Okay, good afternoon. This is the October 2nd meeting of the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Government's Planning Commission's Zoning Committee. First item on the agenda today is PLN-MAR 2515, Ball Homes. All right, Jeremy Young for Planning Staff, and fortunately I'm not the IT person. Maybe I'm better off sticking with the microphone. This doesn't seem to be cooperating right now. So this is PLN-MAR 2515, it is Ball Homes Incorporated, and the request is, despite what the screen says, it's not AU, it's Agricultural Rules, should be AR, and it's for 12.35 net acres and 12.54 gross acres and is located at 451 Childsburg Road, and the development type, or the place type is Enhanced Neighborhood, the development type is Low Density Residential, despite the fact that the 1996 Expansion Area Master Plan classifies this as Medium Density Residential, and the numbers, the three to six units per acre, more closely aligns with Low Density Residential in the current Comprehensive Plan, so we felt that that may be a little more appropriate, although the differences between the two as far as development criteria are very small. The applicant is seeking to build 67 townhomes, I'll give you an idea of just kind of the surroundings. The property is, there we go, there's Jacobson Park here, and then Hayes Boulevard is one of the main roads that runs through this area, Richmond Road, 8th and Spoonsboro right here, and just out of a shot to the north is Todd's Road, so that kind of gives you a general idea of the area. And the adjacent zoning, although it does look the same color-wise, this particular portion is R1D, and the other remaining yellow, that's EAR1, so that's Low Density Expansion Area Residential, and then this is what the 1996 plan called Medium Density, it's EAR2, and the green here, that's Jacobson Park. And you can see a little better here, you can see the path around Jacobson Park as well as the existing neighborhoods here and over here across Childsburg Road. So the applicant has done public engagement, it was fairly well attended, I think Mr. Nicholson said it was somewhere around 20 attendees, they had concerns with increased traffic through the neighborhood, increased traffic on Childsburg Road, and then this particular portion enabling the adjacent parcel that has yet to be developed, well, hang on, the adjacent parcel here that has not been developed, it has had a development plan approved, but that development plan has recently expired, so the applicant would have to come back and renew that development plan or create another one in response to this development, because I don't think the roads quite line up exactly, but anyway, they'd be required to come back and get a new development plan for that property. And questions were, what type of development is it going to be, what price range, that type of thing. And there were also some concerns about activity in Jacobson Park, as far as overnight activity that was concerning for the neighborhood. And so, to give you a little bit of an idea, as far as the 96 Expansion Plan, the arrow shows the parcel, it's fairly narrow and long, and it's the second one from the green area. And then you can see a substantial floodplain area, that hashed area, so that also is a concern of some of the neighbors. And the applicant is suggesting an enhanced neighborhood place type, as well as a medium density or low density residential, and obviously the EAR is not a zone that's considered with the new comprehensive plan, but it does, as I said before, align roughly with the low density residential, and it would be something that staff would support in this area. But we do recommend postponement, we did have a few areas where we'd like to have a little bit more detail on the development plan. So while, you know, we feel that it's an appropriate zone, you know, there were some things that we had questions about, particularly the community design element of the 96 Expansion Area Master Plan, there was no, you know, justification as far as how it met that plan. And then the goals and objectives of the current comprehensive plan, where it's prioritized multimodal options that deemphasize single occupancy vehicles, implementing complete streets policy, expanding the network of multimodal options, and then improving traffic operation, traffic calming, and safety. So those are all sort of related to transportation and access, and it says enhanced transportation options that are affordable, equitable, and responsive to the needs of the community. And as far as the policies of the comprehensive plan, these are also somewhat related. They provide pedestrian-friendly street patterns and walkable blocks to create inviting streetscapes, provide neighborhood-focused open spaces or parks within walking distance of residential use. Obviously, it is quite close to Jacobson Park, but the current condition, there is no direct access there. So it was just a little bit more information on, you know, the Greenway and the multimodal aspect of the plan. And we did evaluate it using the low-density residential criteria, but to be fair, we didn't cite anything that wasn't common between low-density and medium-density residential. Development should create mixed-use neighborhoods with safe access to community facilities, green space, employment, businesses, shopping, and entertainment. Development should provide community-oriented places and services. Development should meet recreational needs by following the recommendations of the Parks Master Plan, a plan for connected multimodal network to adjacent