# Planning Commission Subdivision Items - July 10, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Commission · July 10, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6488 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6488?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-07-10 - **Body**: Commission - **Last revised**: March 1, 2026 - **Length**: 31,646 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 July 10, 2025, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the Urban County Government Building, located at 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. The meeting was presided over by Zach Davis. The agenda covered two broad categories of business: Land Subdivision Items and Zoning Items. Over the course of the meeting, the Commission conducted 14 votes and heard 4 public comments. ## Attendance The following members were present at the July 10, 2025 Commission meeting: - Zach Davis - Mike Owens - Judy Worth - Bruce Nicol - Robin Michler - William Wilson - Johnathon Davis - Molly Davis - Frank Penn Two members were absent: **Larry Forester** and **Ivy Barksdale**. No members arrived late. ## Votes and Decisions The Commission took the following actions at its July 10, 2025 meeting: - **June 12, 2025 Minutes** – Motioned by Mike Owens, seconded by Judy Worth. Approved 9–0 with 1 abstention. Aye votes: Zach Davis, Mike Owens, Judy Worth, Bruce Nicol, Robin Michler, William Wilson, Johnathon Davis, and Frank Penn. [timestamp: 0:02:30] - **PLN-FRP-25-00014: Boonsboro Manor** – Motioned by Mike Owens, seconded by Johnathon Davis. Postponed unanimously (9–0) to the August 14, 2025 meeting. [timestamp: 0:06:19] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00033: Jerrico, Inc. Professional Office Project** – Motioned by Frank Penn, seconded by William Wilson. Postponed unanimously (9–0) to the August 14, 2025 meeting. [timestamp: 0:07:20] - **Consent Agenda (PLN-MJDP-25-00034, PLN-MJDP-25-00035, PLN-MJDP-25-00036)** – Motioned by Judy Worth, seconded by William Wilson. Approved unanimously (9–0). [timestamp: 0:10:07] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00029: Coleman Property** – Motioned by William Wilson, seconded by Judy Worth. Approved 7–1 with 1 abstention. Aye votes: Zach Davis, Mike Owens, Judy Worth, Bruce Nicol, Robin Michler, William Wilson, and Frank Penn. Nay: Molly Davis. [timestamp: 0:37:20] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00031: Marlboro Manor Subdivision** – Motioned by Mike Owens, seconded by Johnathon Davis. Approved unanimously (9–0) with 14 conditions. A related waiver was also approved unanimously (9–0) for two reasons provided by staff. [timestamps: 0:51:55 / 0:52:35] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00032: Interstate Park Property** – Motioned by Bruce Nicol, seconded by Johnathon Davis. Approved unanimously (9–0) with 17 conditions. [timestamp: 1:01:02] - **PLN-MAR-25-00008: RD Property Group, LLC (B6P zone change)** – Motioned by Bruce Nicol, seconded by Frank Penn. Approved 9–0. [timestamp: 2:23:16] - **Removal of conditional zoning restrictions for PLN-MAR-25-00008 (conditions 1, 3, and 4)** – Motioned by Robin Michler, seconded by Molly Davis. **Failed** 6–2. Nay votes: Molly Davis and Frank Penn. [timestamp: 2:26:29] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00027: Patchen Wilkes Unit 2** – Motioned by Bruce Nicol, seconded by William Wilson. Approved unanimously (9–0) with 6 conditions. [timestamp: 2:47:13] - **PLN-MAR-25-00009: On the Block, LLC (zone change)** – Motioned by William Wilson, seconded by Mike Owens. Approved unanimously (9–0) with conditional zoning restrictions applied. [timestamp: 3:48:33] - **PLN-MJDP-25-00028: On the Block, LLC (development plan)** – Motioned by William Wilson, seconded by Mike Owens. Approved unanimously (9–0) with 22 conditions. A related variance was also approved unanimously (9–0). [timestamps: 3:50:09 / 3:50:41] ## Public Comment Four members of the public addressed the Commission during the meeting. - **Jennifer Bryngardner** [timestamp: 2:08:21] raised concerns about pedestrian safety, specifically regarding teenagers crossing Winchester Road. She also requested that noise and light mitigation measures be incorporated into the Patchen Wilkes townhomes development. - **Jessica Winters** [timestamp: 3:15:29] spoke on behalf of Samuel Hicks, formally objecting to the development plan and associated variance. Her objection centered on an ongoing property line dispute between Hicks and the applicant. - **Robert Hodge** [timestamp: 3:22:29] expressed concerns about the proposed development's impact on parking and the surrounding neighborhood. He also noted that the neighborhood association had not been contacted regarding the project. - **Vivian Hodge** [timestamp: 3:25:41] echoed concerns about the lack of communication with the neighborhood association and raised additional questions about the development's potential impact on the neighborhood. Notable themes across the public comments included pedestrian and resident safety, the adequacy of outreach to the surrounding community, and the potential effects of the proposed development on parking and neighborhood character. The property line dispute raised by Winters on behalf of Hicks represented a formal legal objection to the application. ## Appointments The Commission made the following officer appointments at the July 10, 2025 meeting: - **Zach Davis** was appointed as **Chair**. - **Ivy Barksdale** was appointed as **Vice Chair**. - **Robin Michler** was appointed as **Secretary**. - **Judy Worth** was appointed as **Parliamentarian**. ## Contested Items Two items on the July 10, 2025 Commission meeting agenda generated notable disagreement. **RD Property Group, LLC Zoning Map Amendment** This item involved a proposed amendment to remove conditional zoning restrictions from a property. The matter proved divisive among commissioners, ultimately resulting in a split vote. The central concern raised was the potential impact that lifting the conditional restrictions could have on neighborhood development. The split outcome reflects that commissioners were not in agreement about whether removing those conditions was appropriate given those concerns. **On the Block, LLC Development Plan** This item drew significant opposition from the community. The disagreement centered on two issues: a property line dispute and broader concerns about the proposed development's impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Community members were involved in voicing opposition to the plan. The presence of an unresolved property line dispute added a procedural and legal dimension to the community's objections beyond general land use concerns. ## Land Subdivision Items [timestamp: 06:19] The Commission took up Land Subdivision Items under Agenda Item IV, with the Subdivision Committee reporting on its review of several subdivision plans. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting included **Ivy Barksdale**, **Mike Owens**, **Frank Penn**, and **Judy Worth**. The committee's discussion covered multiple subdivision matters, with specific attention to the following: - **Boonsboro Manor Subdivision** — This plan was among those considered by the Subdivision Committee. - **Marlboro Manor Subdivision** — This plan was also reviewed as part of the committee's agenda. The committee's handling of items was mixed, with some matters **postponed** and others **approved with conditions**. The specific conditions attached to approvals and the reasons for any postponements were addressed during the committee's deliberations. The overall outcome of this agenda item was **informational**, with the Commission receiving the Subdivision Committee's report on the status of the plans reviewed. ## Zoning Items [timestamp: 2:23:16] The Commission reviewed several zoning items under Agenda Item V, including zoning map amendments and text amendments. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting included Zach Davis, William Wilson, Larry Forester, and Johnathon Davis. The zoning cases before the Commission involved two notable parties: - **RD Property Group** — a zoning matter related to this applicant was among the items considered - **On the Block, LLC** — a zoning matter related to this applicant was also before the Commission The Zoning Committee had previously reviewed these items and brought forward its recommendations. Some items were approved, while others were postponed, though the extracted data does not specify which particular cases received which disposition. The overall outcome of this agenda item was informational, with the Commission acting on the committee's prior review of the map and text amendment requests. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of June 12, 2025 minutes - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of PLN-FRP-25-00014: Boonsboro Manor - **Motion** — postponed (9-0): Postponement of PLN-MJDP-25-00033: Jerrico, Inc. Professional Office Project - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of consent agenda items PLN-MJDP-25-00034, PLN-MJDP-25-00035, PLN-MJDP-25-00036 - **Motion** — passed (7-1): Approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00029: Coleman Property - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00031: Marlboro Manor Subdivision - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of waiver for PLN-MJDP-25-00031: Marlboro Manor Subdivision - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00032: Interstate Park Property - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MAR-25-00008: RD Property Group, LLC for B6P zone change - **Motion** — failed (6-2): Approval of removal of conditional zoning restrictions for PLN-MAR-25-00008 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00027: Patchen Wilkes Unit 2 - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MAR-25-00009: On the Block, LLC zone change - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of PLN-MJDP-25-00028: On the Block, LLC development plan - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of variance for PLN-MJDP-25-00028: On the Block, LLC --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second. Second from Commissioner Mickler. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. All right, that carries unanimously. And then, Ms. Worth, if you would please report on the election of officers, the nominating committee. Yes, these were recorded in our information we received from our last meeting. The nominating committee recommended the following slate for this year. Chair Zach Davis, Vice Chair Ivy Marksdale, Secretary Robin Mickler, Parliamentarian Judy Worth. Thank you, Ms. Worth. And do we have any nominations from before? Seeing none, I will close that portion. Do we have any discussions or a motion on the slate? Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the nomination from the nominating committee by acclamation with the secretary being authorized to cast the one vote. Second. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second from Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that to a vote. Acclamation with Mr. Mickler. I approve. Okay. All right. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. And then we need the delegation of Secretary Doody's action on that. Mr. Chair, I move that we follow our past procedure for the Secretary's duties that except for signing minutes, that authority is delegated to the Director of Planning and Staff. Thank you, Ms. Worth. Second from Mr. Penn. Any discussion? Seeing none, we can put that to a vote. Or can Mr., well, I guess we'll put that to a vote. Okay. That also carries unanimously. Thank you. By my count, that now puts us to postponements and withdrawals. Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie Blaine. I'm with Palmer Engineering Company. I'm here to speak on behalf of the plan PLN FRP 25-14. We would like to request a one month postponement to discuss additional issues that the planning staff and traffic engineering and division of engineering had with the request. Thank you. And how long of a postponement? One month. One month. Okay. Thank you. So that would be to our August 7th meeting, is that correct? Yes. Sorry. August 14th. 14th. Excuse me. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. All righty. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, is there any discussion or motion? Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, I'll move for a postponement of plan FRP 25-14 Boomsburg Manor as requested until August 14th, 2025. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. And a second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? Seeing none, vote on that motion. And that carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Daniel Rayner with Thoroughbred Engineering on plan MJDP 25-00033. The Jericho, Inc. Professional Office. Oh. Page 4. Page 4. Page 4 of the agenda. Staff recommended postponement. We're going to follow that and request the one-month postponement to the following meeting as well to follow a new process for development plan and waiver requests. Okay. So that's also August 14th? Mm-hmm. Okay. Do we have any questions? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Mr. Penn. I move for postponement of PLN MJDP 25-033 to the August 14th meeting. Thank you, Mr. Penn. Second. Second from Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will vote. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? All right. So that would put us on page 2. Item PLN MJDP 2529. Oh, I'm sorry. The consent agenda. How could I forget? Thank you, Chair Davis. The next item for our agenda is consideration of our consent agenda. And those are on the white sheet at the back of the room. We do have three items today that qualified for the consent agenda, where the planning commission can vote and approve of these three cases all at the same time, unless there's someone in the audience who wishes to have those removed. And so these are all development plans, not related to zone changes. Ms. Vivian is looking at me carefully. So I'll read those. And if you have an objection or have a question or want to be heard about any of these cases, just go ahead and raise your hand in the audience. And then I'll ask the commission as well. The first item appears on page 4 of our agenda, item E. PLN MJDP 24-34 for Blue Sky Industrial Estates, tract A, block A. And this is for property at 673 and 689 Blue Sky Parkway. Is there anyone who wishes to have this item heard? Okay. The next item appears on page 5, item F of our agenda. PLN MJDP 25-35, Hamburg Place Mall, unit 1, parcel 2, outlot 4. This is an amended final development plan for 1849 Alley Sheba Way. Would anyone like to have this item heard today? Okay. And then lastly on page 5, item G of the agenda. PLN MJDP 25-36, Turner Property and Meadowthorpe Community Business Center, also known as Turner Commons. An amended final development plan for property at 125 Turner Commons Way. Is there anyone who wishes to have this item heard? Okay. So the commission can consider all three of these with one action, unless any of you would like to have those heard today. Thank you, Ms. Wade. Is there any commission comment or questions? Otherwise, we'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move for approval of the three items on the consent agenda, 25-34, 35, and 36, as presented by staff. Thank you, Ms. Wirth. Do we have a second? Second. Ms. Wilson, any discussion? Seeing none. All right, that also carries unanimously. Now, I believe we're on the Coleman property, page two. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. We are with MJDP 2529, Coleman Property, Newtown Pike, Hampton Inn and Suites, amended. This property is located out off of Newtown Pike and Coleman Court. We saw this last month, and it was asked by the lawyer in the audience that this be continued. And so I'm just here to let you know that at this time, the staff still currently recommends approval of this plan with the conditions on the agenda. They have a service drive here to access to get into the hotel, and then they have another parking area and an access that will lead into Coleman Court. This plan had been previously approved, but they came back with a change to the square footage, and they had been also working with the Division of Engineering as far as their detention and leaving this area here as the detention instead of having the parking, because the previous plan had parking on top of it. And so now they have removed it to meet with engineering's needs, so they reduced the parking, and they have other parking on adjacent property. So I will open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you, Cheryl. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Mr. Billings. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the commission. My name is Nathan Billings with Billings Law Firm, and I'm here today to represent the applicant. With me today is Mr. Jack Shaw, the owner of the project, as well as the engineers. I'm not sure where Mr. Rainer went. There he is. He moved on me. This project is actually eligible for the consent agenda, except for the next-door neighbor who's represented by Mr. Woodall, showing up last month. For background and context, we spent about six to eight months two years ago with the initial development plan. It's a constrained site. It has some issues, but we walked extensively through those with staff. We got a development plan approved. And following that, we started the construction plans, which included things like water quality and engineering. And from that, the next-door neighbor got their engineer involved, reviewing the plans. Engineering had some pushback. As a result of that, we met with engineering several months ago and made some changes to this plan based on those discussions with engineering and to satisfy the next-door neighbor's concern about green space. And specifically, that resulted in, and I'm always horrible with this thing, this green space here coming back for the detention area and removing parking on top. So instead of underground parking, we're going to leave exactly what it is today so that it functions exactly like it did today. There's some other small changes to the plan, like the footprint changed by two feet. But because of the requirements of a major plan, it had to come back. TRC has recommended approval. Subdivision committee recommended approval. Staff recommends approval. And last month, it was postponed. I wasn't here because of the recommendations of approval, but Mr. Woodall asked for a month. The next day, I immediately got back involved, reached out to Mr. Woodall, and have communicated relatively well with Mr. Woodall over the last month, following up with communications. But until 9.30 last night, I had no other feedback from the next-door neighbor, despite a month passing. I think Mr. Woodall and I have gotten along great. We communicate well, but his client has been a little slow to provide comments back. I think you're going to hear a dog and pony show in a minute regarding a bunch of objections I have about the project, which continue to exist and are going to exist because these neighbors don't get along. The bottom line is this. This project complies with all the subdivision regulations. Staff recommends approval. TRC recommends approval. And subdivision committee recommends approval. We were delayed a month to walk through issues. We didn't hear them until 9.30 last night. This project should be approved by the planning commission. If there's any technical questions, I'm happy to answer them or ask Mr. Rainer to come up. But otherwise, any of the issues that the next-door neighbor have is just because they don't get along, not because it shouldn't be approved as a plan. I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you, Mr. Billings. Ms. Davis. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Billings, sorry about that. This may or may not be an appropriate question to ask at this time, but I'm just curious where the 139 hotel users park their cars and how far they have to walk to get to the hotel room. So there's, obviously there's parking on site that's provided for here. The owner also owns a parking lot over here, and we have a cross-parking easement provided for valet and other parking in that area. And I forget, do you remember how many spots there are over there, Daniel? How many? Fifty-five is guaranteed, but how many spots are overall over there? Several hundred. Yeah. So it's a Hampton Inn, which doesn't typically have valet parking, I don't think, but they're expected to walk. How far is the distance from that parking lot to plan left? To this area on this area here? Yeah, from there to the front door. I mean, is it reasonable to expect? From this area here to this area here? Yeah. You're asking an attorney for a distance. So I'll ask Mr. Rainer to help. Mr. Rainer, if you'd step up here and introduce yourself. Make sure you state your name for the record. My name is Daniel Rainer with Arrowhead Engineering. I'll do some quick calculations for you. We've got about ten parking spaces. While you're doing that, I'll just comment. It seems as though that piece, that building is really shoehorned into a very tight space. And is Mr. Woodall on the right side? Is that why he objects to this? So this is the property line here. This is the Marriott property over here. This is part of the Marriott-Griffin Gate golf course back here. And then, of course, this is the current access road runs across. There's a fire entrance there. And then this is the Marriott parking lot. So the Marriott building is back here. So there are site constraints that existed originally. That's why it took us ‑‑ and I can't remember the exact time. It was six to nine months to get the original development plan approved because it's so tight. We know that the next-door neighbor is going to scrutinize all of our construction issues, but that's not a development plan issue. Did you figure out the distance? It's probably about 200 to 220 feet. And, you know, I don't know if you go out to, like, Hamburg, for example, but there's multiple hotels out there that have shared parking, like where the Malone's is. There's 12 lots there that share parking that I know those customers of the hotels have to walk more than 200 feet at times across those. I mean, is that ideal because you don't have 200 spots? Actually, you don't even have 100 spots right out the front door? No, but at the same time, there's more than adequate parking to support all the hotel usage out there. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir, Mr. Nichol. Mr. Billings, do you meet the objective standards for the parking requirements necessary for the zone change of this property? For the development plan, we do. You meet all objective standards? