I know. You're fine. No. Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn. Okay. We don't have quorum, so there will be no decisions today. Yeah. I did. I'm taking a plate around so that Robin don't ask any questions today so we can get out of here. Anybody want to donate? How much you need, Robin? Well, it's now 1.30, September 5th, 2024. Welcome, everyone, to the zoning committee meeting. first on the agenda is plnmer 24-13 staff and this uh i'd like to introduce in case you haven't had a chance to um interact with him before um this is mr james mills um and so this will be his uh kind of first zoning case so he's he's he's been um working on short-term rentals with the board adjustment. So this is a break from that caseload. That has been my life since I got here in October of last year. So good afternoon, James Mills, planning staff. I am going to talk to you all about the zone change request by Shadeland Investments LLC for the property located at 185 Eastern Avenue. I know we all want to get out of here, but I am not as fast of a talker as Daniel is, so I apologize ahead of time. The request today is to change the property at 185 Eastern Avenue from a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone. The place type is a second tier urban and the development type is a medium density non-residential. The purpose for this is that they are seeking a zone change in order to continue a long-standing non-conforming use and construct an addition to the building which is necessary for with a zone change. So the location as you can see is just outside of downtown. As you can tell we We have Vine Street, Main Street, and right over here at the intersection of East 2nd Street and Eastern Avenue is the subject property. It is about a 10 to 15 minute walk from where we are now, so it's pretty close. Zoning wise, as you can tell, almost the entirety around the area of the subject property is R3 residential. This little pink down here is the downtown zoning which shows how close it is to downtown. Here's basically the site. 185 East Second Street is, or not East Second, sorry. 185 Eastern Avenue is right here. Here's East Second Street and the structure is about a two-story existing structure that's been around since probably late 1890, and they are proposing to add an addition right here to the northeast portion, northwest portion of the property. Here's the development plan showing the addition right here, and there's a little bit of an extra area out here that the applicant indicated might become open space in front for potentially a patio. Here are some renderings of what this addition and the structure will look like. And here's kind of that open space area that we kind of mentioned earlier today in the subdivision committee. So staff is recommending approval because we believe it meets the goals and objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. It promotes kind of an infill and reuse of an existing older structure that's in kind of a walkable mixed-use context. And the proposal should also meet and does meet the policies and development criteria of the 2045 comprehensive plan and with that any questions there's no questions yes yes we have the development I didn't know who was coming up just yeah miss So we do have the development plan associated with this and it shows the existing structure in that kind of gray shading here. And then it shows a proposed structure to the northwest. It shows an open space patio as well. And then this is the existing sidewalk and then existing parking lot to the rear. So there's not a whole lot of change proposed on the site in association with the site, but just the addition that was noted in the renderings. The subdivision committee this morning met and did recommend approval of the development plan with just a few corrections necessary and clarifications. Any questions? Just, I mean, with the proximity of all the residential, the B1 is now most of what would have been put on the list of conditional uses almost automatically is now not allowed. Right. comfortable with the rest of the B1 uses in this context. Yes. One other thing. They said the public engagement was August the 29th. What happened? I'll come to the mic. Yes. So Mr. Mills and I sat in on a Zoom call that was set up by the applicant with the Neighborhood Association there, it was not well attended. So essentially the neighborhood representative, the Hodges, were able to hop on the call, and so they walked them through the proposal. But they highlighted the fact that this area really does best with in-person kind of meetings, especially with some of the advanced age of some of the residents of that section of town. So it is my understanding the applicant will be going back at a regularly scheduled Neighborhood Association meeting to talk about the proposal in a little bit more depth, but really, really basic amount of kind of information at that given time. And that actually will be sort of a kind of consistent trend throughout the next couple of presentations as well, mainly Zoom meetings for the public engagement where not a ton of people were involved for various reasons. Okay, Mr. Murdoch. Thank you. John Woodall and Rory Caley for the applicant. Commissioner Wilson, just to follow up on the public engagement, the Hodges were, and I think the neighborhood are generally in favor of this, the only concern they had was there not be a retail liquor store at this location. I mean, with the zoning designation we're after, we could put some retail uses, you know, on the bottom floors, and that's a possibility maybe in the future. But really what's envisioned by the applicant is to continue to use not only the existing structure, both floors, but the new structure just for the offices like they're doing now. And so the concern was that there not be any retail liquor use at this location, and the applicants were fine with that condition. given one of our neighbors and so forth. I think Al-Anon's right there. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense to plant a liquor store next to that. So and Mr. Bowman, one of the partners of the applicant, is going to attend another neighborhood meeting at a restaurant right around the corner here soon. So but I don't expect you know after we met with the with the Hodges and talked with that we're going to have any opposition for the neighborhood because essentially we're just trying to true up what this has been for a long, long time, which is a commercial use. So, Rory. Rory S.: Almost everything on site is existing through the previous conditional uses. Screenings there, parking lots hidden behind there. I believe we'll have to add a little more fence once we get to the zone-to-zone screening, But that's part of the development plan I'm working on with Boyd and Cornette. Get the right names, yeah. All right. Thank you both. You got any questions? Anything? No? All right. Any kind of, like, since there's not a quorum, we get a bonus point, star, something like that going forward. It'll just say no decision because of quorum. No quorum. Yeah, there we go. I don't think we had anyone in. Mr. Simpson, are you here for this particular case? Just making sure. All right. Okay. So any citizens that would like to speak on this application, you can do so. All right. Okay. All right. We'll move on to the next one. That's PLNMER24-14. Yeah, this will be the subtext application, James. Yep. so ignore that case number it is actually 2414 but this is a request by subtext acquisitions LLC and this is to utilize the new zone so the corridor node zone was recently created as a result of the the UGM ZODA that overhauled a lot of our uses so this is a brand new zone aimed at sort of transit oriented development and allowing for extremely dense development So this is rezoning a number of properties on South Limestone, Prawl Street, and Montmolin, and they are seeking this rezoning in order to establish a mixed-use development, a very high-density mixed-use development. With regards to the place type and development type, with the subject properties fronting partially on South Limestone, the applicant has situated this as being a part of the corridor, and with the proposed density of over 100 dwelling units per acre, this is comfortably within the high-density category. It does have a retail component, so this is a mixed-use development, so staff agrees with the place type, development type, and zone. So here we are