neighborhoods and green spaces. Development should create and or expand connected multimodal transportation network and provide multiple route options, grid-type structure to alleviate congestion in lieu of additional lanes. And the development should include regularly spaced access with adequate width to the Greenway network and conservation areas. Impact on environmentally sensitive areas should be minimized. I think there were a couple of areas on the development plan where some of the pavement encroached on floodplain areas, so that was a concern. Floodplains again should be incorporated into accessible green space, and additional protection should be provided to areas around them. And development should enhance well-connected and activated public realm, and building orientation should maximize connections with the street and create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. So if you all have any questions about the zoning portion, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Jeremy. Mr. Wilson? Perhaps my medication hadn't kicked in yet, so let me go back to the zoning issue. I've been trying to read as you were talking. The 1996 area master plan said that this was in the urban county boundary. Is that right? That's right. Yes. And the 96 plan recommends EAR1, which at that time was considered low-density, and that's three residential units or less. So in order to do this rezone change, I'm confused. They're asking for a rezoning of this area. Is that correct? Yes. It's currently zoned agricultural rural AR, and they're requesting an EAR2, which is in the 96 plan was considered medium-density residential, and that's three to six dwelling units per acre. Now, we can do that. Yes. The adjacent property was originally, I'll show you here on the map. So that property in orange was originally zoned EAR1, and the property owner came in and rezoned it as EAR2. Yes. So speaking to kind of expand on that just a little bit further, that 96 plan, unlike how we handle it today with the place builder, had an actual land use map. So that didn't preclude them from asking for different zones, and in fact, kind of throughout the expansion areas, some areas developed differently than we thought. Some areas were CC and flipped to different locations. There has been a little bit of malleability with that. So what the applicant's job here is to do is to make a case for the appropriateness of that EAR2. Because it's within that 96 expansion area, they can't request any of the normal zones. So if you're in that 96 area, you've got the expansionary residential, you've got CC, and you've got the economic development. So they have a limited subset of zones to work with. They have to request one of those zones, and this is what they are asking for, basically an increase over the plan. So they're asking for one of the zones that's not already allocated toward that. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other questions for Jeremy? Seeing none. Thank you. And I think the microphone is fixed now. Okay. Great. Now we will consider the plan. All right. I'm going to talk about the development plan just a little bit. It's MJDP 2556. Okay. Yeah. Any questions? No. So as Jeremy said, they're proposing 67 attached single family dwellings. The way they're kind of laying them out, there are 10 that are going to be accessed off of Childsburg, and then the floodplain greenway kind of separates the property, and in the back portion are the remaining 57 townhomes. They're going to be accessed. Andover Creek Lane comes in here, stubs to the property. They're going to continue that, and then they're going to have they're proposing private access easements through the development, and then at the northern end, Tucker's Crossing also stubs in, and they're going to and they're proposing to have it cross the property and stub into the adjacent, actually, I'm sorry, Andover Creek Lane will stub into the adjacent property as well. And as Jeremy mentioned, the plan for this adjacent property has recently expired, and so they will have to respond to whatever is approved with this development when they come back to develop that property. I don't remember off the top of my head, but the discussion we had earlier was that Tucker's Crossing originally maybe came down a little farther, and I think there's some they had proposed some structures where Andover Creek Lane comes in would come into the adjacent property, and so it's going to cause them a little bit of redesign in their development. But this proposal is showing, you know, two access points into the adjacent property, which will help them with connectivity and to develop their property. There was some discussion about, I think, originally they had proposed a bridge across the floodplain. This will maybe help them to develop a little easier without having to construct the bridge first. And then Jeremy had mentioned, it's kind of hard to see on this, but they're showing down here for the ten townhomes at the southern end some parking with an associated, it looks like maybe a turnaround lane, not a traditional cul-de-sac, but just a way that you can get into the property and back out. And at this corner, if I can narrow in on it, right there, it does look like the pavement encroaches into the floodplain just a little bit. There is also a, is it a 50-foot gas easement that goes through like this, which kind of limits where they can do a little bit of the development. So that was a concern that engineering had and that we had, you know, what they're going to do with the floodplain here. I'm trying to think. Oh, and then there was some discussion about, I think, I believe Rory could probably speak to this a little bit better. I think in one of the discussions we talked about, they had talked about doing a path along Andover Creek Lane. And correct me if I'm wrong on that, Rory. It's not shown on this plan, but they indicated that they'll look at that. Most of the conditions that we had and design considerations and things like that are mostly just kind of cleanup items. There wasn't anything that was glaring that came out from the subdivision committee earlier. And they're going to look at doing all their cleanup stuff. And so, you know, we feel pretty good about the development plan as long as they kind of keep moving forward with the same direction. So that will open it up to you all for questions. All right. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions on the development plan? Sure, Molly. Would you mind kind of walking over to the map? And I'm just kind of trying to get oriented and see if I understand. So it looks as though the housing at the kind of top, the northwest. Yes. Would be accessed by one road. Yeah. And where is that on the location map just like, excuse me, I can't quite read the names. So this is Childsburg. Okay. You come into the neighborhood and I believe this is Ridgeview Way. So Andover Creek comes in like this so that you get access there and then they could take Ridgeview Way up and come across Tucker's Crossing there. So you can come in this way and across and then this way and then it's a little hard to see. They're showing access easements that are common that connect through from one street to the other. Okay. And then at the southern end? There'll be an access directly off Childsburg. So at the northern end, I can see why neighbors would be concerned about the influx of traffic because every, is it true that every car going into that neighborhood has to go through their neighborhood? Funnel back out through the neighborhood, yes. And how wide are the roads in that neighborhood? I don't know off the top of my head and I can't really read the cross section on this. We have the, that should be it. Okay. Rory says 28 feet back of curve. And is parking allowed on that street? It does seem to present rather a split community without much of a community or a neighborhood except it is houses, which I think one of the slides that said low density residential development should create something that is, I think it was CL1, CL-1. It's houses. It's not anything else. I believe. Okay. That's a comment rather than a question. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other questions for Chris? Seeing none. Thank you, Chris. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Ball Homes. And to your point, Ms. Davis, that was one of the main concerns that we heard from the neighborhood, that they were worried about, the discussion was more about opening by building these roads, we are opening up the neighborhood also to the Dennis Anderson property that has not been developed. And so there was a lot of discussion while we are just asking for 67 townhomes, in reality, it has a much larger impact because this now would allow the Anderson property to come online. We also don't want land to go vacant. And so it's one of those kind of situations. But the size of the road, specifically, Ridgeview Way was discussed a lot because I do believe they allow parking on both sides of the street. And so there was the kind of concern we've been hearing a lot lately is when you have parking on both sides of the street, when you're trying to get emergency vehicles through there, you're trying to get waste management through there, it creates a problem. And so that really was one of the big kind of talking points at the neighborhood meeting. We don't have any issues with the postponement at this time, we are going to kind of work with staff on the kind of interior design of how the kind of townhouses kind of function. One of the issues that has kind of come up when you're trying to create townhouse developments is we have a rule that now requires a pedestrian connection to each individual unit. When you're also providing basically off-street parking for the units, that pedestrian pathway is not supposed to cross the drive aisle where those townhouses access the cars, separation of pedestrian and vehicles. And so we totally understand that. We thought we provided the best kind of way with this layout. We also understand staff's concern and so we're more than happy to sit down and kind of talk through that with them on how best to lay out townhouse developments now with these kind of new rules in place. So the only thing I do want to point out regarding the trail, that just got left off. There is a proposed trail. There was one on Dennis Anderson's property that connected into Jacobson Park. We will be kind of adding that trail onto this unit and I think that gets to the kind of community aspect of this, of connecting the community with the massive community park that is Jacobson. And so that will basically get added onto that and it does allow for direct walkability from the neighborhood themselves into Jacobson Park. That conversation also occurred at the neighborhood meeting and that also led to kind of initial concern that, well, that means people will be able to park in our neighborhood and walk to Jacobson Park. And, you know, that's just something we're going to have to try to figure out. As to the kind of late night activities that we heard about, I guess Lexington recently decided to open up Jacobson