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Otherwise, staff wouldn't recommend approval. That's what I expected. Thank you. All righty. Do we have anything else for Mr. Billings? If not ‑‑ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly. Mr. Woodall. I'm in charge of the dog and the pony show. John Woodall on behalf of the Marriott Owners Group. I need to give you ‑‑ could you put that plan back up there? It wouldn't be fair not to give you all some context of why I'm here. You typically don't see me down here objecting to plans, but the Marriott and my client, they've been at this location, as we all know, for a long time. We've had a premier golf course there for a long time. You don't have to be a multimillionaire to play there. It's just been a premier property. The Marriott does not serve the same traveling public that Mr. Schaub serves at the Clarion or will serve at the Hampton Inn. It's different. We don't have a problem with the development and concept. But here's the issue, folks. And Mr. Billings mentioned some acrimony between the applicant and my clients. Well, he's right. Right about there, the only part of the Marriott golf property that the Marriott folks did not own was a tee box that used to sit right there. And if you go out there now, you'll see that that tee box is not there any longer. They leased that area. And at some point, Mr. Billings' client ascended to those lease rights and let the Marriott folks know that the lease was going to be, when it expired, it would be terminated. It would not be renewed. My folks are professionals nationwide in the hotel development business. They know what they were doing. They know what kind of space the applicant needs to conduct its operations. They said, look, we need that area. It'll cost significant money to move that hole. We can swap land with you up here, back down here, to solve your parking problems, solve your space problems. And that was, I won't get into all the details, but a pretty reasonable proposal. Well, they got their hands slapped. They got bit and they got told no. I said, okay, you don't leave us much choice. So my client had to reconfigure that golf hole, build a bridge, go back through accreditation. We spent a million dollars in cash to do it. And we said, okay, there's going to come a time when you do want to develop this property, but you're going to have to do it on your footprint. You're not going to do it on ours. And that's why I'm here. Their parking, that issue is whatever it is. They'll have to deal with, I know what our parking requirements are, Commissioner Nickel. The individual hotel flags, they drive what the parking is. They'll deal with their own flags on that. We're not involved in that. The issue we have is there's a fire gate. We talked about that the last time. That opens onto our property down here because they can't fight a fire here on their own property. And usually when we do development in this city, we have to handle all our life safety and our development on our own property. That's how the engineers have to design it. We don't get to impose obligations on other adjoining landowners. So what we're doing here, if there's a fire on this side of this building, there's no room behind it. If there were, there would be a fire lane shown. But instead, we have a de facto fire lane now on our property. And what happens if we want to develop that property at some point in the future? We're told we can't be in this area. And even though you can't argue that it's in the setback and we couldn't use it anyway because parking and drive lanes are allowed in setbacks. So that's the first issue. The other part of the dog and pony show is this gas station. I don't know if it's actually shown here on this plan. I can't really tell. But there's a Chevron station there that is leased by the Clark family. And they sublease that. It's been there for years. And they've got another four years on that lease. They're not going anywhere. Although this applicant would like to push them off. I spoke to their attorney last night who couldn't be here. She just found out about the plan like we did last month. And the reason why for the notice at 930 last night is we finally had a chance to sit down with our engineer and go through what the effects of this plan were. And then meet with the Clark folks. Our engineer was out of the country and didn't get back until early this week. That's why it took a while. But this retention area, the reason that's there is because we have a really good engineering staff, as you know, and planning staff in this city. And we questioned their drainage report, their drainage study, and what their stormwater plan is. Because we don't want, this is a 200-acre drainage, we don't want it back and back up on the golf course on our property. So we questioned their plans. So when they sat down with engineering, I believe what they were told is put that back, this retention area, and then perhaps you'll get your construction plans. But that would require an amended development plan, which is why they're here. That's the gist of it right there. And the problem is we believe and the Clark's folks believe that that retention area is going to pinch on the fuel dispenser that is closest to it. They can say whether they believe that or not. I don't know why the gas station is not shown. Maybe it is. I can't really tell. Okay. It's not, I don't think, I think those are the proposed buildings, Tracy, down here. Okay. Okay. Well, they can tell us whether the, my instructions were to object to this particular plan as it concerns the retention area, simply because they believe it's going to infringe upon their leasehold and they don't want that. But this is what happens when you don't tell anybody what you're doing. And like I said, if I hadn't made them aware that what was going on, they would not have known. So what this all comes down to, folks, is do your development, but stay on your own property. Fight your fires on your property. Stay off of the, stay off of ours. We don't want the crash gate, the access gate open to our property because they're short, we know they're short parked. They don't have enough parking. So we don't want their folks over on our property. We don't want the construction on our property. It's really just that simple. The fire is a big thing because you can look at the plan yourself. There's simply no way to fight a fire on that side of the building without coming on our property. So that's what it comes down to. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Do we have any questions for John? Yes, sir. Mr. Penn. Mr. Woodall, if this plan moves forward, what would you want to happen to that crash gate? Would you want that to be permanently blocked? What would you want that to do? I would like it locked. When our fire department fights a fire, I've seen it. They go to the fire. Period. We don't want people to come through there when they're not fighting the fire. And we frankly believe that the plan needs to be adjusted so that they can fight whatever fires might occur with that building on their own property, not ours. But in answer to your question, we'd like it closed. Yes, sir. Locked. What has been the city's fire response to this, Mr. Duncan or Mrs. Wade? What has been the chief's input on this? The firefighting capacity. Maybe we, let's just keep things kind of orderly. Let's direct any questions right now to Mr. Woodall. And then fire, we can certainly hear from fire directly on that question. Is there anything for John at this point? Or are we ready to hear from fire directly? Okay. All right, John. Thank you. Good afternoon. Captain Eisen, Lexington Fire Department, Water Control Office. As far as any gate, it has to be accessible for both us and police. So we would require them to have the click to enter. It's a process that only is accessible from the public safety side through a radio frequency. So it would be locked, but only, but be accessible by us. And they'd have to work out the logistics of who's responsible for it between themselves. Any further questions? In response to the objection we heard, given this arrangement, is it possible for you to fight a fire there without going on to the other property? If it had some type of means of accessibility, like a fence or something there, obviously we'd need to have access. And that would be the purpose of the gate itself, was to give us access to that property or that portion that we could actually maneuver upon. Because if there was any type of gate or fence or anything like that, that we'd have to take down in order to get to the other side, we would obviously take that down. All right. Commissioner Nichol. I've got a question for you, just for clarification on my side. When you're reviewing health and safety and the firefighting requirements or capabilities on a parcel of property, do you ever constrain yourself to the lot lines that show that you can go on this side of the lot line or not that side of the lot line in order to protect the fire? No. I mean, obviously the need for the accessibility would be in case it started a fire on the other plot line. So plot lines would not take any effect on that. It's just accessibility, our ability to get to that other position. And is that access made available through the gate that is proposed by the applicant? It would be, yes. Okay. It's not like they need to build a road down the side of the building in order for your trucks to fight fire. So there's no construction on the adjacent property. It's just a gate that in case of emergency allows for access onto a property. And I guess what I'm hearing is if you're fighting a fire, you're not going to look at lot line disputes. You're going to go fight the fire. And if you drive through somebody's front yard, you drive through their front yard. We try not to, obviously. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Questions? I have a technical question, Captain Issa. If the neighboring property, the Marriott, did in 20 or 30 years want to construct something there, would fire then object to that future plan? If it did obstruct, well, I shouldn't say obstruct, but if it prevented you from getting what you feel is the access you need to the one we're talking about today, would there be an objection? If there was a lack of an ability for us to access a building, especially one that might have someone sleeping in it, we certainly would object to portions of that. Okay. All right. Do we have any other questions for Captain Issa? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir, Mr. Allen. One other question. You're saying lock or they're saying lock. The way I'm hearing Mr. Woodall talk, it's like he wants it padlocked. Yes. I know you've got a different locking mechanism and so forth. If by chance he got his way and it was padlocked, would you all use the Marriott entrance to get to this place to fire if needed? If that was the only access, but most likely we'd just cut the lock. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mr. Billings, I'm sure you have or Mr. Woodall, are you finished? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's currently a fire gate there today, and my client doesn't have anything on the property today. It's empty. It's vacant. There was an old Denny's there that's been torn down, and that gate continues to get opened up somehow. I don't know how it's happening. I don't know who's doing it. I told Mr. Woodall, whatever fire signs off on for a gate, we'll do, because it seems to make sense that whatever fire wants there is what everyone should do. And specifically, if fire wants a gate and they want a certain type of lock on the gate, we're going to do what they want. I will say that the Marriott only has one entrance. The Marriott benefits from this fire entrance and this fire gate there. In fact, our original plan didn't show access through here, and because the Marriott objected to only one entrance, we created the fire access area here to provide access to their property as a second means of ingress-egress in the event of safety, fire safety, health, ambulance, et cetera, specifically if there could be blockage at the main intersection. With respect to the access for fire trucks on their property to serve our property, as you all know, there are residential buildings and commercial buildings all over this city. And fire safety is going to do whatever they need to and go wherever they need to in order to save human life. And they don't need an easement for that. And our building regulations create certain setbacks that anticipate those types of things. And if our city has a rule that says you have to have access around your property for a fire truck, then our subdivision regs need to be changed to say you have to have a 20 foot setback in order for that to occur. Our regs don't say that. This building, except for a small footprint change, was already approved by this planning commission. The reason we're back here is because the footprint changed by two feet because of the hotel flag desire. And in order to improve the green space area, which is exactly what it is today. In other words, we're not making any changes to the water quality feature. I don't know anything about the tenant objecting to this. They haven't reached out to me. This project is not new. It's been heard before this planning commission on several occasions. Today's discussion is the same as it was two years ago. And that is we have two neighbors who don't get along. But you've not heard a single objection that points to a single provision in our zoning ordinance or our subdivision regulations that says this plan does not comply with those. As a result, I understand Mr. Woodall's objections. And he has a right to come here and speak. But unless they can show the plan doesn't comply with our rules, which they haven't, I think we're entitled to approval based on the staff's report, TRC's recommendation, and the subdivision committee. Thank you all. All right. Thank you, Nathan. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this development plan? Do we have any questions or any final thoughts from Mr. Woodall? Okay. Do we have any commissioner questions or discussion? Mr. Wilson? I have a question. Does the staff have anything to say about this? Do you have a specific question? Well, I think you've heard as many comments as we've had. Do you have anything to add or clarify? Mr. Billings is correct. The staff's recommending approval. And we rely on the division of engineering and the infrastructure plans that meet the engineering manuals, which is the next stage. So if there's an issue with those designs, the division of engineering would discuss that with the applicant, and they would have to rework their design, which is what they've already done once. But the staff is confident at this point this plan does meet our ordinance. Mr. Chairman, are you ready for a motion? I have a question. Just one last thing. Ms. Jones. Going to Mr. Woodall's point about the potential inability in the future for Marriott, if they ever wanted to redevelop that site, would our regulations, or like Captain Eisen said, would that prevent them from potentially building in that area, or are setbacks sufficient where fire could access even if there was something built there in the future? Well, I can't answer that question until we saw what it looked like. But fire is always going to be a weigh-in on this stuff. So whatever development comes forward, they're going to tell whoever's doing it what they need in order to protect public safety. And, you know, fire sort of trumps everybody. And they should, because we should want everybody to have fire protection when they need it. So, I mean, you know, I can't say that it would prevent something. It may just require it to be done a certain way, but that would depend on what it looked like. Okay. All righty. Thank you. If we have no other questions, Mr. Wilson. I was going to make a motion if you think the body is ready. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of PLN-MJDP 25-29 Coleman Property, Newtown Pike, Hampton Inn and Suites for the reasons provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. We have a second from Commissioner Wirth. Any discussion? If not, we'll put that to a vote. All right. Mr. Pinn. All right. That carries seven in the affirmative, one negative, and one recusal. Thank you all. That takes us page three. PLN-MJDP 25-31. Good afternoon. Chris Chaney, planning staff. We're looking at PLN-MJDP 25-31 Marlboro Manor Subdivision. The Transy Hager Departments. This is a final development plan. We looked at this recently. This development, the purpose of this plan is to depict the lotting scheme for 29 single family dwellings, 26 townhomes, four multifamily structures, and one senior living facility. And the applicant is also requesting a waiver of the land subdivision regulations for an alley. This property is located at the eastern corner of Radcliffe Road and Haggard Lane. This is Haggard Court at the bottom of the plan. And then I-75 is to the plan right. The single family homes depicted are along the, they front the streets. Then there will be townhomes as kind of the next section. And then interior to the development are the four multifamily residential. And then the senior living facility is here along Haggard Lane. There are, let's see, 12 standard sign offs. Engineering, traffic engineering, landscape examiner, addressing, urban forest, or Department of Environmental Quality's approval of environmentally sensitive areas, bike pad, green space, division of fire, division of waste management, division of water quality's approval of the capacity assurance program requirements, the postal service, and then there are two additional conditions. Number 13, provide a lighting plan for Article 30 of the zoning ordinance, which the applicant has done since the subdivision plan. We reviewed that and signed off on that. And then number 14, provided that the planning commission grants a waiver of the land subdivision regulations for the proposed alley. And the alley in question is this alley B located between the single family and the townhomes. And I can make sure I don't have a, I think I've got a little bit of a blow up on that. And so, well, that's the development plan. And then the waiver you should have in your packet, a waiver report. The applicant requests a waiver to Article 6-8A of the land subdivision regulations for an alternate to the typical local residential street cross section for proposed alley B. Located at, well, the applicant is requesting waivers under Article 1-5B, design innovation and large scale development, and 1-5C, infill and redevelopment facilitation. Alley B is proposed to have a 40 foot right of way with a 20 foot roadway. No on street parking, a six inch wide curb, a four and a half foot utility strip, and a five foot sidewalk. The closest cross section that we have for a continuing local street, that cross section is a 52 foot right of way with a 27 foot roadway. Parking restricted to one side, a six inch wide curb, a seven foot utility strip, and a five foot wide sidewalk. The applicant states that providing alley B in the proposed configuration will increase the drivable area within the development to permit the free flow of traffic. Parking will be accommodated on site for each single family lot and townhome lot. Therefore, street parking is not necessary or advantageous in this situation. Staff does recommend approval of the requested waiver of Article 6-8A for the following reasons. Granting the requested waiver does not adversely affect public health, welfare, or safety for the mixed use project in this location. The alley is available as access to off street parking on single family lots, but frontage also exists for each lot along a street that is compliant with the land subdivision regulations. Granting the waiver is consistent with the intent of Article 1-5B of the land subregs for design, innovation, and large scale development as utilizing alleys achieves the basic objectives of the land subdivision regulations by providing safe, convenient, and efficient traffic circulation. However, granting this waiver would not be consistent with Article 1-5C, as this development is not within the defined infill and redevelopment area. All righty, thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions for him at this time for this development plan and or waiver? Yes, sir, Mr. Mickler. Yeah, I've got a question in regards to the depiction of this. If we're doing an alleyway with parking on the individual parcels, we're not showing curb cuts on that rendering you've got up there, but it seems like the whole thing would be a curb cut practically. Is that not the case? I'm looking at something that looks like a sort of a traditional on street parking sort of diagram, but then I'm hearing a ton of curb cuts. That configuration doesn't really allow for on street parking with the proximity of all the driveways, so you're correct in that, and they're proposing no on street parking for the alley. What you have up right there doesn't show curb cuts, is correct? Correct. They do on, I'm not sure why on the color up it doesn't show it, but they have indicated the driveways for the townhomes. We asked them to show that so that they were paired, but I don't believe they were shown for the single family homes. I would also, I mean, I guess I'd be interested in hearing from traffic engineering just what their thoughts are and how it's evolving with their thoughts as we sort of start looking at incorporating alleyways into developments. Handling that like, I mean, because that sidewalk looks very functional in that color up, but then in reality I don't think that this is going to function quite the way it's diagrammed in that color up. Yes, David Filli, Actuary Traffic Engineering. So, yeah, an alley, I mean, this isn't really what you would think of as a historical alley. Alleys don't typically have sidewalks on them. I think the issue comes in with us not having an alley in our subdivision regulations, and then so what does an alley look like? Now, I think we're working on a complete streets manual, and I think that ultimately is going to come up with a configuration that's more typical. Again, an alley is typically where you put a lot of your drainage infrastructure, and it's just access for the driveways, and because there's no curb cuts on the main streets, it's a lot more comfortable to walk on, you know, road A and B, so you're not really going to choose to walk on an alley unless you are taking your garbage out or walking to your car. But I lived in a neighborhood with alleys, and that was the case. There's really no reason to be back. So it's the biggest, it's just a matter of timing. Like we're just not to where we have here's our prototypical alley and the one we're comfortable with, and so this is an alternative that the applicant brought that would really kind of, it's not necessarily a problem outright, but it satisfies everybody. So the fire with the 20-foot cross section, some alleys in some areas are 20-foot, some of them are smaller. Many of them don't have sidewalks on occasion. I guess they do, but, again, that's the things you're looking at. I mean, they show a sidewalk. I wouldn't necessarily think it would have to be there. Again, your other sidewalk infrastructure serves your traveling pedestrian. So, anyway. Sorry. Thank you. In a typical alley situation, my understanding is that the alley provides a place for the cars to come in and park. I can't tell from this plan, is that what the intention is here, is that people use the alley? In the DP, it shows all the driveways come off that alley. Okay. So there are no driveways on road A or B. On the black and white plan that we have, it looks like there's also something that's accessed from road A. Is that what is intended? I don't think so. I think everything's off of, is that right? Yeah. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. The one that are adjacent to the perimeter, yes, they would have to come off road A at the top right of the plan there, just because they're at the perimeter of the lot, but that makes sense. Just to clarify, because I've got the black and white development plan in front of me. It does look like curb cuts are marked on the townhouses on that alleyway, but it does not show any curb cuts for the single family residentials on the black and white development plan that I see. Yeah, there would be a lot of curb cuts. To be clear, there is a standard drawing for this type of thing where your apron is inside of the sidewalk, and so you maintain your ADA compliance and things like that. So there are standard drawings to achieve that. But as far as comfort walking there, yeah, you're going to encounter a lot of driveways, which, again, is typically why you don't see a sidewalk on an alley. Not necessarily it's prohibited, but again, most people use the sidewalks on the roads rather than the alley. Okay. And then I guess this will be a question for the applicant, but the presumption here that there would be just a edit to the development plan to show curb cuts for the single family, or otherwise, it seems like there would be some on-street parking necessary behind those single family houses. So for a preliminary subdivision plan, which addresses those single family lots, the goal is really to ensure that the lots meet the zoning ordinance requirements in terms of size and frontage and yards. Typically, the planning commission doesn't decide where the driveway is located. It's up to the builder when they build the properties. From time to time on corner lots, we have designated where the driveway access would come from. But for the rest of them, that's not typically shown on our preliminary subdivision plans. In fact, we don't ever show buildings at all for a single family subdivision. It's just the lot, and we know that the builder will eventually build a structure that fits within the setbacks. That makes sense. I think the reason I brought it up in this case is because the image of that color up plan looks a lot nicer than what the reality is going to look like with all those curb cuts. And so I just, I guess, had that sort of gut reaction that in reality, we're not going to create, that that space isn't going to look like that. And so I think that's what, but I totally understand that. I'm fine with that. Okay, do we have any more questions for Chris or David? Seeing none, thank you. We'll hear from our applicant, if they have anything to contribute or add. John Woodall and Steve Garland once again with Prime. Of course, you all heard this plan during the rezoning and all that stuff. And probably, you know, alley is probably not the right description. That's kind of what it is, but it's not like what most of us think about when we think of an alley. And really, you know, whatever traffic wants to, we're just kind of waiting on the final determination about how wide it's supposed to be, we're going to do. And we've got the space to do it. It's just kind of an anomaly in the ordinance. That's why we had to ask for the waiver. But all of the access points are to be through the alley. My understanding. All right, Steve. All right. Thank you, Mr. Woodall. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? All right. Seeing none, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this application today? Or this development plan, I should say. Okay. Do we have any final commission questions or comments? I suppose we will need two motions, one for the plan, one for the waiver. Is that correct? Okay. Mr. Owens put his glasses on, so he's getting ready to do something. I do still need them. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of plan MJDP 25-31 Marlboro Manor subdivision with the recommended 14 conditions. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Second from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? Put that to a vote. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'll move for approval of the petition for waiver of land subdivision regulations for this plan, plan MJDP 25-31 Marlboro Manor subdivision for the two reasons provided by the staff. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Thank you, Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? If not, take a vote. That also carries unanimously. Thank you, applicants. All right. That brings us to page three, item C, PLN MJDP 25-32. Okay. Now we're looking at MJDP 25-32 Interstate Park Property, Boonesboro Manor. This is related to the earlier final record PLN FRP 25-14 that was postponed for a month. This amendment is to depict a proposed quick service drive through on track 1D and proposed access road. This property is located at 5354 Athens Boonesboro Road. Athens Boonesboro runs diagonally through the plan here. I-75 is to the plan right. This is a competition drive, and I believe this is Doe Run. A lot of this is still being developed. On your agenda, this shows that it was recommended for postponement by the subdivision committee, but I believe that was related to the conversations we had about the access and the sewer capacity and all that related to the final record plat that doesn't affect this. So the applicant has requested the postponement of the FRP 25-14 to allow this to go forward without that final record plat impeding this development plan. So we have, let's see, 12 standard sign offs, engineering, traffic engineering, landscape examiner, addressing, urban forester, environmental quality, bike ped, green space, division of fire, division of waste management. Approval of the capacity assurance program requirements, postal service, the remaining five conditions, number 13, provide a lighting plan that conforms to article 30 of the zoning ordinance. Denote previously approved waivers and conditions on the face of the plan. Correct cross sections for Doe Run Trail DD and HH to verify remaining cross sections are appropriately labeled private street versus access easements. Clarify timing of sanitary sewer capacity improvements as they relate to the issuance of building permits in note number 15 and update note number 16 to reflect new lotting scheme proposed on the final record plat. It's just mainly cleanup items. Zoom in. And so what they're proposing, this is competition drive to the right. They're proposing a basically a frontage access road entrance off competition and then circulation through the parking lot with the structure there for a Taco Bell. That I'll open it up to you all for. All right. Thank you, Chris. Any questions? Mr. Pim. We're supposed to have a staff update on this because the service may recommend postponement because of the accesses. That was for the Patrick Way and Doe Run. Initially that those issues don't affect this lot directly. I think we have any other questions. Thank you, Chris. We'll hear from our applicant or developer. Good afternoon. My name is Fritz Alderman. I'm with Karpinski Engineering and I'm representing charter food for the Taco Bell. I have a question. I have a question. Sure. What is the difference between this is noted as a proposed quick service drive through. And they can pick up their tacos at the drive through if they need to. Anybody have any questions? All right. Questions? I have a question. Sure. What is the difference between this is noted as a proposed quick service drive through. Is that something different than a regular drive through? No, it's the same as a regular drive through. It's just their marketing terms. Is there something about this configuration that we should note? No, there's nothing unusual about it or anything. It's just their standard store. Thank you. There is one thing, I guess. It looks like on your plan, the parking, sorry, what you have there and what we have here, the parking is angled on ours. And what you show is perpendicular to the lot line. Do you see what I mean? So this right here? No sir, to the right, yes, that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 spaces. They are angled parking on our plan. You may have had a drawing there. This is the old one. This is the old one? Yes, she has the new one. Okay, the new one has the angled parking. Yes, it does. It allows for better flow through the parking lot. Okay. And that's what our client wants anyway. Got it. Stephanie Blaine with Palmer Engineering, just to give a little back history. Traffic engineering requested that this entire thing have one way circulation, so that parking was changed to angled parking. There's some stacking in front of that, and so there wasn't that 24 feet wasn't wide enough to support the stacking and two way traffic, so that was why the revision was made. Thank you, that makes a lot of sense. All right, do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none, thank you very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this development plan today? Seeing none, do we have any final commissioner questions or comments? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Yes, Ms. Burke. I need back to the question of Hattrick Way. Is that coming to us, that lot that we're talking about, on a different development plan? Not on a different development plan, on the plat, on the final record plat. Because at that stage, they're asking to dedicate that right of way. So that whole question that we went through in subdivision about people having to turn around on private property with no guarantees that that would be accessible will show up on the discussion of the plat. Is that what you're saying? Yes. Okay. All right. Do we have a motion or any further discussion? Anybody feel free at any time. Mr. Nickel. All right. I'm going to recommend approval of PLN MJDP 25-32, Interstate Park Property at 5354 Athens Boonesboro Road, with the staff's 17 recommendations. All righty, thank you, Commissioner Nickel. Do we have a second to that motion? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll take a vote. All right, that carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Our next item, I believe, Daniel, are we on page seven now, RD Property Group? Yep. All right, good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, planning staff. The first of our rezoning items, we had two that were postponed from our zoning meeting last month. This is a request by RD Property Group, LLC. This is a group that is looking to rezone a portion of the Patchen Wilkes Farm, which is located at 1811 Winchester Road. This portion of the property currently has two separate zonings. One is a B1 zone with some conditional zoning restrictions, as well as a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone. The applicant is seeking to rezone this property in order to construct a development centered around a Kroger marketplace. And so they are seeking a B6P zone, and seeking to change the B1 zoning that is present on the property currently, and remove those conditional zoning restrictions, so a little bit of an unconventional approach. So for the portions that are talking about the B6P zone, we'll have our standard discussion. Is this an agreement with a comprehensive plan, a place builder review, and the like? However, for the lots, and it'll make more sense when we show the corresponding plan, but the lots with the B1 zoning that is proposed to remain, it'll be a question about meeting the specific findings for removing conditional zoning restrictions. So I'll give the presentation regarding the B6P zone change first. Staff will present the development plan, and then I'll come back with the conditional zoning request. Shown at the bottom of the screen here, the initial request also included requests for a particular variance. Based on the subsequent updates of the plan, that variance is no longer necessary, and the applicant is withdrawing that portion. Moving to the place builder type of analysis, the applicant has settled on a regional center, as well as a medium density non-residential slash mixed use development type. Staff is in agreement with both of those aspects, but let's talk about the property itself. So the Hatch and Wilkes Farm makes up a larger piece here as you're heading out Winchester Road, heading towards the interstate. So this is approximately 30 acres located in the southeast corner of that farm. Right now, it's a little bit hard to see with the lighting here, but the portions of the property that are south of this line are B1 and that existing R3 is this portion here. The entirety of that farm, the zone changes occurred primarily in the early 90s and then within 2004 as well. Zooming in a little bit closer, you get a better idea of the zoning of the surrounding property. So we have an existing commercial development to the east that has this P1. Portions of the subject property that we are talking about today are being shown in white. And then it adjoins to the north and to the west there, portions of the Hatch and Wilkes Farms. You do see this piece down here is a bit of the residential that has taken place since the early 90s. That's townhomes that are located along Hatch and Lake Drive. So further to the west, you do have the Eastland neighborhood adjoining areas that once again are slated for residential development, but are sort of outside of this request. So this is just one piece of a larger puzzle on how this Hatch and Wilkes Farm is anticipated to develop. When we're looking at an aerial of the subject property, you can see that this farm has retained a lot of its agricultural nature. You'll notice directly across Winchester Road, we have Frederick Douglas High School and its corresponding access point. The access point with this development is going to line up with that at a signalized intersection. The portions to the north and the west of this site are slated for future residential development under different projects, so we are really talking about just this portion here. With respect to the zoning of the property as it exists, I mentioned that there was conditional zoning. That was a result of when the properties were originally rezoned back in 94. We had a future land use map that said that this area was slated for residential development. Residential development is what was originally developed. In 2004, the applicant came back and tried several times to get B1 zoning at this location. In order to do so, eventually it required a zone change where they committed to do a number of conditional zoning restrictions. Essentially mandating a mixed use type development requiring a mixture of land uses. Actually, a percentage of the structures had to include both a commercial and a residential use. And a number of factors that were intended to sort of create a almost neighborhood center for the anticipated development. So the applicant is proposing to retain that B1 zoning along the corridor here and then have everything further north into the site be that B6P. As far as views of the subject property as it exists, so this is the view from Winchester Road looking into the subject property. You'll see a agricultural barn as well as several dwellings that are located on the property. Those would be removed with the corresponding development. This is a view from the intersection or the traffic light that serves Frederick Douglas High School. So once again, the entrance to this property would align here and would sync up with that light. It is worth noting that the pedestrian conditions in Winchester Road are non-existent. So Winchester Road itself is set to be studied under a corridor study very similar to what was done for Imagine Nicholasville Road. So there is, and that plan is anticipated to extend all the way to the interstate. And so this is an area without really any existing pedestrian connectivity along that Winchester Road roadway as well as limited transit service. And then this is a view of the corresponding other side of the road with Frederick Douglas High School. This is a view from that adjoining P1 development, so that's Executive Drive. That curves around into Thunder Stick, which is a stubbed roadway that will intersect with the subject property and be involved with the future development of the Patch and Wilkes Farm. With respect to the place builder element, the applicant and their initial filings had actually identified this as a corridor. Now while Winchester Road is undoubtedly one of our most significant corridors, the way the development was being laid out really didn't speak to a development that was kind of trying to reinforce that roadway. But rather a development that was seeking to, along with that Kroger, create sort of a regional center. This large commercial operation that would include corresponding residential as well as supportive uses with that. But really seeking not to supply uses to the surrounding neighborhood, which was the sort of the 2004 emphasis, but rather the entire surrounding area. So kind of increasing the scope of what they were looking to serve. As far as what is included within a regional center, the applicants requested B6B is recommended as well. So you'll notice that you'll have two staff reports corresponding with this application. The first is a pretty lengthy staff report where we identified a number of areas where staff thought greater justification, explanation, or changes were needed. So on the screen in front of you is a version of the initial plan. And some of the things that we were looking to work through as this has gone through the process included showing the proposed development of the out parcels. So the portions here, these one, two, three, four, five lots along the roadway. Those are the areas that they wanted to keep as B1 and just remove the conditional zoning restrictions. They are able to do that, but they still needed to show us what the development was going to occur there so we could evaluate the entire property to make sure that it was going to work in harmony. We had questions regarding the choices in zones and place type. The applicant, instead of requesting the conditional zoning be removed, they could have simply asked for B6P for the entire parcel or requested a highway service business zone, a B3 zone. Which is typically a little bit more appropriate along the higher intensity roads. So we had questions about the zones. We had questions about the orientation of the grocery structure. So the way that this site is currently laid out is that there is a access easement that serves these lots along Winchester Road. And that is sort of what the Kroger lot itself is oriented to. Rather than the public street that it fronts on, which is Charleston Drive, which is going to extend up here and connect to Thunder Stick. So we had questions about as it related to what is the pedestrian experience and what is the activation of that public roadway relative to the proposal that they're looking to establish. And then within that same question, the applicant's proposal included residential to the north. We had questions about how that was going to connect and activate with the proposed commercial use. There's also a flood plain that was not initially identified. It was located here at the stub of where Thunder Stick is located. That wasn't identified or otherwise covered in the initial development plan. And so we had sought some additional information for that. The applicant is proposing a residential development here, but had not submitted information relating to the multifamily design guidelines. Those are, once again, those supplemental information that is incorporated into the place builder when you do multifamily. That speaks to the way the site is designed, some architectural standards, and some other aspects of that. And finally, the staff had questions about the need for the variance and the justification therein. And so from the time that that initial staff report was submitted, the applicant came back with a revised plan. This is the plan that is shown in front of you. You'll notice that the outlots to the south here have now incorporated uses. So they're showing how those are anticipated to be developed. The applicant has extended essentially a canopy in order to, along the northwestern portion of the Kroger site here, that was the area that they were seeking a variance. Essentially, there was too much pavement between the building and the road. And so they've extended the building out and created a covered canopy area, so that that variance is no longer required. They've also added some measures of connectivity as it relates to the sidewalks, and brought a little bit of a justification as it relates to how these pieces sort of fit together. However, at this time, there's still some aspects that they really didn't meet. You'll notice that the structure that they're proposing is still oriented internally. And so they are comprehensive plan policies and place builder policies that speak to activating that roadway and really trying to use buildings in order to reinforce the streetscape and making that walkable. The applicant also was not able to provide the multifamily design guidelines aspects for the architectural elements. They indicate that they do not have a planned user for the site as of yet, and so they state that they are not able to provide those. So that's an element that is typically included with a rezoning that features those elements. But on balance, the comp plan is being met in some other ways with this request. So the rezoning would provide them greater flexibility relative than what is present today to provide greater housing density. It provides an opportunity to increase the variety of housing options and would increase the utilization of some undeveloped land within the urban services boundary. The Kroger use would provide for the daily commercial needs, not just for the adjoining neighborhoods, but for the larger entire region. It encourages a mixed use development with the incorporation of their grocery use, the apartments, as well as their outlots, providing kind of more typical outlot developments. The development would connect and extend sub streets. Those would sort of be limited to just this portion of the development. They would continue on and provide connections out to the Eastland neighborhood along Joan Drive, as well as another connection further north. And does provide for some pedestrian facilities along Winchester Road. That