the subject properties, comprise a number of properties that start at South Limestone and wake their way closer into the Peraltown neighborhood. Taking a little bit closer look at the zoning, you see a mix. So the B1 and the R3 that is present in the area has been present since the comprehensive rezoning. That R1E is a little bit more recent. So this was done by the Urban County Council in order to kind of restrict uses closer in the neighborhood. Historically, this was the location of the Prawltown neighborhood, which was a African-American, historic African-American neighborhood that was established in the mid-1800s. Later as time went on kind of pressure from the university as well as some external factors Led to sort of the redevelopment of the area now. It's primarily comprised of student housing So redevelopment that has occurred at several points from the 1950s From the 1950s 1980s and on there are still several homes that are from the early 1900s Kind of occurring a little bit further back as you get closer to the railway there. So once again, this was a single-family residential area that over time has sort of shifted, but once again, pressure from the corridors and kind of how we've directed growth kind of brings us to the point where we are today. So the uses on the property here along South Limestone, currently a mix of restaurants, kind of neighborhood-scale businesses with two floors, so kind of a mixed-use type development. As you go further down, these are student houses, student apartments, primarily two-story single-family residential. And then you have the rest of the adjoining kind of Prawl Town neighborhood. Once again, a couple of existing homes of that kind of historic nature mixed in with redevelopment that's really been aimed and oriented towards serving the University of Kentucky, which is directly adjacent. As we kind of think about this site, it's important to note that there was a corridor study done for Nicholasville Road, so the Imagine Nicholasville Road, and some of the recommendations for that plan includes intensification of the corridor. It also proposes several changes, including the inclusion of bus rapid transit. So there is actually, based on the plan recommended, a potential bus rapid transit station would be located directly across from the adjoining property there. So potential improvements in the area, the applicant's justification ties really heavily into the proximity to campus, proximity to this major roadway, and the potentials to really utilize transit. We have the development plan for the subject property here. It's a little bit hard with kind of the scale and the size of this building to really get what this is showing, but we do have renderings, so I think it'll be a little bit more apparent how the site is going to function. But essentially, the first floor of the structure as it faces limestone is amenity space as well as retail. There is an interior courtyard that is open to pedestrians here that extends out to the right-of-way. The structure or the building will have an integrated parking structure of approximately 450 spaces that will be accessed from the side streets here. So Montmolin as well as Prawl Street. And so it will be accessed and be utilized almost exclusively by the residents. There will be a handful of spaces that will be there for the retail component, but almost all of it is going to be rented out to the prospective students. As far as kind of the size and the scope, I think it's best illustrated with the renderings itself. So on the limestone side, which is really the tallest side, you've got the first floor components here that are really oriented, sort of that activating that space having some retail having landscaping having kind of that open courtyard feel residential above so six stories of residential that extends all the way back on the top of the structure is a rooftop amenity space so there is amenities included on the roof as well but some of the renderings kind of give you a view of kind of how this stacks up so this will be the the tallest structure in the immediate vicinity especially in relation to the single-family kind of two-story development that's located further down on Prawl and Muntmullen. So here is the elevation from those respective streets. So as you notice, with South Limestone being here, the elevation does increase. So that parking structure is partially buried, but also comprises the interior of the structure. So as it goes closer into the neighborhood, it really is at kind of a six-story scale, which once again is still higher than what's around it, but is not nearly as egregious as sort of the front end where sort of the more intense roadway is located. So in a similar conversation that we've had on some of our more intense development, part of the conversation, I think, from the Planning Commission side is, you know, keeping that interface, how does that adapt to the context of having sort of two- and three-story development surrounding it? So the applicant should explore kind of potential in those areas for examining the height or other ways to kind of help soften that impact. But otherwise, staff is in recommending approval at this time. The corridors, as we've kind of said time and time again, are really the areas where we should look to be providing some of this high-density housing. This is going to do that in a walkable fashion that is going to be interfacing with transit, pedestrian connectivity, and other things, and will serve to provide housing that is really oriented most towards the University of Kentucky. As always, the context of how this growth should occur should do so in a way that's harmonious with the remaining Prawl Town residents there. But staff is recommending approval subject to the staff report you have in front of you. So happy to entertain any questions you have at this time. The applicant is here, and I believe Mr. Simpson is also representing a client with that as well. Thank you. Any questions before we... Yeah. Yeah, can you go back to that sort of maybe parcel map? Yeah. Can you talk just, I mean, these are real small sort of lots, right? Yeah. On this street. So the houses that are going to be, like for example the immediate house that's adjacent, this isn't sort of on a large lot. What kind of, this is I think the first zone change for this type of zone. Yes, this is the very first one. So with this sort of new real high intensity zone, how do you view or how do you all view the discussion of that intersection with an R1 sort of single family? Because we've got a direct sort of adjacency. we're you know we're not going from from this node to an r4 to an r1 or we're not going to a b1 to an r1 we're going straight from this really tall high intensity to a traditional to an r1 neighborhood with really small lots where people don't have a lot of distance between the house in the adjacency. So I guess how are, how did you all, or how, how do you all see this? Because I know with more established zones, there's a little bit more like precedence and discussion and how those intersections work. Yeah. Yeah. So this, this is sort of new territory insofar as the zone is concerned. Um, but we have seen kind of developments, um, in the past of sort of similar size or intensity. So a lot of the times what we'll see is things like step downs or, you know, using space to help buffer those. You know, the relationship is really kind of most severe with this particular parcel here. This is also impacted, but, you know, across the street, you have distance, you know, the road right of way kind of serves to help kind of space that out. But part of one of staff's kind of comments in our staff report was looking at those kind of relationships interior of the neighborhood where you do have six story adjoining. So there's multiple ways to do that. I think the applicant should provide some information on if it's feasible to step down, buffer, if there's kind of any way to address that. But at the end of the day, if we want density of any kind on the corridor, it's going to conflict in certain areas with especially kind of some of our older areas that were established first and we're kind of having to thread the needle on retrofitting it later. So understanding that those conflicts are kind of there, but there are ways that the Planner Commission can request, you know, to kind of address that. well and then just looking at that kind of tying off on