Park for 24 hours. And the look on Mr. Davis' face is probably exactly what the neighbors thought when they saw that. It's just led to, you know, music being played at all hours of the day. There was recently a bonfire in this little pine needle area, which, that's smart. And so it's kind of stuff like that, but it's, as I told the neighbor at the time, these are the exact type topics that we're here to talk about for this kind of, this project. I did want to clarify with you, Mr. Wilson, so we are not asking for anything that's not allowed in the expansion area, like 96 expansion area. We're just basically saying this was originally slotted at 96 to be zero to three units per acre. We're asking it to go three to six units per acre. And so it's just like, if you're thinking inside the boundaries, we're asking for it to go from an R1 to like an R2 at that point. So that, that is kind of all. But again, we are fine kind of with the postponement at this time. We'll work with staff. I did have one question. In the staff report, it indicated in the site design, the CL18-I, basically about the well-connected public realm, that we should provide greater public roadway connectivity within the site. I was curious what that, where that comes from, because, you know, we're locked in on the two stub streets. We can't stub into the neighborhood that exists today, and we're showing those stubs going through. Mr. Anderson's original plan only had one connection there, and so we're increasing connectivity for that. So I just, I wasn't sure what we could do. Yeah, no, this is a little bit more of a discussion along the lines of, so you're proposing two public streets kind of once again, stubbing in. So just a discussion on choosing these townhomes as an access easement rather than a public street. So just a discussion on what that would do to your design and, you know, acknowledging the fact that townhomes often do, but just kind of having that kind of conversation on that. One last point I didn't mean to mention, we are proposing to sell these. These will be owner kind of occupied structures. This isn't a kind of what Ball Homes has historically done until the peninsula where we owned the entirety of the townhouse complex, but with that does come in HOA that basically maintains all of the open space, the parking areas, et cetera. But the intent of this is to try to get more kind of purchasable homeownership in the area. Let me know if you all have any questions. Sure. So who would maintain the floodplain area? That is, that will be part of the kind of HOA's responsibility. Oh, so it'll be a HOA, but they will own, got it. Yes. Okay. So basically everything that is not the individual townhouses themselves is owned by the kind of HOA, condo association, whatever you would call it, and there are maintenance obligations with them. They also will own any of the stormwater management areas. Lexington has made a strong emphasis that we do not put stormwater facilities on any individual parcels because it gets real odd when you're trying to talk to your neighbors about fixing something that's on your property that technically benefits them. One other quick question related to I heard a mention of a bridge. So Mr. Anderson's original plan at the very south end, the road that services the existing townhouses that are there today was originally shown to go all the way across the floodplain and then connect up to Tucker's Crossing. That was never constructed. My guess is due to like the concern, increased concern about basically major construction activities in the floodplain. Okay. Did you just say that there are townhouses constructed? Is that what those, so the development plan for the northern part has expired, but the townhouses below that built, okay. That's correct. I didn't know if those were large, you know, vegetable gardens or something. They are not. Those are townhouses that were built under the last plan that has now expired. And so if Mr. Anderson would like to basically develop the rest of this property, like he will have to work with our road system if this does get improved. He certainly can still build a bridge if he would like to, but the fact that it hasn't been built when he had a plan for five years that could have been built tells me something. This is more complex than I thought. I have a question for staff. My next one is a lot worse. Here's a question for staff. Mr. Nicholson talked about some of our regulations now and how we will have to navigate pathways and I'm guessing driveways or drive at vehicular access. Are you confident that that can be resolved on this particular plan? Yes. So it's just a matter of sort of getting on the same page about the way the structures are oriented, where the parking is at. So they have the physical room to kind of meet that. So it's just getting on the same page kind of with that, but I think we're confident that these sorts of things can be addressed. We are as well. Okay, great. Do we have anything else from Mr. Nicholson? Seeing none, thank you, Nick. There is a member of the public. Okay. And we will hear from the public at this time. And if you would please just approach the podium and state your name and everybody gets three minutes. Hi, I'm Scott Green. I'm the president of the Still Meadow HOA. We're on the other side of Ridgeview. Our neighborhood is on the other side of Ridgeview. We share an entrance with the main construction ingress and egress point as defined by this plan. So that's why I'm here. I'm just a guy who has no background in any of this. To me, this all seems to be