is one of the other changes that the applicant brought forward. The applicant indicated when asked about the choice in zones, they flagged the B6Ps floor area ratio as a problem as to why they didn't extend it throughout the entire site. And while this was going forward, the lot coverage for the B3 zone was still in effect. And so that informed their choice of how the site should proceed relative to their zoning request. With regards to public engagement, staff did attend a very well attended meeting. That was probably north of 100 individuals several months ago. This took place at Frederick Douglass High School. The comments from the neighborhood were mainly oriented towards questions about how the rest of the farm was going to develop. And so the questions on when those connections were coming, what that manner of development. There were some questions for the Kroger site relative to how the lighting was going to impact signage, as well as some transportation questions about planned improvements to Winchester Road as a whole. But those were fielded by the applicant and staff was present for that. But in totality, while the staff still has concerns with how the orientation, structure is laid out, we felt that it met more of the comprehensive plan than it did not with those aspects. So we found that it was in agreement with the Imagine Lexington's goals and objectives. Specifically as it's talking about the ability to provide additional housing, utilizing an underutilized piece of property within the urban services boundary. That for the past 20 years since its last rezoning has yet to develop. We found that it was in agreement with the policies and the comprehensive plans for many of the same reasons. It is providing an avenue for that connectivity that's going to really unite the neighborhoods to the west to the commercial opportunities kind of for their day to day needs. We found it was agreement with the criteria for land use, transportation connectivity and walkability, environmental sustainability and resiliency, site design, as well as building form. Understanding that there are still criteria in all of those categories that kind of relate to the interplay between the buildings and the roadway on Charleston Drive, but overall staff found that there was enough here for us to recommend approval despite the deficiencies in that particular aspect. Staff will be on momentarily to discuss the development plan in a little bit more detail, as well as go over kind of the aspects that relate to conditional zoning in that own specific findings. But at this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the zoning and process with that first initial piece. Okay, thank you, Daniel. Mr. McClure? Yeah, I have a few questions. The first is just general. When you mentioned there were quite a few people at that public meeting. I'm just curious, did you receive any written comments for this zone? Because I'm not seeing any in Granicus, and so that seems to be a little bit of an imbalance there. Yeah, yeah, so there was one written comment, and if that's not in Granicus, we can provide that for you. Really, I think the discussion, or how this has evolved since that initial meeting, was there was some clarification. And I spent probably a pretty decent amount of that time at the meeting trying to kind of separate these different processes. Because while it is one entire property, the Patchenbrook Farm, that is developing, it's under kind of a patchwork of different developers at different aspects. So here we have a rezoning for a commercial component. At that same time, we had, not but a couple weeks ago, you all saw a plan for residential that was closer to Joan Drive. So there have been discussions and other subsequent meetings where we've addressed that, okay, there are several different processes going on. And I think that sort of those subsequent conversations have kind of cleared out, okay, this is just for the rezoning. So as far as comments specific to that, we've only received that one letter. We did receive more comments, but those related to the other aspects that you all have already heard, or will be coming in the future. Okay, and then my other questions. I have some questions involved with the B6P and the dividing of the zones, because I believe this isn't the first time. So I guess first, can you just clarify what the floor area ratio requirements, again, are for the B6P? We can pull those up. I don't have them in front of me right now, but- But in general, there's a certain amount of floor area ratio that is required in the B6P. Yes. And I guess I have some concerns, because I think we've seen this on another plan before, where we sort of create a dividing line and we add another zone as a way of magically making the project in compliance with the B6P floor area ratios, which really seems to undermine the intent and the goal of that requirement. If you can sort of just draw a line in all of this area to the front that has very low floor area ratio just doesn't count in that formula. So I guess I have some hesitancies with the way that this map is, that as you sort of noted in your presentation, that they, I mean, it seems not the goal of the comprehensive plan that we're zoning in order to get around floor area ratio requirements, I guess. Yeah, and that was, once again, part of our initial review of this was just because it was just a very packed application. The application had a zone change, it had a variance, it had a conditional zoning aspect of that. And the applicant can speak as well to their thought process, but if memory serves, they do say explicitly that the concerns with the floor area ratio requirement and the, I think as well as the implications on parking as well factored into their decision to kind of set this up as they did. There's nothing in our ordinance that explicitly prohibits what they're asking for with regards to we do see kind of zones or requests that include a mixture of zones. And it does a somewhat unique circumstance in which the underlying zone does let them do some of what they were wanting to do with the B6P zone. Now that being said, there are some downsides to the applicant relative to the, relative to asking for a B1 here or to remove the conditions on the B1 rather than extending it further down. Any of the drive through uses or anything associated with that is going to require a future conditional use as opposed to being approved outright. But we did note in the staff report that the B3 was also an option, which would give them some additional flexibility as far as their drive throughs are concerned. But once again, at the time, that 30% lot coverage was still in effect. So we have seen a handful of occasions where applicants have looked to utilize a mixture of zones to kind of achieve that same effect. But overall, yeah, there just really wasn't much room for staff to do otherwise, essentially. And my last sort of question in regards to the floor area ratio is, you kind of touched on that they don't have users for those rear buildings. And there's kind of a sense, because we saw this on the last Kroger plan, that those buildings are there to comply with the floor area ratio requirements. Is there any discussion of whether those are real? And if there's any thing in writing or notes to indicate that those are real? Yes, so when planning staff reviews a plan, we assume that the applicant is putting forth a plan that they are in good faith, want to implement. Unfortunately, or at this time, we don't have any concurrency requirements relative to the construction here. And so, as opposed to, say, how we were handling in that intense amount of discussion that went forward as a part of the UGMP and those discussions. So our understanding is that the applicant intends to construct those, but at this time, the Kroger is the pressing, and it is the tenant they know that they have at this time. However, if you provide a zone that has some greater flexibility as far as what's able to be built, if you provide a zone that has fewer restrictions requiring it, say, to be mixed use or basically taking some of those off, we may see an increased amount of development relative to what we've had out here for 20 years without success. So we have to, as a kind of a practice, take them at face value here. Sure, do you know if they constructed them at the last Kroger project on Newtown? I'm not familiar, not yet. So they did just construct the Kroger and not the other buildings that were put on for the square footage, okay. Yeah, not yet. Those were my questions. Thank you very much, Daniel. Thank you. Commissioner Nichol. Yes, I've got a question about, as we're looking at the property as a whole from a macro point of view, we've got 32 acres currently zoned R3 and B1 with restrictions. And the choice is now B6P. What percentage of the project could they get completed with the current zoning? And why do you think B6P was the best solution, taking into consideration that B6P is something we're going to be looking at again as a group to try to encourage more development on B6P? Were we looking for greater flexibility for the applicant? What was the mentality? So I guess the first question is, what percentage of this could they get completed with the current zoning? And what flexibility does B6P allow the applicant to receive while they're trying to put in 130,000 square foot Kroger, 150 something units, and six out parcels on this site? Yeah, so there's a couple of different aspects of this. The first, and it'll get touched on when we have the discussion of the conditional zoning restrictions a little bit later. But the B1, which is kind of, if I was to draw a line, it would, I think, approximately cut this portion, it's sort of at a diagonal. But the bulk of the property has that B1 designation with significant conditional zoning restrictions. So even without normal conditional zoning restrictions, there are limits on the largest size of a building you can build. So here, this is a very large Kroger marketplace. This is north of 100,000 square feet in area. And so the B1 zone really isn't set up to allow for that. So a zone change, even without conditional zoning restrictions, would be necessary. Or they have to get into a form-based project, which definitely takes it another direction. So the conditional zoning, as an added layer on top of that, mandated that a minimum percentage of this site's development be vertical mixed use. So if you wanted to get the commercial with the B1, you had to also have that vertical residential as well. I think the commission has looked at that, and it's been challenging to implement. It's been done successfully in some places, but in the 20 years since that's been there, it really hasn't kind of come forward. The B6P, on the other hand, brings you forward. It removes the restrictions on anything that was included as part of the conditional zoning restrictions. It lets you go taller, it lets you provide additional area, really provides a ton of residential flexibility, which oftentimes you see leveraged in order to support kind of single story commercial development. So you'll see a large user come in, you'll see proposed offices or multifamily residential or something that brings that floor area ratio up and kind of helps offset that. And so the B6P does provide even relative to the R3, which doesn't have any conditions and is located kind of similarly at the top portion of the site. This gives you additional height, gives you additional consideration as far as the density you can achieve. And so that is beneficial to the applicant as well. That's great, and what we're seeing here on this development plan is the activation of the original idea to allow residential on B6P, which helps to solve our housing needs by allowing multifamily units to be developed in the B6P area. So I think that that's a great use of the B6P zoning requirements and offerings to build the multifamily. We don't see that as much as we would like, but we do know from experience that residential on top of non-residential has not been the best path forward for our community. So I do compliment them for choosing B6P, which does allow them to add 150 plus units of housing in a way that would not have been as possible or be able to provide as dense a number of units on the parcel of land without going to B6P. So this looks like a good use of what we're trying to accomplish, which is to add more housing on as many possible properties we can. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Davis. Daniel, did you say that you had consulted with the Kroger contingent and ask them to consider orienting it toward Charleston Drive? Yes, so during our, this came up as early as the pre-application meeting for, that's a requirement in order to file, and so staff reviewed their initial proposal. We issued our initial staff report, and then we met with them subsequent to that, at which time we talked through some of the issues of the site. The applicants here, they can take and explain their reasoning as well. My understanding, based on the conversations we had, is they wanted to retain visibility from Winchester. They also thought there were some spatial constraints that they would not be able to achieve their preferred orientation or flow. I know Kroger's has a number of stores, so they have some firm thoughts on how the layout should work. But that's not what we evaluate from a comp plan perspective. So the aspects that they're still lacking as far as how to activate Charleston Drive are still sort of relevant, but in whole, we thought that the project was mostly in agreement. Well, and I guess we don't see what's on the other side of Charleston Drive, so we don't know what's there. But they're accessing the site of Charleston Drive, and it would seem to me to make far more sense to make the building visible from Charleston Drive, or perhaps a less attractive part than the loading dock. And I can't imagine being in those multi-story houses back there with your back view of the Kroger building. How could that be a desirable place to live? It's unattractive, but I mean, I commend more housing, but it's just, it seems inserting something that is going to be an elephant. And the building, the outlots that face Winchester Road, as the letter from the Strongtown Lexington said, is that really the image that we want Winchester Road to have? This kind of higgledy-piggledy parking lots and buildings? It's one of the last pieces of land to be developed. It seems it should be done thoughtfully and with care, not just fill it up with stuff. Sorry. All right. Do we have any more? It's the citizen comment is in, if we click on the actual PLNMAR 25.8 I believe. And then scroll all the way to the bottom. It's a little more different. I didn't scroll. Okay. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel, just a general quick question. I'm calling them out lots facing Winchester Road. There's no plans for them right now, they're just placeholders? Yes. Will we, when something actually comes in, will we be seeing these? So once again, so based on the timing of when a final development plan would come in, it would be subject to the new House Bill 443 process. So you would not see it unless it had a waiver associated with it, or if staff flagged a health, safety, welfare concern. So one other question, it looks like there, with five outlots, three of them have drive-throughs. Is that, would that subject, are they locked into that? So if this was approved, they would still, the zone change would take effect. The parcels along the roadway there would shift from a conditional B1 to a standard B1. And then they would have to go to the Board of Adjustment for each individual site in order to request a drive-through. Okay. So that doesn't lock them into anything there. I think the applicant just wanted to be transparent in that some of those uses would be drive-throughs. Okay, thank you. Do we have anything else for Daniel at this point? Thank you, Daniel. What? Yes. Okay. All right. And we're looking at the development plan PLN MJDP 25-27 for Patchen Wilkes Unit 2. This plan depicts the 127,000 square foot grocery store with the gas station, multifamily residential, and the outlots as Daniel described. The applicant submitted a revised plan on July 8th. And based on that, staff offers the following revised recommendation. You should have a pink sheet in your packet with those revised conditions. The subdivision committee did recommend approval based on the following revised conditions. There are six standard sign-offs. And then the applicant has actually worked through a lot of the cleanup, or all of the cleanup conditions, and the remaining condition is discuss the place builder criteria. A point about the outlots, we did on the initial review of the plan for tech committee ask for something to be depicted on the outlots. Because the applicants were asking to remove the conditional zoning on that portion, we felt like they needed to show something that was there to justify why they wanted the conditions removed. And so they reluctantly did that to comply with the conditions. They just didn't want to get pigeonholed into something that wouldn't work. And so that was them working with us to show a plan that would support their request for the removal of the conditional zoning. And really, I think Daniel covered it very well. I can answer any questions if you've got any questions for me. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions at this time? Nope? Okay. All right. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. The last aspect of this is, once again, that conditional zoning request that is incorporated into this for the B1 portion of the property. Just as a reminder, you all have the ability to review these conditional zoning restrictions and amend them. However, it is a different burden of proof and a different series of findings. Essentially, the findings that are being reviewed here is whether there's been an economic, physical, social change on the subject property or within the area that wasn't considered at the time that those conditions were incorporated. And that would make those conditions inappropriate or improper. So they are requesting for the portions of the B1 that they are leaving along the roadway to incorporate that aspect. Once again, you're being tasked to find if there's a major change of an economic, physical, or social nature. The current restrictions that were placed on the subject property, there was a number of them. Ranging from a minimum number of residential dwelling units, limiting signage, requiring 60% be in multi-story buildings with a mixture of uses. Preserved a tree line along Winchester Road, and then restricted the sale of gasoline as well as drive-thru facilities. The justification and rationale that was given for those at the time that they were filed in 2005 was, it was implementing the residential land use recommendation for the comprehensive plan. And it was appropriate for the nearby neighborhood. So the double part of being appropriate for the neighborhood and being in line with that future land use map that was implemented at that time, but since we've gone to the place builder application. So initially, staff recommended postponement. We asked the applicant to provide us some greater detail on what factors have reasonably changed. And in the supplemental letter of justification, the applicant cites that since that 2004 zone change, there's been other rezonings within the Patchen Wilks development to allow for higher density residential. There have been changes in the immediate vicinity with the expansion of the urban services boundary. At the time of that 2004 zone change, there was an understanding that this was really one of the last aspects or the areas where we would have development before you hit the urban services boundary. As you all are well aware, we just went through the process of the urban growth boundary expansion. And so we added approximately 1,000 acres just on the opposite side of that interstate. And so part of that shift, that additional acreage, that change in anticipation of how intensely we were going to develop along this corridor. The applicant opines that those are significant changes that impact the changes proposed in the property. And make the conditional zoning restrictions, which were oriented towards creating a very specific neighborhood-focused development with some very strict limitations and restrictions, to open that up and to allow that for greater utilization. The applicant also cites the construction of Frederick Douglas High School directly across the street, as well as the Baptist Medical Campus as things that sort of transform this area from not just serving the surrounding neighborhoods, but sort of more regional, larger scale draws. So they kind of put that in the context of that regional place type or that regional center designation. And so those combined with the changes in land use, the changes to the urban services boundary, the implementation of that urban growth master plan, and the construction of those facilities help make that appropriate. Just to give an idea of the relative proximity, the subject property, the location we're looking at here is marked with a star relative to that. So just on the opposite side of that land that was included. So staff is recommending approval. We did find that there have been significant changes that leave that initial concept as no longer being appropriate, especially in lights to the reducing the size and scale of it by rezoning a good portion of it to the B6B anyways. So we are recommending approval at this time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have with staff. Thank you, Daniel. Yeah, sorry? Could you go back a couple of slides to where the B1? Yeah. All right, do we have any questions for Daniel at this time? Mr. McClure. Yeah, I have some questions in regarding to, I mean, the current restrictions were put in place to ensure that these properties were developed with a neighborhood orientation. As Patchin Wilkes develops, we just approved another residential section. And as we continue to still need residential areas and housing regardless of the expansion, I'm sort of having trouble seeing where the neighborhood center for the rest of that Patchin Wilkes development is if we remove these conditions. Yeah, and just as a, I would respond to that, that the B1 section as currently would, if this was the planning commission decision, if this was the planning commission decided to find, no, we do not believe that the B1 restriction should be changed, but you did grant the B6P zone change. It would leave the same restrictions in place, but essentially applying it to a eight or so acre stretch along Winchester Road. So I think part of what planning staff was trying to get at in our initial report was there are things that you can do relative to how that site is oriented or laid out that could kind of marry the two together, have it so that this is still an attractive amenity for the