the corridor like we've got a component to this sort of spatially that's like literally on the corridor but then we also have sort of a finger of it that reaches back in kind of a line into the neighborhood and I mean I don't know, but I would be interested in, because this is a long building that they're proposing. It's not like six stories. It's like a broken up. I would be interested in knowing that's on the south side. Like, what impact? You know, we talked about the history of zoning. I mean, you know, zoning sort of started with, like, not blocking out the sun in New York City completely from the street. So I would be interested in seeing how that context of that finger would impact on the south side, those other residences, as well as, like, some maybe specific examples for how these large projects that have intersected. Like I know with the Maxwell Street, they ended up coming back and stepping down around one house. Maybe adding this in some context would be helpful. And also just understanding, like, what would the shade impact of that building on the opposing side of the street be? Because it is reaching back off the corridor and it is not just a rectangular sort of building on the corridor. It's very long. All right. Ms. Wade. Thank you. So the subdivision committee again reviewed this development plan this morning. And as Daniel mentioned, it's sort of hard to understand the size and scale of the building just based on the site plan for the structure. What came up or has been discussed with the technical committee and then again the subdivision committee is there's a setback here line that appears but wasn't labeled. We understand now that, of course, with the renderings that helps, that that is a bit of an overhang for the first floor. so the first floor is eight feet back from the right-of-way line where at not the right yeah right-of-way line whereas the rest of the building is right up on the right-of-way so second floor and up it's closer to the street the first floor gives more room on the street for pedestrian movement then we also gained additional information about the renderings, which I guess are only in Daniel's section. That's okay. So the applicant did provide those since it first came in for review, and again, that gives some context to the size of the structures, but also materials and the use and fenestration along the public roads. one thing that the staff needed clarification on and what drove a recommendation of postponement was an FAR limit in the zone so the new CN zone limits the FAR to 3.5 which is quite a bit but it also allows for bonuses based on some other factors and so what wasn't clear on the site plan and again it's really hard to understand that the buildings proposed to look like that when you have this. But what wasn't specifically listed out was how they got their bonus to 3.6. So in discussions with the applicant, they've made it clear that that bonus comes because some of the parking is below grade. And they also are providing some retail, so that leads them to their bonus. But they haven't revised their development plan to denote that and include that information yet. So once that happens, and we can agree that it meets the ordinance, the staff, I think, will be ready to recommend approval. But at this point, we recommended postponement, and the subdivision committee also recommended postponement. I think what... The development plan, because of the FAR limit, and they're exceeding it, and they didn't provide enough documentation to explain how we got to that number, we felt it was important to recommend postponement until they could document how they got to the bonus. And again, I think Daniel mentioned this, and it's in the staff report, but it was 251 dwelling units, is that right? And 799 bedrooms. Okay. Yes, go ahead, Ron. I'm sure this isn't a requirement to submit, but can you go back to that rendering for a second? Yeah, that one. I mean, I'm just noting here that that is the short side on the left. Yes. and that the actual length of the building would be really long, I guess. I wouldn't say twice as long, but 40% more maybe? On that sort of one side. Right. So we, in that, you're right, visually they showed us this side of the building in the rendering, and it would be, this side of the building would be longer. They did provide, again, at this breaking point, some offset and, I guess, breaks in the facade to set back from, is that Mount Mullen? From Mount Mullen. Yeah. But we don't have a rendering of that. Yeah, thanks. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Mr. Nicholson? Thank you. Do you want to be on a particular slide? I'm on the record side. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Subtext. You know Rory Cayley. In the back, Ryan Bump and Jack Cavanaugh are here on behalf of the developers. They can also answer any questions if you have kind of questions about their product, about, you know, anything that that comes up that's not just related to zoning and the development plan. I won't go into a full kind of spiel since we have an approval recommendation and we don't have a quorum, but I'm happy to answer questions. The reason why we wanted to show this rendering is we basically wanted to start from Memorial Hall and look at that kind of unique sidewalk system that kind of T-bones at an angle into South Limestone and line up the entire building so it basically matched that. And so when you come off of it, wrong, did it again. What can I do? Basically try to line that up from a pedestrian and multimodal kind of perspective where if you look at starting from Memorial Hall, It is a direct pathway into this kind of pedestrian and bike chute into the interior courtyard for that amenity space. To the left of that chute is actually where the bike storage room would go, and so you're able to kind of pick up your bike there and head on to campus. So we did have a neighborhood meeting. It was, let's see, I believe on July 29th, there were several people from the neighborhood that attended, I believe one of which is in attendance today. Since then, we've heard from two different neighbors, one who we spoke with this morning and sat down, and another who I've traded emails with. We've offered to sit down at their kind of convenience, and we remain willing to kind of talk about anything that the neighborhood is concerned about. We believe that this development is exactly what the comprehensive plan is calling for. It is a corridor node project that is based on a heavily transit and multimodal population base. With the Imagine Lexington kind of improvements that are being basically recommended in that, the center lane of South Limestone in this location would become a bus aisle. And the transit center for that kind of bus stop in that aisle is directly in front of this location. And so we are trying to kind of tee up an intense corridor development with the exact location of future transit improvements and kind of the other improvements that are tied into the Prawl Street intersection that UK traffic engineering and the state are already working on. On the south limestone kind of front, we are basically almost doubling the existing pavement for the pedestrian improvements that are there today because anyone that has kind of walked that area certainly knows that it does feel very tight to the street. We are attempting and hoping to add street trees. There has been some debate back and forth on whether or not the different divisions would like street trees in this area. we think it's going to be very necessary. We think it softens the look. We think it provides buffer for your pedestrian. And we think we can add in certain trees that would not cause any type of visual barriers for kind of traffic conflicts. But if you have any questions, we're happy to answer. With the floor area ratio issue with TRC and subdivision, we have kind of submitted that information. We just haven't submitted an updated plan, and we anticipate doing that early next week. Who do you feel is primarily going to be built for students at the U.K.? It's student housing. Student housing for the most part? For the entirety, similar to the hub that we've had. It looks good. No, I will be particularly interested in seeing what the community has to say about this. this community, like other communities, used to be my playground. And one of the things that historically, I have to give kudos to Central Christian Church