moving rather quickly. I'm doing the best to understand how all these processes work. To me, a plan that's in violation of the comprehensive plan is an area of concern and something that I'm doing my best to understand. I feel a responsibility to the about 300 or so families who have reached out to me directly with similar concerns. So I would just kindly ask for a postponement until November. That gives me some time to educate myself, understand how all these processes work, and then do my best to articulate those points to the concerned families. So that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak on this application today? Seeing none, do we have any comments or questions from the commissioners? Thank you. I'm curious what Mr. Green is referring to when he says it's a violation of the comprehensive plan. Just curious. Well, okay. That portion of the hearing is closed. Do we have any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have everybody in agreement on postponement from what we've heard. The floor is open for a motion regardless. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement of PLN MAR 25-15, Ball Homes, Incorporated. Second. All right. Thank you, Daniel. Now I think it's working again. Okay. Strange. Thank you, anyways. All right. So we have a motion from Mr. Wilson, second from Mr. Jonathan Davis. Any discussion? Yes. One quick discussion. A member of the community mentioned a specific time frame. I did not put that in my motion as such. I did that purposely with the understanding that you all need whatever time you would in order to work this out. So I just want to make clear that I did not do that. I didn't try to tie anyone down to a date, but I think the postponement is still in order. Daniel, is this by default a one-month postponement? So procedurally, regardless of whatever you all decide as a body today for your recommendation, this still needs to go to the actual Planning Commission hearing for the actual action to postpone. So I think the applicant has heard kind of the need to meet with the neighborhood and the desire for postponement so they can have those conversations. But ultimately, you know, they will need to do that actually at the public hearing that is set for, I believe, the 23rd off the top of my head. And so from then they have the ability to postpone to a later date. But as of right now, a just general postponement recommendation would be enough for me. All right. That's great. All right. Unless there's any further discussion, all in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you. Thank you, applicants. And thank you, Mr. Green. All right. Next item on our agenda today is, let's see here, PON MAR 2516, Wendale Development. All right. Jeremy Young again for Planning Staff. And Mr. Wilson, if you thought the last one was complicated, you're going to love this one. So with that said, the property is currently zoned R1A, single family residential. And the applicant is asking for a combination of medium density residential, R4, and community center CC zone. And the CC zone was, as Daniel mentioned earlier, part of the 1996 expansion area. So a portion of this property was brought in to the urban service area in 1996. And then the remainder was brought in in 2024 in the most recent expansion. So this one's got a lot of moving pieces that may be difficult to follow. The address is 2575 Charlesburg Road, sorry, Winchester Road. I'm still stuck in the last application. And the development type, or the place type is new complete neighborhood. Development type is medium density non-residential. And the proposal is for three multifamily structures totaling 219 units and 5,000 square feet or slightly over 5,000 square feet of one-story commercial structure. And to give you an idea of the location of this property, we've got, there's I-75 running north-south and then Winchester Road here. And it is almost at the intersection with Hello Club. Yes, correct. And Hume Road. And the zoning in the green there, that's agricultural rural. And then this is single family. This is R1A. And across the street here is the ED zone where they're building the large medical complex. And the aerial imagery shows, gives you a better idea of what we're working with here. There is, there's some floodplain in this area. There's a creek running through here. I don't think it extends to this property, but it comes right up to the edge of the property line. And the applicant did hold a public engagement with the neighborhood. They were concerned with, there's a, in the 1996 expansion, it recommended a road realignment of Hume Road to where it sort of makes an S-curve and then aligns with Polo Club Boulevard. That's been in the works for over two decades. So, I guess three now. But there were questions about the timeline of that, just general future development in the area and what type of development that would occur on this property. And here, this is an excerpt from the 1996 plan. And you can see Hume Road currently runs straight into Winchester. But the realignment would kind of make this jog over here to meet Polo Club. So, the portion of this property that we're talking about is just this front section, which is about two and a half acres for the CC zone. And then the rear portion is back here, and that's where they're requesting the R4. And then now on to the 2024, the Urban Growth Master Plan. This property is located in this area. And this orange, that's recommending medium-density residential. So, that's the general area that we're working with. So, they're asking for a new complete neighborhood