neighborhood that would be walkable with the kind of extension of those roadways. While still acknowledging you're doing this at a much larger scale. The B1, there would not have been any structures greater than 40,000 square feet that would have been permitted under that initial development. Here we've got a Kroger that's, I believe, north of 120,000 square feet. So it was trying to kind of marry the concept of our understanding of how this entire area would develop to a certain extent has changed. Would these conditions still be applicable given that they were sort of to enforce a very specific development, which may or may not be relevant now. But staff absolutely agrees that this is going to need to interface well with that neighborhood, that that's going to be crucial, but also it's serving a larger area as well. That was sort of our thought process behind that. I think that's a great conclusion. This neighborhood is not, I mean this Kroger's, this whole shopping area is not just serving Patch and Wilkes. I think there may be a Meyers at Hamburg, and other than that, you're traveling significant distance to find a grocery store. Plus, as we develop out into our urban service area, that activity is going to occur on Winchester Road past 75. So I think it's important for us to know, even though this is providing B1 services to the contiguous neighborhood of Patch and Wilkes. It's also on an arterial in a B6P format that's serving the greater community. So I think that that's something that you all had to balance, and coming up with the B6P solution, I think was the right one. By noticing it's not just a neighborhood development for the Patch and Wilkes neighborhood. It's a development for the whole Winchester Road corridor and the future expansion that we'll see in the urban growth area. Thank you. Okay, before we go further, Mr. Mickler, did you have any other questions? Okay. Anybody else? We're good. Thank you, Daniel. Mr. Gross. Thank you very much, Brandon Gross, on behalf of the applicant, RD group. And I'm going to, let's see here if I can. All right, we'll go here first. And so first I want to thank everyone and for those who were at the committee meetings last month. I appreciate your time. I had, I thought, really good discussions at those meetings with you and with staff, even though Mr. Owens politely asked me to stop talking at some point during those meetings. But, so I'm going to talk about this, but first I want to just do a little update. So we had, yes, we went to, I had a neighborhood meeting in which I invited one, two, three, four, five, the six closest neighborhood associations in this area. We had it at Frederick Douglas. It was advertised in the newspaper. They had articles about it. And we worked with the legislative aid for council person, Gray, who sent it out to also neighbors. And we had over 100 people come to that meeting. In the meeting, we, what we held is we first, we discussed the project, and then we took questions from the neighbors. And then finally, we have breakout sessions, is what I like to do, in which I have our design team of EA partners in the back were there. And we have a lot of phone boards, kind of identical set up around the room. And then we break up and then can talk to the neighbors for essentially as long as they want. We are there for two or three hours on that evening. Since then, I went to the Eastland Neighborhood Association meeting, I want to say two weeks ago, and had a really good meeting with them. And then I met with the Patchen Wilkes Town Home neighbors, not the actual association, it wasn't official, but met about 15 of them on July 3rd that evening. I believe they're here today, yes? You guys plan on talking today? Yes, so Jenny will come up and talk. And so we've had a lot of outreach, we've had lots of meetings. I think Kroger has made some design changes based upon those meetings, some amenities have been tweaked, some items have been added. And so I think the fact that we probably met with 150 people or more over the last eight weeks to 12 weeks. We didn't get one comment from any of those neighbors. I think it speaks to how much we talked with them and really wanted them to know what was going on with the process. So I do want to mention the choice of the zone. So as Daniel mentioned, we did not, we had, and just so everyone knows, if I were to come to you with the development plan and the zone change. And I had every single user for every single building that was shown there, that would not happen. Because everyone has different timelines, they have different desires, they want to do things. That's the reason when we did the Givens property there at Georgetown Citation, we came in with Publix. And then we came in with additional users thereafter. I'm not aware of any project in Lexington in which someone shows up and says, I know every single user for every single building. So right now we have the Kroger is a user, they're driving our request for the zone change. As Daniel mentioned, we are capped at the size of the Kroger, which is why we need the B6P zone. Those apartments, yes, the apartments are conceptual, but they are designed in such a way to be the typical three story size that we think we can get there. Three size building, we are actively looking for someone to build those buildings. These owners, the Patcher Wilk Realty does not plan on sitting on any of this land longer than it needs to. We just don't have the particular person available who's going to build those yet. And that's the reason we had a difficult time on the multi-family is because I didn't want to bring elevations and renderings when I didn't know exactly who was going to build them and they may not completely match up. And then there would be an accusation of a bait and switch type situation, which none of us in this room want. So what we've done is we've talked with staff and we've agreed to add a development plan note that says when we come back with those buildings, we will address the architectural design elements in the multifamily at that time. And to be quite honest with you, I'm not aware of any new apartment complex that isn't meeting those architectural design standards. They essentially mimic what we see in modern apartments right now. So we added those initially and then we didn't add in any buildings on the lots. I would disagree with Chris that we fought tooth and nail putting those on. We just thought initially that we weren't sure. We didn't have any end users yet and we, once again, didn't want to get in a situation where we're showing things that may not come. Those buildings, while they are conceptual in nature, what we did is we tried to find concepts that we think would be attracted to these lots and then put them on there so that you could see what they look like. So we have, I would say, the one on the far right. Yeah, same far right. Bank concept. Then we have some restaurants and even any restaurants nowadays are asking for a drive-thru facilities. Jaggers, Texas Roadhouse is rolling out a pickup window and so more likely than not they will request those type of facilities. And then the last one is just a retail. If you approve this zone change in this preliminary, we can't build any of this yet. All this will have to come back. Now, while this body isn't as involved with the final development plan, we still will be working with Chris and with Tracy and with the staff and with all the divisions of the technical review committee that will be looking at things that we bring forward to you to be reviewed and if they find an issue, they will come to you. The B1 no longer allows fuel stations, so there will not be a fuel station on any of those out lots. The B1 now requires all drive-thru facilities to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment and the planning staff at that time. At that time, once again, we'll have to work with staff and on those type of issues. So while these are not necessarily set in stone buildings and we are all working through the new system post-July 1, there are still guardrails that have put in. I think the staff have put in a very thoughtful review process to keep as many guardrails as they could in place. So this won't be an issue where nothing occurs. Once again, I will talk on the Kroger related to Newtown Springs. That Kroger is pretty much finished. We do not have end users for those buildings yet. We would be more than happy to lease them to anyone in this room who would want a ground lease and to build those buildings. But until we have an actual user, those buildings won't be built, and that's just the nature of the business that we're in. But I think given this location, given these owners, given what we're looking at conceptually, I would imagine this will be completely built out within the next five to seven years, realistically. Now, I would also want to talk about the orientation, and I do disagree with staff on several issues related to the orientation. So the first one being is, in my conversations with the neighbors, and they can correct me if I'm wrong, the neighbors do not want the building oriented towards them. They would rather have it oriented to Winchester Road. They're concerned if it's oriented to them and, I'll see here, wait, wrong button. There we go. And they're in this area, and we're going to have more in this area, is that the light, more light and more noise will go their direction, rather than go towards Winchester Road, was one issue that they brought up. From our standpoint, and some of this I'm going to explain the Kroger building. Has anyone worked at a grocery store? Okay, so they're generally all kind of laid out the same. Some are bigger, some are smaller, but they have a general layout. And some have evolved. So in this grocery here, this here is actually, this is not a dock area. This is where the pickup grocery service is. So the pickup grocery service is in this area here. The pharmacy is located here. The Wine and Spirits is here. This is the dock compact, compactor. So Kroger has an internal compactors. They have both garbage and they also have the bales for the cardboard where it presses them. They get wrapped and then they get put on a pallet and moved out. And so this is what I'm going to call back a service area. So for those who aren't aware, this is generally why you walk in there and you see your dairies, and your meat counter, and your seafood. The reason is, is because this is where all the big coolers and freezers are located. You look at all that back of house. There is usually a hallway that's about 15 to 20 feet wide that has large shelves just stacked with merchandise on them. And this is more or less the back end of your store is not conducive to having any customers at any point walking through. And if you move any of these pieces, then it starts. to put things in other directions where you are now moving bigger heavier stuff has to cross where you may have customers so generally on all grocery stores you're going to see mostly this in the in the back area the concern and what we've done is so we have pick up here and we have pharmacy these are the two heaviest short-term parking uses that we have in the grocery store and so what we have tried to do is we have tried to locate them with their own kind of entrance and separate them from the balance of our customers in our parking lots if we were to orient the store and point the store this direction several things will happen number one is all the pedestrians that are walking will now have to walk further to get to the store than they are in this location right here they've got across about 30 feet of the two drive aisles and it's about a total of 70 feet from the roadway if we were to reorient the store most of our customers walking customers are going to be in these apartments here these apartments here and now all these individuals will be walking further that was one concern we had another item we had is if we rotate this building we now have to figure out these buildings and one of these would more likely not need to be relocated up here closer so what we did was we tried to separate as many of our short-term visitors from our long-term visitors as we could that's why this design that's why Kroger designs these stores in this this manner and to make up for some of that as you see we've got pretty large open areas this area if you anyone has anyone been had opportunity to drive by Newtown Springs in the last week or two so this is that really nice shelter that they built that's what this is located here based upon our comments and discussions with Eastland we've changed the design I've got some conceptuals where it's going to look more like a barn and it's going to have some white horses to kind of go more with the patch and Wilkes equine theme so but that is it is built like a park shelter it has a concrete pad it has a bike repair station and it'll have picnic tables and so now I know a lot of people say well you're not activating this area but depends on what you mean by activating it if you're talking about is this new urbanism downtown activation no no it is not is this suburban in in in areas or bourbon and style suburban activation I would say yes yes it is to be honest with you I would love south and drive to have more grass and have more sidewalks I have easier access the city is making incremental changes the parking lots in the designs that we did in the 70s with the Kmart on Nicholasville Road barely got improved at all if you look at the Costco that was built in 2013 we are making huge strides incremental compared to where we were over 40 years but over the last five or six years we have got a substantial amount of green space we have added more we got a path here we have spoken with the traffic engineering and with the bike and pedestrian planner even though since it is an arterial major our highway arterial we don't need to put sidewalks in front of them but we are putting sidewalks along Winchester Road so that somebody essentially will walk on the shoulder down Winchester Road because there's no sidewalk from Eastland Park all the way down to our site until these roads so they will have the opportunity to walk on a shoulder and then when they get to their our site we are putting in a sidewalk that will be located on our property that will essentially bounce out here and then be able to bump them back out to the shoulder unfortunately but once again it's an incremental piece of the entire puzzle we can't fix all the city's problems overnight but the Kroger and the owners had internal discussions and they thought that that was a good idea to put those sidewalks in on that location so if you're coming from executive you would come down this direction hit the shoulder but then when you get to here you will be able to essentially have a sidewalk that will go into here it'll have direct connection to these buildings and then you will be able to take that same sidewalk into the Kroger if you so choose so but that's the reason we made the orientation and we have added in additional elements on that aspect let's see if I have any more notes you guys talked about I think that hit most of the things that were discussed of course I'm here to answer more questions if anyone has them at this time thank you okay pardon me I didn't mean to cut you I'll say one last thing I do appreciate Tracy and Daniel and Chris and us have met several times to work through all the various issues that we had left at the subdivision committee we are comfortable with the conditions and with their recommendation thank you all right thank you Brandon do we have questions for mr. gross mr. Mickler yeah as we sort of talk about the transition from this area as a neighborhood area to more of a larger draw and and I see you're sort of responding to that on the development plan with the amount of parking that you're providing overall you know it's like upwards of more than 800 spaces 500 of which are for that Kroger's how many days a year do you think Kroger's parks 500 people at one exact the same exact time is it like the day before Thanksgiving I would not be able to speak to that but I will mention that yes we have 889 spaces on this lot but that's 23% less than was proposed in 2004 that was a 1148 spaces so we have reduced the parking between then and now now how full I would say on many Sundays the parking lot is close to full I know that there is a lot of thought that we make parking too easy and convenient for people but that's how you get customers to come to your store customers don't always come back if they don't think they're gonna be able to park somewhere and so while how many days a year do we have 500 cars parked there I couldn't tell you but I do know we don't have minimums anymore and we have a system now where the user comes in and says this is what we think we need Kroger knows their business they know what they need this is what they need for this door to be successful well it's what they want want is not always exactly the same as need in terms of that parking that's also facilitated by this sort of interesting maneuver where you're asking us to remove conditional zoning move the zoning line and then draw a new line to get I think as staff sort of indicated to avoid the floor area ratio requirements if you were to put b6p on the whole lot could could you speak to that yeah so no that's correct if the if those five lots were part of this b6p plan the current plan would not work however though as a property owner we have options on whether or not we want to rezone a piece of property in this instance they came to me and said we want to build this Kroger how do we make that how do we make that happen and so I did what drives people crazy which is I went to the ordinance and I looked at the regulations and I said okay if we do a and we do B and we do C we can make this work and so they said all right this is what we want to do is we want to build this how do we make this work that's why we chose to be 6b all right sure Nicole yes yes what I'm looking at right here is that we're looking at a staff recommendation of approval in regards to the parking have you met all the objective parking requirements necessary for you to receive a staff recommendation of approval yes we have and actually we are under parked the b6p has a maximum parking and so in in theory I could request 142 more parking spaces than I have and I would still comply with the b6p ordinance okay I think that's important for us to understand about objectivity and subjectivity what we've seen is over the time that I've been here we've seen the removal of parking requirements for multifamily housing which has been a benefit to increase more multifamily housing development and then we've recently in the b3 zone have removed the parking maximums required so I think it's important for us to know that we have rules in place that are trying to work with the market trying to let the property owners and their tenants determine the amount of parking that it's required and we have two different things that we're doing per our ordinance we're trying to allow the market to determine the parking requirements and then on the other hand we're trying to increase density in all of our property since we have a limited amount of property because of our urban service boundary so what I'm getting to is that you objectively meet the requirements that's threaded the needle between market rate and density requirements and I just wanted to get that on record that you have met all the objective requirements yes thank you do we have any other questions for mr. gross seeing none thank you thank you mr. Davis and I know there's some neighbors here to speak and I will be able to jump back up if anything comes up that you guys need me to address from certainly is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this good afternoon when this one yeah there you go when you good afternoon welcome when you approach the podium if you would just state your name please and at the Planning Commission we limit public comment to three minutes and we do not permit the lending of time but everybody has three minutes certainly I'll be brief can you hear me okay it's just a little okay I'm Jennifer Bryngardner I'm a resident I'm not a rep representing the homeowners association of the patch and Wilkes townhomes and if you're not familiar you can see in that bottom left-hand corner a little bit about where we are so I really just have two points I want to make and they're really more asking for your support it's been wonderful working with mr. gross he's been very helpful in educating us about what they're trying to accomplish one and I keep preaching this and I know that everybody in the room would agree that we want to keep our teenagers safe we're worried about the fact that the light the intersection across from Frederick Douglass we all know that kids love food and they're likely going to be hiking across Winchester Road and I know that I have heard that they will be working with the state at some point to kind of firm up what that'll be but worried about that a crosswalk or whatever that might be it's 55 miles an hour you know from the interstate all the way down to New Circle Road and we we just don't want to an injury or a fatality and whatever you can do to influence the state we would really appreciate that I know there's a Winchester Road study underway for Cleveland all the way up to like Polo where the Calgill Hamburg East development is happening and evidently they're getting ready to come out with some recommendations on that and then this next Winchester Road study which I think is starting this fall and probably we won't hear until next year hopefully that'll be a timing that will still work out with the Kroger folks if they have some implications as they study the traffic on Winchester Road and then of course near and dear our hearts in the townhomes we have had the luxury of looking at white thoroughbred horses you know since we've moved there and and we understand that things happen and growth happens but as we look at the development that will be occurring we're really hoping for as much light and noise mitigation as we can get so that means landscaping trees etc with the addition of the turn lane that'll be turning right into Charleston as well as the sidewalk that's going to be eating up a bunch of trees that were there now some of them may not have been you know super large trees but there was definitely noise mitigation and light mitigation there so we're asking for any support that we can get to try to protect our neighborhood a bit that's really all I wanted to say unless I defer to my other neighbors that want to say something thank you thank you so much do we have anyone else would like to speak on this application mr. Bruce do you have anything I was just gonna respond to a couple comments if you want sure so the first item is yes we are working with the division transportation on the intersection at where Frederick Douglass is that will be fully lighted intersection we will be as was mentioned