we are going to have a continuance into December, that then pushes this project launching. We were hoping to get all of the construction completed by May so we can hit our June peak season at the latest. Our goal would actually be to open up Q2 at the very beginning of that and say, what is that, April? It's really pressing. We also have grant money that expires, and we have to expend it down. so again to echo we understand that the restricted uses in regards to the long-term sustainability protection against predatory businesses is essential we uplift the voices of our neighbors and ensuring that we hear them i believe we've stated our case strongly I'm not the attorney. I'm just the applicant. So I will be flexible, whatever the commission needs, as well as whatever the neighborhood needs. Were there any restrictions that you had in mind? So clearly, obviously, the liquor store, that's one of probably the easiest to fit in that very densely compacted space. wanda i'll also defer to you if there were any additional uses that you wanted to speak on restricting she's correct on the liquor store pawn shop and the um adult entertainment club um the religious because we got enough of those um all right we have on the other one they got so many oh they got so many um the private club and the liquor store the only thing we're number 18 with the brew pub that's a concern with that because it's 40 something of these things and the automobile household appliances because that leads to a lot of stuff that can be in there already I'm sorry I don't mean to interrupt you we have two commissioners wanting to contribute something to the discussion at this moment Mr Owens I you know I I feel that you all need to talk I mean you we can't do this on the fly I mean to get the outcome I think that we all like to have here I think it would be worthwhile to continue it and I know I understand your problem about your construction but what is it three weeks away the 14th is three weeks away is that right so it gets you know it gets you you know here under your your 1231 deadline so I just I just think that it would be a better outcome for everyone for you all to me and we continue this I also want to speak to the okay I'm sorry i would concur with that with the fact also that you know everyone you all need to meet with the staff because they've got a good idea as to what is allowable and so forth but i'm sorry we we can't do this on the fly you know there's there's there's 48 different things that we'd have to hammer out and hash out. So, you know, I'm game for a continuance. Can I raise one concern? Having been on grant funding before, I know things like spend down have to be taken care of. As a compromise in the middle, could we postpone for part of this hearing, ask those people who are interested in this question to go out in the hall, come back in later today with a proposed list and pick this back up. Can we do that? You've got about 35 minutes left. It's not practical to do that. I think I respect the opinion of the other commissioners that think that this should have been a little bit more prepared with the list, considering how common it is. But I also think that this is a highly constrained site. The B1 is our most restricted business zone that we have, and most of the noxious uses are either not allowed at all or are already a conditional use that would require another application. And I think what they're trying to do is a big asset, and it is in a building that has been operating as a business for many, many years, years and they're just bringing it into compliance. And, you know, I respect the wish for a continuance, but I'm prepared to vote to approve this today. Okay. Okay, the chairman has given me a chance to do another compromise here. What if we, and I guess I'm talking to the commissioners as well, could go ahead and approve what we need to approve with the proviso, with the stipulation, because we always put in these things, denote or discuss or whatever, have that discussion take place between staff and you all, and you all can submit that a little bit later. You can't do that because you're trying to, you're imposing, you are imposing a conditional zoning restriction if you limit the use that is permitted in the zone. And that is a provision that is statutory and we are required to follow the statute and we are the only jurisdiction in Kentucky that can do that. And in fact, you all aren't imposing it, you're recommending it. The council has to impose it, so we have to send it forward. The form of an ordinance to them is your recommendation, and we can't denote it later on. If we do that, it won't be a conditional zoning restriction, which is what you're trying to accomplish. Okay. Mr. Jones, to that end, then, what we should do, maybe, based on what you just said, is either approve or disapprove what we got here. You either approve what you have in front of you or you continue this hearing. this decision doesn't have to be made until the 31st of December. You have that time to meet the 90 days. Bring it back. Don't have a full hearing because you continue it and just discuss those items and impose them at that time if that's what you choose to do. But those are the options. Commissioner Borksdale. Okay, so my question is, I know when things are to be done by December 31st, it doesn't mean that you have until the 31st to put all the things in motion to meet that date. And so that's what I'm concerned about. I'm looking at Ms. Smith's face and I'm not feeling that the 14th gives her adequate time to do what's needed prior to the end of the year to make this project. Well, those are two different things. The planning commission's 90 day period to act on an application