as the place type. Medium-density, non-residential mixed-use. And R4 is a recommended zone for that place type and development type. And medium-density residential is also a recommended place type as well, which may be important later on. And currently, we're recommending postponement. There are a number of issues with this development that there are a lot of moving pieces. So, essentially, this one piece of property has to filter through three different plans. It has to go through the 96 Expansion Plan. It has to go through the 2024 Urban Growth Master Plan. And it has to go through the Place Builder. There are a lot of variables and a lot of moving pieces and difficulty in making this all work together. So, we've got, naturally, quite a few questions on connectivity, multimodal access, how this fits in in the bigger picture of the Urban Growth Master Plan. I'll go back to the slide here. There is an area of town center that is projected for just on the east side of Polo Club, which would contain a commercial area. So, staff is not quite sure that the commercial area is appropriate for the subject property. We are requesting postponement for the R4. And, as I said before, we've got questions on connectivity, how it fits in with the adjacent neighborhood, some of the realignment of the road, traffic calming, and those types of issues with any kind of multimodal or pedestrian access. The nearest bus stop is along Polo Club. It's 1.3 miles away at Costco or along Winchester Road. It's about seven-tenths of a mile, but it doesn't have any bike or pedestrian facilities along Winchester Road. So, there are a number of difficulties, and it's not the fault of the applicant. It's just the location of the property and the situation. So, there are questions about those items. Staff is not in agreement with the recommendation for CC. We are recommending disapproval for that. Neither of the plans that are regulating this property are recommending residential for this area. Now, I know that there may be some conflicting density requirements or density projections, but I think those can be overcome through the various zones that were available to the EAR properties. So, EAR 1, 2, or 3 would certainly be more viable than community center zone in staff's opinion. So, if you all have any questions, I can answer those about the zoning. All right. I'm sure there might be a few, but... Okay. Mr. Wilson. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. I may also accept, could you jump back to the urban growth expansion plan? So, this is the most recent. This is the 2024 plan. Can you walk over and show me where this piece of land is? I'm utterly confused. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Thank you. Okay. And then the realignment of Hume Road, will that cross this property or touch it at all? So, just to clarify, the realignment of Hume Road is not extending all the way up to Polo Club. So, essentially, the realignment is going to align with the access point for the Cowgill development across the road. So, essentially, where that dotted line, more or less, kind of going vertically, showing that proposed avenue, it's going to curve closer to that. Okay. All right. Yes. Yes. Do we have any other questions for staff at this time? Thank you. All right. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff, to talk through the development plan of the property, which I think is going to help kind of highlight some of the things that staff is looking at and part of the recommendations that you kind of heard from the zoning side. So, just to orient everyone, we have Winchester Road here is on plan left. And so, this is showing that front piece of the property and the dashed line kind of cutting diagonally through that site represents the front portion of the property that was within the 1996 area. So, that front piece has to abide by the 1996 expansion area rules and zones. So, this is the CC area. So, they're showing a 5,000-square-foot commercial space here with parking surrounding. They are showing a three-story residential building here and then as well as open space associated with that. And then the rear portion of the development is two separate multifamily structures. One of the key components of this and a big discussion point for a lot of the discussion on this site is this dashed line shown right here. So, that is being shown on the plan as a roadway reservation. What that actually is, to go back to the map here, is this dashed line right here. So, this is an avenue that's going to serve as the access to Winchester Road that is going to filter through along the edge and the spine of that existing Hume Road neighborhood and provide connections out to the village center here. So, that's a pretty significantly important facility that just based on its location is not under the control of one particular developer. So, here, the portions that cross their property here, staff is expecting that roadway to be shown and kind of intentionally designed to, but we are aware and we do note that in order for this roadway to work, we need buy-in from the developers further down as well as the direct property owner adjoining here with utilities. So, it provides some complications about how this is going to kind of work in the future, but we do have a master plan that shows, hey, each developer that comes in needs to build their section of roadway and design to that. So, a lot of the conversation and the comments that you see in the zoning side of things as well as the development plan evaluation is that the plan here notes it, but really