we will be building a deceleration lane into the development and relocating the shoulder from where it is now to the outside we will be installing crosswalks and other things as the state requests us to make at that intersection we agree we want the intersection to be safe now I don't think the school is encouraging children to walk because there are no sidewalks from the building down to Winchester Road but on our side of the street we will be building the infrastructure so that if someone were to cross Frederick Douglass they will be able to make it across hopefully Winchester Road as safely as possible given the circumstances the other the other item that was brought up is I've committed to actually all the neighborhoods I've met with that I will keep them in the loop as I move forward on this project if this gets approved today we will probably be back with the final development plan in the next few months and so I will continue to meet with them and the question as to this area here this is owned by Barry Erzyne did I say that right Frank who is the longtime farm manager of the farm and he still lives there and so it's gonna and then we the patch and Wilkes which are the Rosenthal heirs own this piece here and so this is going to need to be a three-party conversation and then also discussions with the the planning staff related to connectivity of the things that were built into the older plans but we're committed to working with them to mitigate as much as we can as to the lighting for those who were not on the Planning Commission at the time and or forgot because you guys have approved and done a lot over the last two years we did adopt a new lighting mitigation Zoda last year and so all lighting in this area were capped at 20 no higher than 25 feet the Kelvins are capped to keep the light and everything has to be shielded and so while we're going from a farm to a development you will see lights that lighting is not allowed to a spill from our site on to their site and we'll have to submit a photometric plan that shows that we're retaining all the light on our site so that's all I had all right Thank You Brandon at this point we'll just close it to Commissioner comment or questions if there are any and certainly floor is always open for a motion mr. Mickler well I have a comment just for this group and you know I don't have I think having choices and groceries in more locations especially as we're developing residential in that area makes a lot of sense as I'm looking at this from a zoning perspective though they could achieve that with the b6p zoning but I would only support that if it went all the way to Winchester Road because I think as we look at rezoning's we need to look at how it's utilizing our land and if we if it were the taking a b1 with these restrictions that increases that utilization adding a b6p in the exact location they need it removing the restrictions on the b1 to enable the lower density drive-thru type is essentially getting around the density requirements in the b1 that are there now and getting around the floor area ratio requirements if it were to all be rezoned to be 6p and so while I support having the grocery store there I think they need to achieve it with I don't support removing the restrictions on the b1 that essentially allow that suburban form instead of that neighborhood central form of development commissioner nickel are we still open for discussion are we looking for the floors wide open floors wide open motion discussion question okay great well I think one thing that's important for us to consider is we're looking at 32 acres of vacant and unutilized property in a part of town that we've designated as the corridor for growth with our urban growth management plan and delivering the services that we've seen such as a grocery store and some out parcels plus which I think is very important apartments I think this is a wonderful creative way to take a vacant and underutilized property and deliver a tenant immediately with the potential for additional growth with additional businesses facing Winchester Road and what I consider very important the multifamily housing that is set up with consideration to the grocery store from the beginning I think that's important so with that I would like to make a recommendation for approval of PLN MAR 25 dash zero zero zero zero eight RD property group LLC thank you be and that's a motion for approval commissioner nickel that's a motion yes that's a motion for approval all right thank you with the seven recommendations from staff can can we clarify are you talking about both zone changes talking about zero zero eight if I could include we had with two separate recommendations one about that rezoning to be 6p and then a separate finding related to changing the conditional zoning restrictions I just want to make sure you're including both of those in your motion or do you can do separate motions as well I think maybe we'll do two separate motions because what I've heard is that some are not for it gives the opportunity to make a statement about the two different acts that are being presented here so we'll keep it on this on 25 dash 0 0 0 8 and then we'll move on to 0 0 0 2 7 well no I mean for the zone change on page 7 after the break that says the zoning committee recommended postponement then the staff recommends approval of the zone change to be 6p then on page 8 before we get to variance there's also a recommendation about the staff recommends approval of the conditional zoning it doesn't it's it's not the development plan though so it's really two separate changes Daniel presented those separately well let me just ask you would it be better to do it as one motion or as two motions you make the recommendation and and we'll follow it we are talking I'll ask law if they have I just want to make sure there's two two actions for the zone change really two questions I think there's some confusion because the pink sheet goes with the development plan yeah the the first zone change is to zone part of it to be 6p the second or the second zone change or this it's really not a zone change it's the removal of the conditional zoning restrictions on the remaining be one piece and then but the and then you have a pink sheet that relates to the development plan that goes with the zone change so that's yes so three motions would be okay Kim preferred okay I'm getting here's on page 7 is the zone change to be 6p yes I would say let's vote on that and then we will move to page 8 C and then we'll move to the pink sheet after that and it should be all three is that correct it would the first one is to be 6p the second one is would be to remove the conditional zoning then the third would be the development plan because the variance is no longer a question right Daniel okay all right yes as as they've proposed as applicant has proposed yes okay this is confusing so what I would like to talk about is we have three different decisions that need to be made decision one is the zone change request for PLN MAR 25-008 which we see on page 7 with the staff's recommendation of approval the second that needs to almost go concurrently but can be done separately is to approve the staff's recommendation of approval of the removal of the conditioning zoning for the following reasons that can be a second motion and I would say let's give that a letter B so that it's clear and then make the next one a letter C so we've got all three lined up there okay so once again this is going to be the first of a three-part motion and we'll make the motion and if there's a second I think it would be good to vote on it this is a motion for approval of PLN MAR 25-0008 and that is for the B6P question okay yes thank you mr. nickel do we have a second all right mr. Penn is our second so what does do we have any discussion on the the B6P question oh yeah I'm just clarifying that number that 25-8 as written includes everything but we are just voting on the B6P portion yes and clarification be that is to rezone the land that the applicant has suggested be rezoned with the boundaries they've proposed okay mr. Wilson I'm just okay I know I'm the slow one here that's the first motion is the b6 right yes the second motion then would be the removal of the conditional zone correct then the third would come back to the development plan yes I'm straight okay it is no longer needed okay yes sir mr. Wilson one quick question and I think miss Worth just brought was the variance taken off the table yes okay okay so we have a motion we have a second do we have any further discussion to this first part about the B6P zone change okay we will put that to a vote please okay that carries unanimously thank you second motion okay the second motion is again for PLN MAR 25-00008 the RD property group and what we're voting on is on page 8 the staff recommends approval of the removal of the conditional zoning for the following reasons so I'm going to recommend approval for the stack rappers staffs recommendations of the reboot removal of the conditional zoning for PLN MAR 25-0008 citing the staffs one wreck one finding okay mr. Penn do we have a second or do we have a second to that motion or okay all right yes sorry okay thank you mr. Davis mr. Jonathan Davis what my concern is is that we're we're not even looking at the intent of the zones we're taking a zone and making it fit a development plan and that really bothers me because our zones are based on intent and to use the intent to make a development plan work just kind of turns the intent upside down and it's not that I'm against this project I'm against the fact that we take the intent of a zone and make it to fit a fit you know it doesn't fit all the intent of the b1 it just fits the intent of this one and I think that's a dangerous question mr. McClure I think on this aspect them getting the b6p enables the larger building for the Kroger's to go forward but removing the conditional zoning restrictions that ensure the b1 part is developed in a more neighborhood focused way and also more intent intensely then would be allowed otherwise would be a mistake all right do we have any further comment on on the motion I'm sorry any further comment in a second yes so we can yes to approve the removal yes sir thank you mr. Wilson all right that's that's that's a tough one so the floor is open for another motion I'm sorry I think what we're looking at now is if we look at this piece of information that was delivered to us well then where are the conditions thank you for that but yeah that's a different application yes mr. McClure well if I'm not mistaken on removing the conditions on the zoning change the burden is on the proof to provide that that they should be removed would would it be appropriate then that I make a motion that the be the conditional zoning on the b1 for the property remain in place or is that even necessary you you're gonna have to take some kind of action because of what you just did so but what you're saying is correct you're gonna have to basically say that you are not going to remove the conditional zoning restriction you're gonna leave them in place because they ask you to remove them and the reason would be the there hasn't been a change in the you know the the development along that corridor or that like make those conditions inappropriate so basically you know the reasons that you would take them off you all have said so those are going to now be your reasons for why you're not going to take them off and they will remain in place but I think you need a motion to do that because you were asked to remove them and you did not so I would like to move that the conditional zoning restrictions remain in place for the b1 portion of the property because the basic conditions for the residential development in patch and Wilkes and the neighborhood character of that business area is similar to the time that they were passed mr. nickel I've just been directed to the staff report on the conditional zoning removal and the what we're talking about are they requested six items to be removed one is there should be a minimum of 125 residential dwelling units on the b1 zone which would change the whole style of that development to signage shall be provided only as per the b6p zone 60% of all commercial square footage shall be in multi-story buildings with a mixture of residential units existing trees within 30 feet of Winchester Road right-of-way are to be preserved the sale of gasoline shall be restricted only to one business no more than four drive-thru facilities shall be provided on the subject property so those are the those are the six current zoning restrictions that is being recommended or was just voted on to not be removed so those are the six that would that are staying in place and that's on page eight of the staff report on the conditional zoning removal mr. Bruce I think you and the applicant have demonstrated really good faith but do you have anything to and I don't want to overstep my bounds I know you guys are in closed session but I did want to point out on the zoning restrictions if we would be able to probably work with if the residential portion was pulled off as a restriction because putting in 125 units on those five lots it would be very difficult the second one or that would be would be 60% of all commercial square footage shall be in a multi-story with a mixture of residential uses once again that would be a more difficult item to accomplish and and I'd like to point out I didn't get into a whole lot about the zoning restrictions but if you recall the b1 is our least intensive commercial use we already have lots of guardrails around it and so I understand some of the concern regarding it but if you want to keep that no more than four drive-thru facilities we can work with that I think we can we can work with a lot of these but the the residential on top of buildings makes it very difficult if that is essentially the only way a building can be built on those lots it's just practical and so that's the only thing I would I'd mention just we want something to be built there okay hold on just one second mr. nickel and then mr. mickler okay as I'm looking through these six conditional zoning requests what I just heard and was tutored with is that the applicant is asking asking to remove additional zoning restriction one there shall be a minimum 125 residential dwelling units three sixty percent of all commercial square footage they'll be in multi-story buildings and I was just told that number four existing trees within 30 feet of Winchester right-of-way are to be preserved and if that were to occur there would be no means of installation of the sidewalk that we see on Winchester Road I didn't come up with that myself it was whispered in my ear that we should consider that as well so maybe a way to split the baby would be keep the zoning restrictions to five and six and I'm willing to make that motion or or have somebody else make the motion it's well mr. mr. mickler's is to speak next well I would I would agree that we should remove the hundred and twenty five dwelling unit requirement because we have just approved a zoning change that dramatically reduces the area of this be one section so that makes sense to me in regards to the other aspects that were just mentioned multi-story can mean two if I'm not mistaken and that is also not an area requirement that's a percentage of the remaining area so that does not seem like too high of a burden and you know in general in Lexington you know in a in an area with even this remaining be one acre area is eight acres and you know moving moving the sidewalk around a tree doesn't seem to be too much of a burden in in my esteem on that one so the I would be I would be glad to make a motion to remove the condition of a hundred and twenty five dwelling units on this zone ask could we get a list of these things that we're talking about so we all have them in front of us and while we're looking for that I think it's important to note once miss worth sees this on the document number three says sixty percent of all commercial square footage so be shall be in multi-story buildings with a mixture of residential units so it's counter intuitive or possibly counterproductive to remove a hundred and twenty five residential dwelling units but then have residential units be required again and number three thank you now miss Davis did you have a comment I did thank you chair it feels like we are doing what mr. Penn kind of warned us about we're doing spot zoning to do to meet the the request of one project we are bending over backwards trying to find ways to make it work it's not spot zoning what it is is trying to take two different zones and match them up to fit one specific need and this should never have got this far my point is is that we do not want to encourage people to take the two zones and pick and choose what they like about the two and put them together in my opinion we should pause on this and and just for a few minutes get our thoughts together and then figure out what's important and best to do all right and we've had so much back and forth am I correct do we have a motion on the floor no I'm sorry Robin yes we're waiting on a second that's where we are okay so does mr. Micklers motion yeah my motion was to remove the condition for 125 dwelling units due to the reduced size of the remaining b1 portion of this property with no other changes no other changes to clarify the motion so there will be not there what you're recommending is no requirement for 125 residential dwelling units but you do want to keep the zoning restriction that says 60% of all commercial square footage shall be multi-story buildings with a mixture of residential units yes because it's a percentage and the residential units could be as simple as a second story on top okay understand what you're saying in reality we've never seen multi-family units on top of a drive-thru may I ask a question sure the sale of gasoline would then still be allowed in one of those five out lots sale of gasoline sale of gasoline should be one business selling it it's now prohibited in the b1 zone so that condition is meaningless and for drive-thrus and and those five sites continues the development pattern that we have said we are trying to state change because it is not a good use of land and sightly heat island etc etc for the record I would just have to agree with mr. nickel on the 60% I I will not support the motion as it is but I would if it included the removal of number three included the removal of number three as well as number one I'm amenable to that amendment okay I'm sorry you're I said it was what I would support mr. Mickler's motion if it did include the removal of not only number one but number three as well and mr. Mickler said he was amenable about yeah I can restate that I'm amenable to that so the motion now is I would recommend removal of the 125 dwelling units and the requirement for the 60% of all commercial square footage again for the reason that the remaining b1 portion is significantly smaller and to this is a comment on mrs. Davis's comment as I read this it's not saying there has to be a gasoline pump station there and it's not saying there have to be for doesn't say there have to be any drive-through facilities it's limiting what can happen there so and my question is on number four is that something we can we can work through if I may ask mr. gross we like trees and Lexington obviously but is this in a practical sense so so number four it would be easier and create more flexibility if that one was not there right now we have done in this stage we've done our tree inventory protection tree inventory map our next phase will be when we meet with the urban forester and then we meet with the engineers because if you recall from the photo which part of our concern I mean they're a better one no that's by the best one ok yeah this is the best one yeah so I know I could remember there was a better one so part of our concern is the way this area Winchester Road is there is a shoulder and then a guardrail and it drops off and it's for the stormwater for the highway and then you got a number of trees we are not permitted at this point to take down those trees without first meeting with the urban forester if we keep that 30-foot area protected completely protected the likelihood of us being actually put a tree to put a sidewalk in that area is greatly diminished because we're gonna have to build a sidewalk we're gonna have to fix the grade including the stormwater facility from the highway we cannot just go in there and move those trees will be working with staff and we work with urban forester and that would give us the flexibility to say okay this tree needs to be removed this one needs to say most these trees are pine trees and locusts not that every tree is important to our ecosystem but we're not dealing with a bunch of oak an old stand of oaks so it would just give us more flexibility if if you keep it it'll make it more difficult for us to build a sidewalk ultimately and I think it's a weighing is do we want the flexibility to work with the urban forester or do we not want the sidewalk because it would be very difficult to build a sidewalk if that protection remains additionally just wanted to point out as well it does introduce some conflicts relative to the maximum build line so within the b1 zone the applicant has to build within the farthest the buildings can be set back it's 20 feet and this is maintaining requiring a setback of 30 feet or to preserve all trees within 30 feet so that could potentially complicate developing as kind of required by the b1 zone I think the case has been made articulately enough I'm happy to add that removal of the 30 foot line on the trees okay do we have a second to mr. Micklers motion thank you miss worth so just to be very perfectly clear we are removing conditions one three and four from the b1 portion of this property mr. Mickler motion this were seconded if there's no further discussion we can put this motion to a vote you okay that carries six to two we have one more motion that has to be made mr. nickel all right I think following instructions properly I believe we're looking at peel in MJ DP 25-27 motion to approve yes yes with the staff I recommend approval of peel in MJ DP 25-27 patch and Wilts unit 2 with the recommendations from the subcommittee the seven conditions okay mr. Wilson one quick question of the seventh condition says discuss can we say resolve or something yeah that's what I was that's what I was thinking too but I was so just just six conditions one through six six correct mr. will revise that to six conditions second from his worth thank you any discussion but that all right that carries unanimously thank you applicant thank you mr. Burroughs for your again really demonstrating good faith we appreciate it thank you for working so well with the staff I think at this point we're going on three and a half hours so let's take a ten minute recess without objection you ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ All right, we are going to reconvene. And our next item begins on page 9. PLN MAR 25-9, On the Block. Good afternoon, y'all. James Mills, planning staff. I want to present to you today the request from On the Block, LLC for the property located at 400 Chestnut. So we're going from a much larger scale 32-acre development down to less than a fifth of an acre. This zone change was supposed to be heard back in late June, but had a deed issue that was corrected on July the 8th. And everything that we need on our part has been received to move forward. This is a zone change request to change the property from the planned neighborhood residential R3 zone to the neighborhood business B1 zone. The applicant has chosen their place type as the enhanced neighborhood place type and development type as low-density non-residential. The purpose of this request is to continue commercial uses on the subject property. And in conjunction with this zone change request, the applicant is requesting a variance to the landscape buffer requirements. Taking a look at the subject property, you can kind of see its location here in the center of your screen. We have Midland Avenue right here passing Elm Tree and then where East Main is. So you can kind of see as far as where we're located. So to keep everyone's attention I will show you if we go through down North MLK Boulevard to where it intersects with East 4th Street over here. Then go down East 4th Street and where it intersects with Chestnut Street, that's where our property is located here on the corner. Zooming in, you can kind of see the zoning around the subject property. It's kind of located in the middle like a C of R3 zoning with some B1 zoning located along Ray Street. Taking a look at the aerial of the subject property, you can kind of see the location is in the middle of the neighborhood mostly with low-density detached buildings. Looking at the subject property from the street view, you can kind of see this is the front from Chestnut Street. The structure takes up the vast majority of the property. Case history wise, this property has been utilized commercially since its first BOA hearing in 1932 when it was constructed. Since then it has been before the Board of Adjustment at least six times and has changed from a grocery store to a laundromat back to a grocery store to a retail sell of record store to a beauty salon, but it has never been zoned commercially. It has always been zoned R3. Here's the view of the subject property from the corner over here on 4th Street and its frontage along 4th Street. After the postponement, the applicant reached out to the neighborhood and responded to public comment. They have received some feedback to let them speak on their behalf on what that public comment was like, but after the June 26th postponement they did meet with some neighbors and talk to some of them, but haven't received responses from others. In regard to the place building criteria, staff is in agreement with the choice of the enhanced neighborhood place type. The development type of low density non-residential is also in agreement and we are also in agreement with the chosen zone of B1. Along with this, the zoning committee indicated that some conditional zoning restrictions would be desirable. Asking for staff to research similar zone change requests and use other public input available to put acceptable conditional zoning restrictions on the property, that's the single sheet that you have with you. These are kind of the ones that we propose from both listening to the neighborhood's comments and also some that have been used in similar areas on B1 zone changes. And with that, staff is recommending approval. It meets the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan by promoting infill, adaptive reuse of a non-conforming structure for a potential neighborhood serving business. It meets the policies by prioritizing multimodal connectivity and the development criteria by activating both the streetscape and street corner with a neighborhood commercial property that prioritizes pedestrian, bike, and transit users. It did not save my page where I was going to show the conditional zoning restrictions. Because we haven't amended the conditional zoning restrictions, it will change from down here where this says 4, 4 will now be the conditional zoning restrictions and 5 will be the development plan. Thank you, James. And that's what we on the commission received as a result of discussions at zoning committee? That's correct. And can you just put those on the record, James? I was just going to say if you could read the bullet points on that addition. Up here. So that will change the following reason number 4, which is under the provisions of article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance, the following uses are proposed to be prohibited via conditional zoning restrictions, retail or packaged sale of beer, wine, or liquor, bars, private clubs, cocktail lounges, nightclubs, pool halls, and parking structures. These restrictions are necessary in order to protect the neighborhood and prevent adverse land use impacts on surrounding properties. Thank you, James. And we do have a comment in our folder. Our grant is from public comment. Okay, do we have any questions for James? All right. We have public comment in our folders. And Chris will be on to show the development plan. I'm sorry? And Chris will be on to show the development plan. Okay. The development plan is MJDP 25-28 on the block LLC. So as James mentioned, the building does take up most of the lot. It's a corner lot. There's not really a whole lot. They're not proposing to change anything to the structure. So we do have 13 standard sign-offs for conditions. Well, the first one, I'm sorry, 12 standard, and then the first is provided that the zone change is approved. And then we do have an additional 10 conditions. The standard building inspections note added to the plan. Denote written scale in addition to graphic scale. Orient the design scheme and vicinity map with north to the top of the page. Correct plan title to match staff report. Depict contour lines at two-foot intervals. Depict all doors on existing structure. Provided the variance is approved for zone-to-zone screening for Article 18. Denote the height of the building in feet. Provide the tree inventory map and tree protection plan for Article 26. And then also to discuss the place builder criteria. These are mostly just clean-up items that the engineer's been working on. All right. Thank you, Chris. Do we have any questions? Yes, Ms. Davis. Sure. Thank you, Chris. I'm not sure if now is the time or not. In terms of the citizen comments that say they, all of which are opposed to the current proposal without knowing what kind of business is planned to be there. I know that, are you aware of public outreach or is that something you would have been invited to? I'll let James answer that one. There was no meeting or anything held. However, the applicant after the postponement did reach out to the neighborhood and we'll be able to comment on any feedback that they've received. I do know some of the public comment that we received dealt with uses that aren't allowed in the B1 anyway. So that was just one side note. Okay. Thank you, James. Anything else for Chris? I noticed there's also no on-site parking. Is there street parking on Chestnut Street or on 4th Street for people who might be using that proposed business? I believe so. Off the top of my head, I don't remember. There is some on-street parking located in the area off of 4th Street and Chestnut Street. I do believe some of that is residential or the residents do use it. Is it signed that only residents? I don't believe so. Okay. Thank you, Chris. We actually have a variance request as well. I'll also present to you the variance request. Article 6-14 states that the Planning Commission may hear and act upon requested variances associated with a zone change. The variance request is in regard to Article 18-2, which states that no use of an existing building structure or vehicle use area shall be commenced without subsequent to a zone change in zoning unless property perimeter landscaping is required. The particular variance request is to go from, I believe, 15 feet to 0 feet for the zone-to-zone screening between a residential and a commercial or office zone. So that would be the zone-to-zone screening located right along here to the north and west portions of the subject property where technically the north and east. So staff has recommended approval of the requested variances because it should not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, nor create a hazard or nuisance. Strict application of the zoning ordinance would adversely impact the applicant's ability to redevelop the parcel as it currently exists. Without this variance, they would have to more than likely tear down portions of the northern part of the structure here in order to install that landscape buffering. All right. Thank you, James. Applicant. Good afternoon, almost evening, everyone. Thank you so much for your time. I'm Lexi Holland, and I represent the applicant on the Block LLC. So I'm going to go back and I'll actually use this photo here of the plan. But I just wanted to start by talking a little bit about this zone change request and the development plan that has been issued with that zone change request. The staff report makes it very clear that this meets the comprehensive plan because it is infill and reuse in an area that needs it and needs some retail commercial support within the neighborhood. This has been a nonconforming basically use for a long, long, long time. And this owner is really trying to bring it back into compliance with what it should be zoned, what it's been used for, for really nearly a century now. The development plan that you see doesn't propose any new construction, no grading, no site modification. It is just there to show what the existing structure looks like, what the boundary lines are. And I'll kind of get into why that's important here. And let me see if I can. Probably not. The top button. There we go. So you can see here that there's this boundary line right about here. And you can actually see it better on the online plan. It's a little bright so you can't see the gray marks as much. But there is an existing fence between the building and that back property line. And that existing fence is used currently by the neighbor on 4th Street, 409 4th Street, right behind this subject property. And that fence, Mr. Samuel Hicks, he's the owner of that property, he believes that that fence line potentially represents his property line. So we have an existing, you know, kind of dispute going on about that that I'm sure you all are aware of, staff is aware of. These deeds, as you all may know about this kind of area of Lexington, go back a long time ago, have a lot of discrepancies and issues when you're looking at the actual technical descriptions of these deeds. We submitted a deed correction that really just clarifies exactly the property line that we've looked at from our surveyor going back to, you know, back into 1925, you know, a long, long time ago when these deeds first kind of existed for these properties. So we present this plan to have this zone change, have this development plan and to basically update what this property already is. And we've received some correspondence from Mr. Hicks and now from his attorney who is talking about litigation and bringing a potential claim against our client over this disputed fence. This isn't the first time that a fence dispute has come before the planning commission or planning staff. But as of today, we don't have any title, opinion, deed, survey or any documentation indicating that where his fence line exists, that that's the actual line for his property. We have had several months, including a postponement before the planning commission at the last meeting to try to square away some of these property description issues. That has all been accomplished. It's been done. We have survey data. We have deeds. We have aerial imagery confirming that it's Mr. Hicks' fence that is encroaching on my client's boundary line. I say all of this because I know that this is going to be an issue that comes up today. We've already postponed this matter one time and we do not believe it needs to be postponed today, obviously. The zoning committee has recommended approval. The subdivision committee has recommended approval. Planning staff has reviewed the full record and recommends approval. At this point, there is no factual or legal basis for any further delay or to deny this application. The objections that you'll hear today are not actually based on the requested zone change. They are based on a property dispute that the planning commission itself cannot solve. This is not the forum, of course, to resolve these private title issues, especially in light of the lack of any real credible claim here. This application, we believe, meets all the requirements. It meets the intent of this zone, which I know Mr. Penn mentioned earlier, and furthers these planning objectives, especially in fill and reuse in Lexington. We think it should move forward without any obstruction. I also just wanted to mention, as far as other community outreach beyond our fence dispute, Mr. Andrew Mueller, who is here today, he has been talking throughout this process with the surrounding neighbors ensuring that there will not be any nightclubs or any uses that are going to negatively impact the neighborhood. When he's looking at this, he is truly looking at it from what is going to be beneficial and cohesive within the neighborhood itself. As far as parking, Ms. Davis, you're correct that it is going to be street parking. The staff report talks about that a little bit as actually being beneficial because we're not adding any new asphalt or concrete in the neighborhood and using the space that's already there for potential customers, clients, to keep it a walkable neighborhood operation. I'll take any questions that you all may have. I've also got our engineer, Kyle Hogue, here too to answer further questions. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions for the applicant? No? Alrighty. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Winters? Ms. Winters, I'm told that you made a request this morning for additional time to speak of five minutes. Yes, I might not need all of that, but I typically am granted equal time to the applicant when I represent an objector. I'm happy to grant the five minutes. I would ask that the Planning Commission's policy of 48-hour advanced requests just be respected on future requests. Okay, I was just hired. When possible. I understand there are exceptions. Yes, I appreciate your accommodation. Thank you. I'm Jessica Winters. I live at 421 West 2nd Street in the 1st District. I represent Samuel Hicks, who is the neighbor here on 4th Street of the property. I'll just refer to it as the subject property that you're considering the zone change request for today. We are here to object to the development plan and to the request for the variance. The reason is, if you approve the development plan you will be saying that the applicant has the right to develop a 9.5 foot by 24 foot section of Mr. Hicks' property that is inside his existing fence line. I'm here to explain that to you and show you through photos what this means. Mr. Hicks bought this property, which is this blue house here along 4th Street in 2021. When he bought the property the fence that you can see there, the privacy fence, was in existence. He fences his side yard and also his rear yard. The back door for his backyard, you can see that green door within the fence line. He has to go out that door and then kind of wrap around to reach the back of his yard. When he bought the property in 2021 the subject property that you're considering the zone change and development plan for today was abandoned. It was derelict. It had been abandoned and derelict for at least a decade, maybe 15 to 20 years. He is excited to see that somebody has purchased it and wants to rehabilitate it and bring a business into the neighborhood. However, he is not okay with someone barging in and all of a sudden claiming a 9.5 by 24 foot section of his fenced yard. A development plan that shows a property boundary that extends 9.5 feet beyond his side fence toward his house and basically brings the property line for the subject property up to the side of his house and will not allow him to access his backyard from his back door. If you approve the development plan, you're saying that this applicant has the right to develop this section that is inside my client's fence line. As you know, that's the subject property. There's another shot of my client's house. To give you a little bit of background here, this is the side yard that we're talking about today. My client, as I said, bought it in 2021. The fence was there. Two years later in 2023, he came home to find a group of strangers in his backyard. He didn't know what they were doing. He went out there and confronted them and they said they were surveying the neighboring property. He said this is my property. You need to leave. He called the police. The police made them leave. That was the last he heard of anybody's effort to claim this 9.5 feet of land inside of his fence. He didn't realize that there was still an issue. The surveyors left. He never received a copy of the survey. He never received any notification that they were claiming this section of his yard. In 2024, he got a letter from the city. The city said you own this section between your house and the subject property. Do you see these new sections of sidewalk there? Those sections of sidewalk were required, Mr. Hicks was required to pay for the replacement of those sections of sidewalk based on this city's assertion that he owned the property all the way up to the next building over. He said wait a minute city. There may be a dispute about who owns this section of land between my house and the next building. The city said we go by the fence line. You have to pay to replace those sidewalk sections. He paid $700 out of pocket and replaced those sidewalk sections. Now here we are two years later. No one has said anything and he gets the notification of the zone change with an accompanying development plan that shows a property boundary for the subject property that extends into his side yard beyond the fence line by 9.5 feet. Taking the property line directly to his house. He also learns that they're requesting a variance so that they don't have to do a landscape buffer. They're going to extend their property line 9.5 feet into his side yard and then get a variance to where they don't have to do any landscaping between their project and his house. This is not neighborly and it's not appropriate given the existing fence line. Here's the thing. The zone change request was filed a couple months ago. He immediately objected and told planning staff there was a discrepancy. He told planning staff that the deed submitted by the applicant didn't match the property boundary reflected on the development plan. Planning staff said oh you're right. They're going to have to file a deed of correction to correct the property description so that it matches what they're reflecting on the development plan. Do you know when that deed of correction was filed? Two days ago. On July 8th. My client has not had time to go get a survey. My client has not had the time to do the historical deed title research to establish that this fence line is a true property boundary. Instead he's forced two days after a deed of correction is filed that slanders the title to his property to come in here and fight a development plan that seeks to develop everything up to his air conditioning unit. That is where they are placing the property line inside his fence line. If you approve the development plan you're saying the applicant can develop everything up to his air conditioning unit that's out there beside his house. Nine and a half feet inside his property boundary. This is the fence line and the current space between the two properties. This is a fence line that has been there for 30 plus years. My client wants to be a good neighbor. My client's not opposing the zone change. My client's opposing approval of a development plan that places the property boundary in an inappropriate area that is not supported by the existing fences in the neighborhood or the uses of these two properties for the past 30 years. We do not have a conflicting or contrary survey because we've had two days to consider this issue. We're going to get one but what we do have is a fence and we have a fence that's been there and a yard that's been used by my client and the prior property owners living in his house for a long time and now the developer instead of working with him is coming to you just seeking approval of a development plan that encroaches onto that by nine and a half by 24 feet. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Just to be clear we object to the variance approval and we object to the approval of the development plan. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? Yes sir. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Hodge. I am the neighborhood president of this particular area. I also own nine properties within one block of this place. Currently it is 71 inches from the back door to the fence. I cannot tell you I oppose the plan. I cannot tell you I approve it. They have never came to us and talked to the neighborhood association so contrary to what the young lady said it's not true. They have not reached out. So we don't know what they're planning on. But to be 71 inches from a neighbor I think is bad. So maybe we need, if you guys want to approve this, we need to put a condition in of time that they can be open, time that they can be closed from 7 to 7 because people work in this neighborhood. By me having nine properties in this neighborhood I know parking is trouble. We have a church in the block that on Sundays one of the units I do not use I allow them to use to park the driveway because there's no parking there currently as we talk. So I think by really not knowing what they want to put there I cannot tell you if the parking will impact that area or not. We don't know what it's going to do. I don't know how much we can trust them because they had a cease order of stop working because they were working without a permit. They came up here and told you that they reached out to the neighborhood. I got nine within a block. Nobody reached to me. I'm the neighborhood president. Nobody's reached to me. So I have to agree that I think we have to set this aside. It may fit the diameters of what you guys are looking at but you also got to think about the neighborhood, the people that lives there. You can't always think that if it fits in the box just shove it on in there. You guys have did that before with the community center. It's not a community center. We're dealing with that now on Amtree and whatever, 5th, 6th Street. So just consider that. I think that these guys need to come back to the table, talk to us, let us know what's going on. And like once again, like I said, it's inches away from the neighbor. So if we're going to pass something like this please consider some kind of condition that they are only open for certain hours. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Roach. I thought he would need these buckets. I do. Good late afternoon. My name is Vivian Hodge. I am the vice president of William Wells Braille Neighborhood Association that is in the historic East End where this project is taking place. I did have the opportunity to speak to the owner yesterday and we talked about some of the things that we do not want to see in that neighborhood. This is the first time that I've been contacted. We talked about the businesses that we do not desire in this area. But we did not talk about the discrepancy with the property behind this building. That property that has been fenced for such a long time as she spoke of over 30 years. We didn't know that they were wanting to extend back to the air conditioning and basically encroach upon the life expectancy or what he has planned as far as having a good life in the East End. I don't think that's fair. I know that I probably don't have a dog in the fight. Being that we are very active and outgoing in the community and we do so much outreach in the community I agree with my husband. The only person that I know they've reached out to is myself and that was yesterday. I do believe that if something is going to be passed I do believe there needs to be a buffer. I don't know exactly how much of a buffer there should be but there should be some kind of consideration. There should also be consideration as Mr. Hodge said as far as the parking and as far as what we would like to see in the neighborhood. If it is granted to be changed to a B1 zone then I think the conditional use goes out the window. I think the conditional use permit would be very handy in considering this and I also think that we need to give consideration to a long term neighbor that has lived in that area. Once again we are open to meeting with them and having discussions that way everyone can be at the table at the same time and maybe we can hear what their desires are and future plans and maybe that will give us some insight and we can make a better decision as to whether we agree or disagree. Thank you for your time. Thank you Mrs. Hodge and thank you to everyone who spoke for your patience today. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak on this? We will certainly do allow a three minute rebuttal I'm sorry rebuttal is a little longer than that technically right? Five, thank you. And if Mr. Mueller or Kyle want to also speak is that okay after I make a couple comments? Will they have time as well? Or is it five minutes for everyone is what I'm asking. If Mr. Mueller yes yes that's the question okay okay well I'll probably Andrew do you have any comments or Kyle before I start my rebuttal? Okay I'll let you know then. Hello everybody my name is Andrew Mueller just want to give you a back story on the property. Me and my buddy Campbell Setzer bought this property. His mom lives over on Ray Street. It's been very dear to his heart and I helped finance it and he had a vision to run with it and we were stopped very quickly at the fact that we cannot have a business there because it had to get a conditional use. So this started over a year ago we were doing some work there but it was all permitted. It was we have a plumbing permit and we do have an electrical permit. They were just saying because it was a commercial permit pulled on electric and plumbing which is why they wouldn't let it proceed. We had all intentions of going through this process from the very beginning. I've talked to Daniel Crum since I bought this property years ago. So far we've just been held hostage by this property because we also could not turn it into residential because we don't have the backs. You have to have three foot off the sides to put egress windows out of. So I tried to pull a permit to do residential which would be a disgrace for the property because it has so much beautiful historical use of commercial and it would cost a lot of money. So the only place that we could put a window is technically the back which is my property all the way up to the side of his house. I got a survey as soon as we got the property and discovered this as well as the neighbor next door Community Ventures. I've talked with extensively about this and they're going to. His rear fence is also on Community Ventures land and this was basically I also am a real estate broker and understand real estate law and the previous owner misrepresented the property and on the Zillow ad it says brand new fence and he knowingly put it on someone else's property to sell the property. He is a criminal and I looked into him. He has a large criminal record of other negligent things. So I feel horrible for Sam Hicks. I've talked to him from the beginning. I told him I will not touch his fence until we get to this point right now and we will work something out when that time comes and then he goes and gets a lawyer and he's had my number. I have text messages between me and him and I could happily show you all those messages where we were very cordial. So I don't know where this all came from or who said this but me and my friend just had a vision to bring a small business to this neighborhood and now I'm being victimized by doing it and I'm like feeling pushed out. I mean I've been tied up with this thing for two years. Can't do anything with it. It's very frustrating because I understand his problem but in real estate misrepresentation is the first reason why criminal cases happen in real estate and the previous owner and his agent misrepresented. They should sue the previous agent, the title company who did the title, the appraiser and everybody because on PVA it shows that his house is his property line. His realtor should be sued. They should all be sued and he could win a lot of money and I offered to help him get a lawyer and I offered multiple times that you can buy my property if you want and I also had the property next door with Community Ventures under contract and I exited it to be nice to Sam Hicks so he didn't lose his backyard too and now this has all been brought to light and now Community Ventures is like that's our property and we never gave him permission to put that fence there and it is not Sam Hicks fault. It's the previous owner. There is a lawsuit to be had but it's not with me. I have surveys. I did my due diligence. We tracked it back to 1925 and I have all this money and time tied up in this thing and I can't do anything with it. They won't let me turn in a residential commercial. It's sad really. It's sad this is where it came down to but I've employed people to help clean up trash in the neighborhood. I borrowed a neighbor across the street's electric to pressure wash. I've given multiple parts and pieces that came out of that place to community people. I've been down there many times and we are all, we made a joke, a dollar to know what it's going to be because there's so much public input from walker buyers like oh we need this, we need this, we need this and we've wanted to do this for everybody and we can't do anything. There's a bus stop on the corner so it wouldn't make a perfect place for a home anyways because of that and it would be a great spot. We originally bought it. I had someone wanting to lease it to put a Honduran taco place in there and now they end up getting a taco truck because I couldn't get anything done here but it's just frustrating. That's all I have to say. Thank you Mr. Miller. Good afternoon. I'm Kyle Hogue, Mizzou Engineering on behalf of On the Block LLC. First of all just appreciate all the passion and all the interest in this project. A couple things I wanted to mention. We did reach out for public comment that was brought up. We got a few public comments from the last meeting that we had. Each of the email addresses that we had, each of the phone numbers that we had, we did reach out. We had a neighborhood association, we had Hodge Properties which I'd assume was your all's email but potentially that's a dead email. We used all the ones that we had. Billy Mallory, Anthony Fugazi and I've left voicemails at all the phone numbers we have so we did try to engage the community in that way. We do have pictures which I don't know if you guys cared to weigh in on the adverse possession and whether the fence, I believe all the legal survey, the deed, the legal descriptions all show a specific line regardless of where the fence is. If you want to claim the fence I believe the time limit is 15 years. We have pictures from a few years ago when the fence wasn't there. I think Andrew had mentioned that even in the Zillow description it was described as a new fence just a few years ago. Just wanted to clarify that. And the last thing, you did bring up a good point, Vivian, about conditional use and how that still gives neighborhood opportunities to weigh in whenever new uses are proposed. What we're trying to do at this point is just to rezone it into B1 so that there's a limited use of positive things for the community and you eliminate this need for the next new owner who wants to go in there and start a business. If the first thing they have to do is go through BOA and wait several weeks and go through this application process it might actually harm their chances of being able to get in, slows them down, it costs them a little bit of money. So right now we can approve all those lists a list of uses that we would like to see in that place without further hindering them. And we're completely on board again with I believe it was a list of six or eight uses that might be less desirable for that community. So we're trying to move it in that right direction remove the restrictions from positive businesses without, and also in perpetuity, eliminate the chance for those negative business cases. Happy to answer any questions but I think everyone's pretty well. Thank you. Just a few more points I want to follow up on. Ms. Winter stated that the approval of this development plan means that our client would and could just go immediately into the backyard take down the fence and completely develop that backyard area, that portion right behind the existing property. The development plan very specifically states the proposed development plan that the purpose of it is just to show, to depict the property as it currently exists for the purpose of having a zone change. It does not say that there will be any work done in that area. When we're talking about the variance getting also to that issue if the variance right now were not approved and a landscape buffer was required between Mr. Hicks fence and the back of this property, everyone has seen the photos today. Where would that landscaping go? So by requiring landscaping that would require us more than likely to be forced to actually just go ahead and tear down his fence. Those are issues that we believe the variance partially exists so that we don't have to do that at this stage. And we have no intention of going into Mr. Hicks yard and tearing down his fence. Now when we talked about the fence line that has existed, Kyle touched on this briefly and again I know it is not within any of your interest or authority anything to deal with a property line dispute. But that fence line has not been there for 30 years. The PVA pictometry images show that. Google images show that. They all show that that fence was constructed sometime likely in 2020 right before the property was sold to Mr. Hicks in 2021. There was a fence, a metal fence, but it was not between the two properties. It was a sidewalk fence that actually was just fencing in that back area. It was not a fence that actually went in between, buffered between those two properties. So there has not been a fence actually behind our client's property and between Mr. Hicks property now for 30 years that is patently false. So again, that is part of the reason that we don't think that there's any merit to this claim. This is not something for this commission to even have to consider here on the development plan, the variance or the proposed zone change. So we would ask again that you approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any questions from the commission or any discussion? Staff would like to add that the reason why conditional use would not be possible is that there are no commercial uses as a conditional use for this property. So the only things that could be done as a commercial use, as a conditional use for this property are hospitals, community centers, community gardens, garages, community gardens, parking, sorority and fraternity houses, boarding or lodging houses, bed and breakfast facilities and day shelters. There is nothing of a commercial nature that can be done on this property through the conditional use process. And the variance is also necessary because if it's not done it will require the destruction of the northern portion of the building. Not graining the variance would require the northern portion of the building to be destroyed because it has a zero lot line between the zones. On the side, side lot line. Sorry. No, no, no, you're good. Without graining the variance a portion of the structure of this structure for a 400 chestnut street along that, so on the left side of your screen, that left line would require the destruction of that wall to put in the landscape buffer between the zones. Mr. Chair, I think we can only do certain things and we should perhaps proceed to do those things which might be to vote on whether or not there's a recommendation for a zone change. Any action we take will be within the purview of the Planning Commission certainly. Do we have any questions for Mr. Wilson? Did you say that none of these conditions that were given to us are applicable in this case? Can you repeat that for me? I'm sorry. Well, in other words, we got this sheet saying that the conditional restrictions would be retail, a package sale, bars, private clubs, cocktail, night clubs. We can't consider that? That's what we're proposing as conditional zoning restrictions on the property. Those are the proposed conditional zoning restrictions. The question that Ms. Hodge brought up was about a conditional use, which is not addressed by that at all, and I think Mr. Mills's point was the conditional uses that are allowed in the B1 zone in general are more residential in nature and not commercial. Prohibiting them would probably not make the most sense or not really address the commercial concerns we're hearing from the neighborhood. Does that make sense? Mr. Owens. I think I know the answer to this before legal. As to the property line dispute, that's nothing that we can... They've got to go elsewhere for that. That's correct. I mean, what they're required to file with planning when they file a zoning application, they've done. And so if there's a dispute about that, it's outside of the purview of this commission. Okay. Thank you. So just, I think this is for the applicant, I'm not sure. A couple of questions. One, were you told that you needed, when you were told you needed to have conversation with the neighborhood, were you aware that there was a neighborhood association and you should contact those folks? If you're going to speak, would you please... No, I had no idea about any HOA in the area. I don't think there's a, I don't know, is there actual HOA? It's a neighborhood association, not an HOA. Okay. No, I was not aware, but I've been down there many times and talked to everyone in the community. I mean, I'm right there on the corner of a bus stop and I've talked to all of them and I did reach out to Vivian before yesterday and left her a voicemail days ago and we also sent her we've also sent everybody emails and called everyone that was on the list of people who had concerns. And we have no we have no, we do not want to do anything negative for the community. The whole purpose of buying it was just like Ms. Winter said that building was getting ran down and it was just sad to watch and my friend's mom was one street over and wanted to you know, it was a good project for us to give back and then all we've gotten is resistance to doing something nice for the neighborhood. So it's just very sad. So one other question, just to clarify. Based on what we read the neighborhood concerns are a lot of their concerns seem to be that they don't know what the use is going to be. Wait, wait, let me finish. Okay, that wasn't a question. That was a statement. It's my understanding that you plan to rehab the facility and that you're probably going to lease it to someone else? Correct. So you don't really know what the use will be. All you can tell people is what it's not going to be. Yeah. I want a good tenant and I want something positive for the neighborhood. My partner's mom, Karma, lives one street over on Ray Street and she's been very involved with input and talking with other neighbors about what would be a good idea. I've had neighbors from all over want to either lease the space. I had someone wanting to put a salad bar in there. A Honduran restaurant. There's multiple other scenarios where people just pull up while I'm there, either pressure washing, cleaning up trash, or mowing. And I've also employed a lot of people to mow and pick up trash and other things. So my community involvement has not been by calling people or by emailing people. It's been by being there with the people versus calling somebody and trying to convince them of something. I've been showing it by being there and communicating with them directly. So no, I don't have correspondence of emails or phone calls because I've been talking to people on the ground. Thank you. Alright. I'd like to hear what Mr. Penn thinks. I mean, we have a zone change and we have a development plan. And we're not involved. And we're not involved with the property lines or any of that type of thing. So I don't see anything that would stop us from improving the zone change. And the development plan is very preliminary. So, I mean, I haven't heard anything yet that told me that we need to even stop on this. Because it's up to them to work out the property lines. That's just a comment. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Penn's point. We're limited in what we can do here as it relates to it. And I have not heard any particular evidence even from the people who are here that would stop the zone change. And I've been listening very carefully to the development plan again. I think it's very clear that the attorneys and our attorneys are telling us we can't get into the we're not a Judge Judy kind of thing here. We've got to deal with what information we have. So, in my opinion, I would just simply say that if you're ready for a motion, I'll make a motion on whatever you Yes, sir. Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, first of all, on the zone change, on the block LLC map amendment, I think it's PLN MAR 25-09 on the block LLC. I'd like to make a motion to approve the zone change with the conditional uses that have been applied here by the staff. With the conditional zoning restrictions? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Alrighty. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Any discussion? Seeing none, this is for the zone change. Or the zoning, I should say. Alrighty. That carries unanimously. Yes. Now, if you don't mind, I'll continue. Let me say this. I was particularly interested in the attorney for the opposition in this case indicated that she had very little time, like two days, in order to review the activities. But the evidence that was presented by the applicant is the only thing that we have to deal with today. And that was very compelling as such. To that end, I also move for approval of PLN MJDP 25-28 on the block LLC with the conditions. I say 22 conditions. I've taken 23 out. Is that okay? Yeah, we could take that out. Take that out. The 22 conditions provided by staff. And do you, does that include the variance request? Well, I'm going to do that. Okay. I understand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. That was a motion. And is there a second? Yes. Mr. Owens, thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none. Alright. That carries unanimously as well. And now, Mr. Chairman, let's see. I'm working on getting my papers straight here. It's actually section B, Mr. Wilson. It's on page 10. Page 10? It's labeled as B, variance. Ah, okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Mr. Chairman, I move for approval of the variance as provided with the conditions provided by staff. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Just be consistent. Do we have any discussion? Seeing none. Alright. That carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, everyone, for your patience. Mr. Duncan, do we have anything? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And congratulations to you, Mr. Chair, and to the leadership team here. Your sympathies are more appreciated. I believe that there are now four former chairs on the Planning Commission, so you're in good company. We're looking forward to working with you. And we are all indebted to Mr. Forrester, who's not here today, but the people on this commission, the staff, and the citizens of Lexington are, again, indebted to his leadership. Good. And to the Planning Commission, we will meet again one week from today on July 17th at 1.30 for a Planning Commission work session, where we'll be in the Phoenix Building on the third floor. Look forward to seeing you all then. We will be giving you an update on the Blue Sky area master plan, the downtown master plan, an update on the implementation of House Bill 443, which is also now known as Kentucky Revised Statute 100275, and some other things. So we've got several updates for you. But do be prepared. The Blue Sky update will be significant. And so we want to talk to you all about what we've learned out there. Mr. Wilson. Yeah. Mr. Duncan, one quick question. Where are we related to the affordable housing thing? One of the things that we had talked about was getting some information in. We did hear from one person, but there are several other things. At least I expressed a concern that we hadn't heard from a plethora of people related to the housing thing. So I was curious as to where are we with that? Mr. Wilson, we have not done any more work on that since our last presentation to you, since we've got so much to talk about right now with your plans. But we are aware that you all are interested in more information about that and do hope to be able to get back together with you. And one final announcement. We do have an American who's made to the finals of the Wimbledon. Alrighty. Well, with nothing else and no objection, we are adjourned. Thank you.