because they actually hired an executive director to do some community development in that area. So I'll be curious to know what the community thinks about this new transition. But that's it. Thank you. And to your stunt study. We will look into that. We have not done that yet, but absolutely, we'll get on that. Yeah, I'd just like to see how it affects on the other side of the street. Completely understood. I mean, there's aspects of this that I think are really positive in terms of addressing the court or, you know, I think engaging, you know, doing the overhang and coming in are good creative ways to sort of bring the building up and meet those setback requirements. I like those aspects. My concern really has to do with that long finger of the end scale and length of the building back into the neighborhood. especially as it comes directly adjacent on that one side and then potentially its impact across the street, although that's, to be honest, I think you'll find the answer to what that impact would be, and that would be the information I'm looking for on that. I do think that coming full height, full unit, straight up as close as you do is more than I'm comfortable with. Sure. And the reason that we've had to basically kind of do that is with regards to the parking structure. So... Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but I thought it was all units that far back. The parking structure was in the middle, no? Yes. And so that kind of, you know, set the height with regards to this part of... I think I'm talking about the tail. Right. Yeah, right there, Rory, where you ended, where it fattens back up at the stairs, sort of there. I mean, I think that's sort of one of my areas of, you know, discomfort with the project and in its height and proximity there to that adjacent residential single family house. And I guess the issue that the reason why we've had to kind of go that far back with the height is because of the amount of square footage that the parking structure takes up on the actual parcel for the entirety, you know, going up for the building. And so being able to afford that type of parking structure, you need to be able to provide the number of units that is called for. And that's kind of what it is, but we understand that concern. We're not mandating that you have that much parking. So while it is not mandated in the zoning ordinance anymore, it is mandated with regards to how the market functions. We are slightly above parked from what the hub is, and the hub notoriously had to get parking the day it opened and basically take up surface parking in the areas to some of the neighbors' concern. Well, sure. It also didn't have the future bus rapid transit. That's the premise of this whole zone. So, I mean, I understand that that's a benefit for the market, but then we're also here to balance the market-driven desires of your client with the balancing that intersection between this project and the neighborhood. So that's kind of where my, just letting you know where my concerns and the viewpoint lie. But I do appreciate that the part that that large parking deck is interior. So I do appreciate that. I think we're under half of what would have been required had the parking reduction ZODA not gone through. If there's nothing else, thank you all so much. Thank you. Thank you both. Mr. Simpson, I think you had a citizen with you as well. Yes, that's fine. You can come up to the podium, state your name and address. This ain't going to work. There we go. Hello, my name is Teresa Lopez, and I live on Colfax. I am speaking to express my deep concerns regarding the proposal development plans for student housing in Praultown. As a resident of Praultown, for 20 years, I've strongly opposed the construction of an eight-story student housing complex in our neighborhood. I want to continue to live there and not be interfered with more developers and people tearing down and building student housing for UK. UK takes care of its students. They need to take care of their students by locating them with all the property they have in Lexington. UK owes a lot of land. Recently, the university has purchased property, so why not develop housing on their property? Why ruin a historical African-American neighborhood? The change would drive property values in a manner that would displace long-term residents. We cherish our homes, not just the roof over our heads, but the sanctuary they provide. with an influx of commercial business and property taxes would increase, making it more difficult for families and individuals on fixed incomes to afford their home. We must prioritize the well-being of current residents over external commercial interests. Additionally, as an engagement community, we understand the need for responsible and impactful development. However, such development should enhance, not diminish, our living standards. Urban development must approach holistically, ensuring that it supports the residents' interests and fits the character of the surrounding area in which I live in. By contrast, this zone change disregards resident input, turning our once familiar welcoming neighborhood into an area that caters to outsiders rather than the families who have made this their home for generations. This is gentrification. If you all approve this zone change for an eight-story apartment, which is totally out of the character in our neighborhood, then you are signing a death warrant for the remainder of Prawl Town. Our neighborhood would be invisible. It would be another Adamstown in which UK dismantled to build the Memorial Coliseum at the expense of displacing families from their homes. Are we repeating history for complaining zone chains? Ask yourself this question. If the tables were turned and the shoe was on the other foot, then how would you feel? Would you want your neighborhood dismantled? If your housing is needed, then build it on the U.K. property if they need housing. They have all the land. They just purchased Tallyhos. They've got land. Why come into our neighborhood? With that being said, use the hubs that you already have and make sure that they get occupied. They're vacant. There's housing there. UK can work out something, but the problem is it's economical, and it's beneficial for them and their pockets, but is our community being watched, and is it being protected? Prawl Town is my neighborhood. I hope that you have heard and listened closely with an open heart and a vision to picture and a conscious mind to understand how this can affect our community and people's lives. We are asking for no zone change, and we are demanding to keep and leave our community untouched. I thank you for my time, for letting me speak, and I hope that you hear what I'm saying for our community. Thank you. Rolanda Woolfork, Childs Avenue. I'm with the Lexington Historical Black Neighborhood Council. We're asking and standing in support of Prawl Town Neighborhood Association not to change this zone. They speak about the transit issue that they have, that they're trying to increase. But if you ever watch the bus going down UK, UK's bus is majority of the time empty. Now if you get on the limestone bus where it's more community members taking it, it's full. When you come around Montmolin and Prowtown streets, on your map, on the picture that they have, it shows the street is wider. That street is not that wide, and if you're not paying attention, a student's going to get run over. Because when they come out, they don't pay attention, and they're better get hit. But parking on that street is one-sided plus it is permanent for parking. It's a permanent street. So you have students that will come over there with cars they want to park or visitors when they go into Gatton Business to come over and park for classes that are just regular community members. so where will they part with this eight-story building who's going to hover over the whole neighborhood? You say it won't make a difference. It lines with across the street. But when I walk out my door, the first thing you will see is that big building looking at me. Why can't I see the sky? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Simpson, do you have anyone else? I don't think so. Okay. All right. Thank you. So when we get back in here, there's a couple things. Traffic. There's a question on traffic, parking, and a few other things. So hopefully we can have, and the size and scope, so hopefully we can have those addressed before we get to the big committee. all right that should put us now item C yeah PLNMAR 24-15 All right. So the next item on our request is a request by Brook Properties, LLC. This is for the property at 2094 and 2098 Harrodsburg Road, so directly adjoining the Dutch Brothers rezoning that you all considered just a couple weeks ago. The applicant is seeking to rezone this site in order to establish additional neighborhood business uses. Specifically, they want to locate an insurance office in a space that was previously occupied by a daycare. Just like the previous conversation we had, this is an instance where a series of properties that were previously developed for single-family residential along Harrodsburg Road have suddenly found themselves with a much more intense roadway. So in the same conversations we are going to be having about balancing the interests of the corridor with adjoining single-family residential use. So the applicant has proposed this as a corridor. Staff agrees with the choice in place type. the development type. They are proposing low density. It's not recommended along a corridor, but the applicant in their justification letter states that the B1 will allow them in the future if the property redevelops to provide some additional density and intensification while still trying to maintain some of the scale and scope with the surrounding residential streets. And that relationship with residential is especially important. And so the subject property is located here on Harrodsburg Road, directly across what was formerly Turflin Mall. But zooming in a little bit closer, you get a better idea of kind of how these relationships function. So Springhurst Drive runs to the left of the site here and serves really as the primary access. There is currently an access point for the daycare use that is on Harrodsburg Road. It's, however, not the primary use. It's mainly used by a couple of staff members. So the utilization of this property really does flow through this dead-end street that serves the Springhurst neighborhood and the surrounding single-family residential uses. But in the vicinity, we've got B3. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of a conditionally zoned B3 here for the Dutch Bros drive-thru and corresponding retail use, and then commercial center zoning available across the street. Here we have a view of the subject properties as they exist today. So really kind of embodying kind of the older, lower density residential development that was later incorporated into daycare uses that have had conditional use permits within the R3 zone to operate at this location. That, however, would not afford them the ability to do office uses, neighborhood retail, and the like. And so the applicant is seeking a zone change to utilize this existing structure on the left as the office for the insurance office use. Zooming in to the actual development plan itself, really not much is proposed to really change with the site. The applicant is proposing a small addition here to the leftmost building that will serve as sort of a kiosk or a drop-off point for the adjoining daycare use. It will maintain the existing outdoor play areas, the existing parking areas here as well. They are, right now, the paving in front along Harrodsburg Road forms this sort of half-moon shape. they are modifying that shrinking that slightly one topic of conversation within the staff report and earlier in subdivision as well was the adjoining property includes sort of a service road that connects to the baptist development at the spring site and stubs into the property here and so staff kind of looks at this as an opportunity to potentially close this access point on Harrodsburg, which the applicant states is really not the main emphasis. Their traffic for this site is really accommodated here along with the parking, the drop-off for the daycare and the like, but allowing sort of the access across the sites once that sort of comes to fruition. And so that was really one of the conversations. But other than that, the zone change justification is really outlined in sort of how this could develop in the future. Because right now, It's lower intensity, lower density. Even with a residential context, staff would be looking for more in the future. But the B-1, with its recent changes, sort of is a softer list of uses. You'll recall at 2090 next door, there was sort of a laundry list of conditional zoning that was put in place to kind of help mitigate some of those impacts. Here, the B-1 zoning eliminates a lot of those kind of more problematic uses. So with that, staff found that it was appropriate to recommend approval. Once again, this is not at the density that we would like currently, but this represents opportunities to redevelop in the future that could still maintain consistency with the single-family residential neighborhood to the rear. So it'll maintain the existing pedestrian connections and allows for neighborhood-scale business, neighborhood-scale uses to occur. One condition that we did decide to include as well, this is a carryover from the zoning that allowed the daycare to operate in the first place, and that's a prohibition on loudspeakers. That was present previously when the property was rezoned to R3. We thought it appropriate to include in this context as well, and restrictions on loudspeakers were also incorporated into the adjoining zone change as well. But other than that, the limited uses in the B1, a much shorter list of restrictions relative to what was next door, but staff found that with the context of this site, the B1 was more appropriate and that we were able to recommend approval for the reasons you see on screen. And I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have with staff, and Ms. Wade will be on to talk a little bit more about the development plan. Any questions? Thanks, sir. Ms. Wade? No. Hey, get on up there, Tracy. Okay. So, as Daniel mentioned, this site has a bit of a longer history in terms of zoning. Been rezoned once for a change of use and then was requested for rezoning later, but that was withdrawn. So the few things that the subdivision committee discussed this morning had to do with access to Harrisburg Road. So the staff was recommending that at the time this particular property develops adjacent in the proposed B-3 zone, that this access point be closed so that they could share access to Harrisburg Road. The applicant's not too keen on that. They don't want to rely on access on another property, I think is probably most of it. And the other issue that the committee talked about a little bit was why the addition was being put to lot one, but it was serving lot two. And I think Daniel explained that a little bit. It's a check-in point for parents and students going to the daycare. So they would check in here, then walk outside and enter either down the stairs or the back door to their respective rooms for the daycare center. There aren't really any other changes proposed to the lot. So the parking out front is remaining. That will become nonconforming. Parking in the rear remains, the play area as well. It really is a change to allow for greater use at the property. And I think that's really what triggered the staff's recommendation for, in essence, closing their access, is some access management along Harrodsburg Road because of the potential intensity of use in the future. I don't think the daycare or an office is going to trigger a whole lot more traffic, but the potential B1 in the future could, and we would like to see some access management happening on Harrodsburg Road. But the subdivision committee recommended approval. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Do we have any questions for Ms. Wade? Thank you. Applicant, Mr. Woodall. Thank you all once again. John Woodall and Scott Southall with Earth Cycle Designs on behalf of the applicant. Just to fill in a few more blanks about the property and the intentions here, both of these buildings at 2094 and 2098 have operated as daycares for over a decade, I believe, or close to it. I believe 2098 was maybe an infant daycare, and 2094 was a pre-K daycare. And at this particular time, Brook Properties, the applicant, purchased both of those properties from the Costello family that's operating the daycare. And then turned around and entered into a lease agreement with Mr. Costello so he could continue to operate the daycare at 2094. and I believe the lease is initial terms five years and then another two extensions for five years apiece. So the intention for now is to keep operating the daycare at that location. Now, Clint Conrad, who is the principal in Broodbrook Properties along with his wife, is a state farm agent. And his dream is to have his own state farm office. He's from this particular area. I think his office now is in Beaumont. So that is what is going to go at 2098. Now, today, as Ms. Wade indicated, there is an access point at 2094 directly off Harrodsburg Road. It's a circle drive, but one part of that is fenced off. So the kids, parents do not drop their children off direct from the Harrodsburg Road access. That's true. They come in off of Springhurst Drive and into the 2098 parking lot. And so right now what they do is they go through the 2098 building because it used to be a daycare. That's the staging point. That's where they were checked in. And then they walk through that building and up the sidewalk into 2094. Well, when Clint gets his building or his office opened, he'd rather not have the children walking through his office. So hence the idea to put the check-in station, which is about 80 square feet, right next to his building. And you can't really tell it from the picture here. But if you're out there, there's a fence and there's a sidewalk and it goes up in grade. So it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the field, so to speak, to put the building on 2094. So that's why it was set on 2098. And Ms. Wade's also correct about the access issue and how it relates to 2090 and the Dutch Brothers Coffee situation. I understand it got rezoned and they're going to have their own access. I don't know where all that stands with the transportation cabinet, but we'd rather not lose ours because of it. And here's why. We had an engagement meeting last week. Well, yes, but the first one was by Zoom. And there were a couple people that are vocal in the neighborhood that were there for that. And then we had on Tuesday night, the first meeting was last week. And then Tuesday night of this week, we had a meeting on site with older residents of the neighborhood who don't do Zoom. And that was a pretty good turnout, you know, all things being considered. I think I said this morning, I'd say after the whole Dutch Brothers coffee rezoning, they're probably pretty well burnt out with it. But we had a good meeting, and the neighborhood is supportive. Many of the folks there know Clint. They're supportive of what he wants to do. With one caveat, they do not want a service road through this property, providing service to Baptist Health, to the 20 Dutch Brothers and all that, which is understandable. And so our representation was we don't want that either right now. It doesn't make any sense to do that given the particular use we're making of these properties right now. Now, could it later? I understand where staff's coming from. Yeah, it could. But for the foreseeable long term, the idea is half this property is going to continue to be daycare and the other half will be the state farm office and they're going to use the same parking lot. for that because that's the safe thing to do. In any event, that's kind of how we got where we got here. Scott, don't leave anything out. There we go. Any questions for Mr. Woodall? Right now? We're good. Did you wait to bring this after Brandon took his hits? Yeah, that's right. Yeah, right. That's right. All right. We're going to do a coffee agreement of some sort, I guess, get all those kids hopped up on coffee. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. New items. This is PLN Zota 24-6. I can slow roll if you'd like. I can filibuster. All right. So the request this afternoon for ZODA 2406 is a request to amend a number of provisions to the Economic Development ED zone. So this is out within our expansion areas, the 1996 expansion areas, that established and expanded the urban growth boundary. The applicant is seeking to modify a number of the conditions that apply to the ED zone. Just to give everyone a fresher, the general intent behind the ED zone is to really be kind of the workhorse for the expansion area. So this is really the industrial development, jobs producing, really with a focus on kind of being the economic base that helps support some of the housing and mixed-use initiatives that were laid out in other zones in the expansion area master plan from 96. The ED zone has been changed a couple times since then, so adopted in 96. And really the two largest changes were the addition of regional medical center, so hospitals, the workforce, the employment that they generate. At that time, we found that it was kind of appropriate in that zone to include as sort of one of those main principal driving uses. Later we came through and kind of introduced the idea of supportive uses. So these were things not necessarily tied to economic development, but really supported those initiatives and were sort of tertiary businesses, limited to only a very specific portion of the overall developed land within the economic development areas that would assist. So these were kind of more tertiary uses. The applicant is really choosing to expand a number of these proposals. So it increases some of the retail capability, allows for professional services as supportive uses. It increases the amount of development that can occur in the ED zone from 18 to 25 percent. So the proportion of development that can be these supportive uses is proposed to increase. The timing of those uses is subject to change as well. There's implications to the open space. The applicant wishes to reduce the amount of open space that's required and include things like walking paths, other improved amenities to account for that space as well. Within the actual expansion area master plan, it is rather kind of specific with how it calculates open space and is different kind of than the rest of our ordinance. It also impacts residential development, so they allow for a much greater density of residential under their proposal. So really kind of a change to the uses, the amount of percentages they're allowed to incorporate, kind of wide-ranging things. Staff at this time is recommending postponement. We need additional time to kind of weigh in on that. The applicant, in their letter of justification, mentions a bunch of goals and objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan that they find are being met with this request. but they also should provide information on how kind of each of these changes relates to the expansion area master plan because that really is the governing document that sort of guides decision and development in these specific areas. So helping tie changes, you know, how does this particular change in, say, open space relate to the economic development zone, what we're wanting to do with it, what we're intending to do with it. So staff is looking for some more information from the applicant on that. We are also wanting some additional time to take a look at the language with kind of how far reaching the implications are with that. So staff is recommending postponement at this time, and the applicant is present if you'd like to ask them any particular questions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Crump. Now that we have any questions currently. Yes, Mr. Wilson. Just a couple of clarifying questions, because this expansion plan that took place in 1996, you'll have to check my figures on it. It was about 5,000 acres that were put in. Okay. And even today, as we sit here, only about 50% of it has been used? I'm not sure of the specific figures, but yes, much of it is. Okay, Tracy's saying yes. Out of that 5,000 acres, there was a set-aside of about 500 or 600 acres for economic development, right? But that land is still sitting there, too, right? No. Oh, okay. So we have had some development out at, it's called Kingston Hall, but that's the area between Newtown and Russell Cave. We've approved kind of a sixplex of flex space buildings. We've also approved two very large industrial buildings. There's an approval for an insurance office. I don't know that that is going to move forward. And then there's some other residential that's been approved. I would venture to guess at least a third of the property in that area of the community has a final development plan. And that's between Russell Cave and Newtown Pike? Newtown Pike. And then