doesn't plan to it. So, we have, you know, these buildings here that are sort of centrally located to the site. They do have a dog park type use here as well as a pickleball court located curiously in the middle of the parking lot. So, there's a couple different aspects of this that are kind of dependent on that future plan. When we reviewed this, there were several different issues that we identified kind of at the subdivision level. One is showing those roadways. A lot of the comments and concerns as well were about pedestrian connectivity. So, portions of the site have kind of consistent pedestrian access kind of internally, but there really isn't great connections to the back buildings here. They don't really have a relationship to this future roadway. So, the master plan is calling for kind of those buildings to activate that street frontage, not having the parking in between buildings in the street as we're seeing here and the relationship with here as well. There are some issues with the size of the building. So, the CC zone was really intentioned more as a town center. So, this was a place where you would have the commercial uses in the 96 zone, but it was supposed to be a mixed use. It was supposed to have civic and public spaces really being accessible to the areas around it. This, in staff's estimation, isn't meeting the intent of the zone. It really is, you know, admittedly one of the only ways that you could do commercial within the expansion area, but it isn't meeting the true intent of that particular zone. Furthermore, the structure shown here is too large relative to what the zoning ordinance allows. So, there was a lot of conversation during the subdivision committee today about the connections, the connectivity, how these buildings are sort of functioning together, their relationship with this anticipated roadway here. Engineering also would like some information while it isn't on the subject property, the floodplain and greenway areas here, making sure that we've got enough buffer and that we're not building parking and other features in the areas that are really supposed to be kind of preserved. So, the staff's recommendation for you on the zone change side was for a disapproval of the CC zone up front that was not being supported by the zoning ordinance. land use element of the expansion area master plan, and we don't think really meets the basic intent of those zones. Looking for more information on the rear portion of the site with the R4, which is in line with what our master plan called for as far as residential and building those housing, just the manner of how it's laid out and how it interacts with that future roadway. And the Subdivision Committee earlier this morning recommended postponement of the corresponding development plan to have some of these core issues kind of examined. So I'd be happy to talk through anything as far as how the plan itself is laid out and evaluated on that end. All right. Thank you, Daniel. Just one quick immediate question. Since we directly joined AR land, what is the buffer requirement that we put in our plan two years ago for AR? Yes. So this is AR, but it's AR within the urban growth. So this has been brought in, this piece here adjoining. Now it's Greenway, and it is my understanding about 75% floodplain. So there would be required sort of zone-to-zone screening where those adjoin with a residential zone or business zone adjoins an ag. I can pull those up on my end, but not the expanded one that we are looking at, say, with the Basler property on Cane Break, because it's within the urban service area. So if I own an AR property within the expansion area, or I shouldn't say that, the expanded urban service area, there's no expectation of a buffer other than the typical, and that is how many feet? I can, we can look that up. Okay. All right. Do we have any questions for Daniel? No? Okay. Thank you, Daniel. We will hear from our applicant at this point. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the applicant. I'm going to try to get you all out of here in record time. We also have no issues with this postponement. As the discussion has kind of fleshed out, we have a lot to work on. A lot of it is because the plans that we are required to meet directly conflict with each other. It's really tough to basically appease three different plans that all say something different. We tried to go and kind of lean more towards the more recent Urban Growth Master Plan, and also our current Comprehensive Plan, as opposed to the 96 expansion area that was recommending this property for EAR1. So that basically, EAR1, just like we were talking about, it is limited to three units per acre. If I brought in an EAR plan that showed single-family houses on Winchester Road, staff would laugh me out of this room on place builder grounds. Like, what are we supposed to be doing with this Comprehensive Plan? Intensifying our arterials, trying to maximize the building area that is right on those kind of arterials, and push development up towards those. You can't do that with a zoning of EAR1. So we've been talking with the staff for a while about kind of what to do in that situation, and we started. One, I was just like, can we make this be three and just, you know, see what we can do? And I got laughed out of the room there because that would have been in direct violation of Article 23 of the zoning ordinance. And so we were left with, all right, what are we supposed to be doing here? We pulled up the growth map, basically the current growth master plan map. That one works. And this