expires December 31st. What their time frame is to do what they need to do may be different than that. I'm just saying in terms of, if 90 days under the statutory provision for the planning commission to act was going to expire at the end of this week, you wouldn't have an option to continue anything. But that is an option. I don't know how that correlates with their deadlines. Okay. So given that, I want to see this happen. I would hope that maybe between Black Soil, the neighborhood, and the property owner that they can work out something. that the property owner you know says that hey i will not you know i i you know i won't bring down those sorts of businesses here and you know because there's no way a private agreement because there's it sounds like there's nothing we can do with regard to making it you know restricting the uses on b1 property you know b1 zone i know i i i i get what you're saying and i you know i think we all want to see this happen and then and i think the current property owner wants to see this project you know go forward and be successful but once this zone is in place then if the property changes then all these uses are open you know it opens up these this list of uses that we're we've got before us right now and i think that's the concern of the of the neighborhood p mr whistle to ask mr jones a question i don't quite understand this what's the difference between putting in restrictions today versus having a continuance and coming back doing it and can we in other words what we're talking about doing is coming back as a continuance with the restrictions that potentially would come from the neighborhood why is it it can be done then but can't be done i mean well because there's there's like 45 principal uses i don't know how many accessory and how many so you're talking about right at this moment you're going to determine which one of those you're going to restrict based on based on nothing because you have nothing from anyone else in the room. That's true. So that's the concern. You also have to be out of this room by 6 p.m. because the Urban County Council has a meeting tonight. We don't have a choice about that. So that's part of the problem as well. But in terms of, that's the rationale behind that. I mean, extending the time only allows you all to have time to consider and for them to have time to propose to you what they think would be best restricted. But alternatively, you can adopt what's in front of you today without restriction as well and move it forward. So that's kind of where you are. Gotcha. Thank you. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir, Ms. Clendor. If it will help the commission, I'm happy to agree to continue this to the 14th. If that's what you all want, then we're happy to do that. But at that time, we will facilitate a meeting with the Neighborhood Association and we'll try to come to an agreement on restrictions and that you all can vote on. I hope that that is agreeable to everybody at this time. I want to talk with our group right here. Theoretically, we have the ability to make a motion, approve or deny the motion, then goes to council, council can add, remove restrictions or create restrictions. Is that correct? If council hears from the community, they can make what steps they want to limit the uses. If you all send them forward a recommendation in the form of an ordinance that does not have restrictions and they want to add restrictions, they will have to schedule a public hearing because your recommendation will not include that. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Clinton. Would anybody like to make a motion? Sure. Yeah, I think from what everybody said, I think everybody wants to see this move forward. However, the applicant needs to hammer out some thoughts and ask the conditional restrictions that's acceptable to them. bring it back to us. So my motion is going to be for continuance of black soil, our better nature, LLC, Zoning Map Amendment, and Galbraith Subdivision, Lot 19 and 20 Development Plan. Oh, I'm sorry. It's Plan MAR23-19, Black Soil, and our better nature. My recommendations be for continuance of that, the variance, and the associated development plan. Oh, I'm sorry. to yes the uh december 14th date all righty and thank you and we have a second from commissioner meyer if there's any no further discussion we can vote all righty that motion carries thank you thank you mr duncan Mr. Chair, you don't know how it pains me to ask you to postpone the ZODA, because the staff has worked very hard on this, and we have a room full of people who are here to speak about this. And I apologize to them for inviting them, and for those who even had suggestions to make, that they've been here for four hours and they're going to be turned away. But we did not make provisions to hold this meeting elsewhere, and we did not expect this meeting to go this long today. I ask that you all postpone the growth management ZODA to the December 14th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Is there any discussion or motion? So moved. All righty. Do we have a second to Mr. Poles? Thank you, Mr. Wilson. All those in favor of postponing the discussion of PLN ZODA 23-6 to our December 14th hearing, do you need a hand vote, Bill? It was Mr. Poles made the motion. Second. Second. Mr. Wilson, seconded. All righty, Mr. Duncan, do we have anything else? Mr. Chair, as a- Could we- Mr. Chair, as a reminder, there is a public hearing in November 30th for the comprehensive plan. So we'll be back in this room at 1.30 on Thursday, November the 30th. We wish you all a terrific Thanksgiving. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. If there's nothing else, we are adjourned. Thank you.