the rest of the ED land is located along Polo Club, between the Interstate and Polo Club, Winchester and Manowar. And the hospital has built and is opened and operating. And then the Calgill property is under development now. Okay. Well, I've forgotten exactly what Commerce Lexington always has to have. They have a guideline of, what, 10, 20 acres that they need in order to encourage development to take place in any particular area. You think it is? I think they've asked for 200 acres, you know. I think it's 30 acres. But there's more than 30 acres sitting out there, right? Yes. Okay, and it's been sitting there for quite some time. Yes. Like 20 years, close to it. Yes, and I would say, you know, the hospital has been under construction for two years. Calgill property has just started its construction in either late 23 or early 24, and then the new stuff on Kingston Hall is also within the last 12 to 18 months. Well, that's all for now. I got my questions clarified. And we'll come back at it. Thank you. Yes. Well, not too many specifics since I assume we're going to get a – this is a ZOTA. So what's – I guess what's the timeline on this? Six months. Six months. So we'll be expecting, I guess, a more detailed report from you. So one thing that I would like maybe as we look at this would be just a couple of like tables showing what this number calculation change does. Does that make sense? because it's just at the surface, it's a little hard to wrap your head around changing from acres to floor area and square footages. And so in the real world, say, hypothetically, the Calgo property, what does this, like a column of current zone, new zone, what it might mean in a couple different scenarios, depending on how it was built, so that we understand what the real-world implications of changing the calculation would be. If Daniel can go back to his slide about the text amendment that happened in 2016, where we added supportive uses, and the property owners, which remain the same, were involved in that text amendment process, and we did that. We took the time with the existing acres, their existing conditions, and said, okay, this is what it means for your property. And so everyone did understand the limitations, but also the new allowances in terms of square footage and how much intensity it was going to increase. So I definitely think we can accomplish that for this. And then just understanding this a little bit better, because for the rest of the city, we did do a big overhaul on what open space means. And I think many of us were on board and supportive of that. And then it sort of was left unchanged in the expansion area. is I mean, I guess I hesitate with the concept of just reducing the open space requirement but I don't know that I would hesitate with the concept of expanding the logic of the open space ZODA into the into more of the city So I guess just kind of understanding that tension as we go forward would be something else I would be interested in discussing further. Yeah, yeah. And specifically to the open space, some of these provisions run into issues in certain things that are part of the ED zone. You go back to expansionary master plan concepts more generally. Some of these are spelled out. So in specificity, the EAMP calls out what can be considered open space and says, hey, this should be at least 25%. So this is a situation where, you know, the comprehensive plan has sort of evolved. And so we're running against a guiding document that probably needs to be updated as well. So, you know, the ability to make some of these changes and we get too far away without actually updating that plan as well. So we are aware of that and hopefully can provide better guidance on how to kind of manage those kind of concepts and what flexibility we have statutorily. Thank you, sir. Mr. Gross. Good afternoon. Brandon Gross on behalf of the applicant. Let me see if I can work this technology a little bit better than some others have today. No promises. So I didn't plan on starting here, but I'll start with the 2016 supportive uses. And that was worked on for several years before it went to the Planning Commission. But I will say at the time, while the Planning Commission made the revisions, the owners at the time wanted it to go further than what the Planning Commission was comfortable at that time. So while the developers or the property owners were involved, if it was up to them, we would have had closer to what we're asking today than what was approved. So just to keep that in mind, that at the time the owners did say, no, we need more if you really want this land to be activated. And now we're here eight years later saying the land's still not as active as it could be. And so that's really what we're doing with this ODA change is, unfortunately, the expansionary master plan was developed 30 years ago. and we would not adopt that plan today for really any zoning district, given the fact that we don't want to expand our urban service boundary as quickly as we would need to to continue to build enough housing that we need in the city. Right now, I think the last study the Kentucky Housing Corporation put out this spring was Lexington is short 22,000 housing units today. And so that number will probably increase because from the last study I looked at, we are not building as many housing units as are anticipated we need each year. So each year right now we're going into a further deficit than we were. I believe if you look back at the 2017 model, we needed, I think they were saying at the time, 3,000 or 4,000 potentially a year. We've been building like two at most. And so every year we fall behind, but I digress in that point. So I'm going to go to, wait, is that wrong? Here we go. So didn't do as great as I wanted to, but not as badly as some others did on the slides. So just kind of walk through these a little bit and just, I'm going to touch this because we're going to go. So far we have met with the other property owners except for we have not had an in-depth discussion with Aptis Health. We are hoping to have that. We've been waiting for them to engage council for us to have a meeting. So I believe that process is hopefully close. Yeah, maybe close. So we'll be meeting with them. We have met with Fayette Alliance. We're going to be meeting with them again to talk in greater detail. we've met with Mr. Anderson and Dick Murphy and we've had a lot of meetings and Carson Boffman is here he's probably met with many people in this room to discuss this particular, but I'll do a very quick high level going through the bullet points here so the first item is we were looking just to increase the number of supportive uses that are allowed primarily touching on some of the B1 uses that were not permitted in the ED in bringing them in. The economic development land that has been developed so far in the last 30 years is probably less than 20 percent. So the 560 acres that we set aside, we've developed maybe 100 acres to date. And so this is really to kind of activate some of the land by bringing in more supportive uses. We've requested to increase the amount of supportive uses from 18 to 25 percent. At 7 percent, we think that's a pretty modest increase, which would mean the other 75 percent would continue to have to be focused towards the job land that was originally proposed for the ED. The timing of the supportive uses, one issue, as Tracy has mentioned, Baptist Health is building theirs. They've been building theirs for two years. The University of Kentucky purchased about half of the Meadowcrest property, about 40 acres. We can easily see them developing that over the next three, four, five years until they get final build out. And so the problem is what the supportive uses has done, you can only build so much supportive use before the ED job use gets built. and we're trying to tweak that timing a little bit so that we don't have land that we know we can use for supportive uses sitting vacant while we wait for all the supportive uses to get built because a lot of these supportive uses are very large projects that deal with public financing and they just take longer to build than you would build if you were building a shopping center. You can get that done 18 months, whereas these projects could easily take years to get them fully built out. Decreasing the open space from 25 to 15, 15 is really what we're using for the rest of our kind of mixed-use developments. In the city, I think 25 is the highest that we have, and so we were hoping to increase that to get that more in line so that we could use more land for things other than just open space. and also as to what can count as open space, as an example. If you are outside of the expansion area and I were to build an AD trail through an area, that could be open space. But in the expansion area, we cannot count that AD trail as open space. So while we have a trail that may be walking along a pond or a creek or something else, we have to deduct that from open space because it happens to have pavement to make it safe rather than just being mulch. So that's the reason we're looking at tweaking the definition so we can have a little bit more flexibility to create hardscaped open space for some of these projects and not just have only vegetative open space. And then lastly, we're looking to be able to increase more housing on these projects. And so, like I said before, we do have a housing deficit. And with every other zone, we're trying to increase density that's permitted. And so we're trying to look to do density here. And we're looking for apartments and townhomes, not single-family housing. We're looking for higher density. So that's kind of the brief. we continue to work and we'll have plenty of months ahead of us to get details worked out and we're hoping we'll get to the point where staff is supportive of this application. I'm here to answer your questions generally at this time. I have a question maybe it's for you and the staff as such. I was reading through the report last night and so it's in 2013 it said that the added supportive uses were discussed and considered by a committee made up of government representatives, real estate professionals, blah, blah, blah, Atlanta. Are you planning on following that same process with this request? No. So in 2013, the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and it had a recommendation. I don't know if you remember this, but Will Berkeley was very adamant about updating the economic development zone and looking at the barriers to development and what opportunities were still there. And so that's what really set in motion that committee. So 2003, the comprehensive plan, we convened the committee within, I want to say, three to six months after the plan was adopted. And then they worked to go through the existing, talk to economic development professionals. Of course, the property owners were involved the whole way through. and then they came to the, at the end of the 2016 tax amendment came about. Okay. You've already had a lot of discussions with a lot of people to begin with and I assume you're going to continue that process. Correct. Where I get confused is every time we get into this issue of expansion of one kind or another there's always some mention of a committee. At one time they were going to set up a smart committee. Remember that one? You don't remember that one. Well, is that because it didn't come to pass? But I think the mayor was going to appoint some people and start looking at these things as a process more so than just a kind of activity. So I always get a little bit confused on that as it relates. I don't have any issues with the project per se. These supportive users, I don't know how the staff feels about it at this stage of the game, except they recommend postponement for additional information. but I'm doing anything and everything we can to improve the community of Lexington, Kentucky. So if that's it, that's it. Yeah, so this won't be a committee process. However, though, we are meeting with all the stakeholders we can in getting input from everyone to try to put something together that everyone who has ownership in this land is comfortable with, and then the various stakeholders like the Fayette Alliance, Commerce, Lexington, and others also are okay with the proposal. I would note that most often a planning commission or a council-initiated text amendment does result in a task force or a committee in order to develop the text amendment and also get buy-in to it. And then the applicant-driven text amendments are the ones that don't have that same process. So that's really the difference. Just as a footnote, last time we had this discussion, there was something about a new process required by law. You mean the work session last week? Yeah. How does that fit in with this? That was part of the most recent comprehensive plan update, and it was relating to expansion. And you might recall that there's a lengthy discussion, more so at the council than with you guys, but about whether or not expansion should occur. And then in the go forward, how, you know, what more streamlined process should there be for considering expansion? There was some push that that process question should be first. However, ultimately the council determined that the expansion question should be addressed first. So that's why you all are working on at great speed the urban growth management plan that has to be adopted by ordinance by December 1st of this year. When that's done, the second part, which is the process for evaluating a system that would better help based on metrics and based on other things to determine how and when expansion should occur and what that process should look like will start, which has a deadline in 2026. Thank you. I mean, I'll be dead, but that's no big deal. I'm just kidding you. I hope not. So on the open space, you all are looking to both change the definition to reduce the amount and increase what counts? Correct. just sort of outlining what my fear is the net result is larger parking lots that would be my that would be the outcome because the residential units and things like that are capped so where does that reduction go parking that would be my sort of just throwing that out there that's one thing I understand your concern but it also goes to if you've got a 10 acre site now you could in theory build on 8 and a half acres rather than just only 7 and a half acres and so we're looking at The project, at least for Calgill, we're looking at increasing block coverage and not parking lot is what we're looking at. But I understand your concern. I think we can work through that. And then, you know, the logic of expanding to these other B1 uses makes perfect sense to me. You know, this probably won't surprise you, but the one now non-B1 use that's still on the list is drive-through facilities, which would be one that I wouldn't mind seeing go away from the list. So I thought I'd bring that one up. Well, I think with the drive-through facilities, the ED land is all located next to the interstate for the most part or other major corridors. And it's not within neighborhoods. And so it would be no different than the B6P having drive-throughs. It's very similar in nature of what we're proposing to the B6P. So while we're permitting B1 uses, this is not necessarily a B1 development. We're looking for a mix of job lands, density residential, and plus there will be, given the locations of these various ED tracks, because there are only two. One's next to the, between Russell Cave and Newtown Pike in the interstate, and the other one's next to Winchester Road in the interstate. And so those are generally areas where we would probably, if we're going to have drive-thrus in this city, that's the locations where you want to put them, which is your major corridors next to your interstates. Sure, I understand that perspective from the location of these sites. I guess it does conflict a little bit with me with the intent of these as being accessory to the jobs producers sort of internal to the site so that the intent and the goal is not to bring in interstate drive-thru traffic. But I hear what you're saying as to why you're – There's lots of people that drive very short distances to a drive-thru. Not saying that's the best choice, but I would say there's going to be a good chance if we have a drive-thru on Winchester Road, employees from Baptist will not want to walk almost a mile from the hospital there. There will be people that probably will drive through and take it back. If it's there, for sure. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Mr. Rose. Thank you. All right. We don't need to talk about a postponed item, do we? no no mr turner's not here and i don't think brendan's doing that one okay all right anything from the staff remaining okay this next meeting is october 3rd this meeting's adjourned