will help you see what exactly where this property is a lot easier. So here's the Winchester Road, here is Polo Club, here is where Hume Road comes today, and this is where the realignment is taking place right into the Calgo property. Here is the proposed roadway that the master plan calls for. And so when we looked at this property, it is basically this chunk right here that's outside of the greenway. So it was calling for multifamily in the back and mixed use with commercial and residential on the front. So, okay, how do we achieve that goal in the expansion area zoning? We are locked in and limited to the types of zones that we can do in the expansion area. You can only be three residentials, one, two, or three, a TA, which is a transition zone, which does not have any development on it, CC, or economic development. Key with economic development is I think you have to be over 40 acres, I believe. It's something like that. Basically, this parcel was too small to be qualifying for economic development. Okay, so the only other kind of option left was CC. We thought it made sense because of the example in the urban growth master plan called for commercial, called for multifamily, and then called for multifamily on the entire section on the back. We understand this is not perfect. We're going to try to continue to work with staff to figure out is CC the right zone? Should we come back, change that to a different zone? We're basically on this one just asking for time, and we would appreciate postponement on both as opposed to a straight disapproval at this time. Knowing full well, we got a lot to work on, and this certainly isn't going forward this month. I do see some of the members of the kind of Hume Road area here. We did have a meeting, oh, I think it was about two, three weeks ago, and it was a very good conversation. A lot of it involved around stormwater, and there, like, obviously with the amount of floodplain that is kind of right next to us, there's stormwater is an issue in this location, and that's why we are showing the kind of large open area that's kind of at the back of the CC in order to capture any of the stormwater that is basically coming off or off of the properties onto this property and try to kind of, you know, best deal with this in order to be the long-term kind of solution. On the road reservation, so this came out of a conversation with staff very early on, is if you can even see it kind of on that map as well, like, there is floodplain galore right behind this where this road is supposed to be going over and then jumping over more floodplain to jump over more floodplain. I'm not a consultant that does master plan, but I do know how much it costs to jump floodplains. It is substantial. We'd also be putting a road directly in the back of the Hume Road neighborhood. This doesn't strike me as the best idea, considering they just went through a realignment of their road, and now we're talking about taking that road away and putting a road in their backyards. It doesn't strike me as the best idea. We thought that this was a very good kind of temporary solution to show the reservation, show that a road can be put on there while we kind of continue to have these conversations on whether this road will exist. It also directly tees right in to the existing KU substation. So in order for this road to be built, we're going to have to basically get rid of the utilities that serve all the surrounding properties at this time. That didn't strike me as the best idea, but this struck me as a decent temporary kind of solution while we work through these big picture issues. So I'm happy to take any questions, but we just, we would ask for some time to work on this because we need to. Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Nicholson? I'll ask Daniel the same question I asked on the last one. Hearing what Nick is saying, is staff confident that there is a solution somewhere? So, yes and no. Right. So the first half, the point of the postponement on the R4 zone, we acknowledge that that's the land use that is supposed to be going there. It's in line with that. Really, that's a really discussion on how do they achieve sort of the design considerations within that plan to kind of uphold the document that we just created a year and some change ago. The front portion of the property, you know, acknowledging that there is, you know, there have been changes since 1996. One of the things, and we have, we being the government, have allowed some deviations from where the zones were sort of located, and that sort of has been an ongoing conversation. The disapproval on the front really reflects that staff had some serious concerns with how the CC zone was being used at that location. So understanding that the applicant could, for instance, request something like an EAR3 and do multifamily, and that would be a different conversation because just inherently how this zone is being used is against the entire intent of the zone. So understanding that there's limited abilities to do commercial within the kind of rules that they have to play by, but that was just in staff's estimation far too much for us to support. So a modified application for the front we would review kind of separately, you know, as under a kind of a different framework. But once again, it's just a very constrained site, a very interesting site, and so, you know, we're open to absolutely having these conversations. But as far as the R4 portion in the back, there's, you know, certainly, you know, ways for us to get to a good place. And we think if we kind of, one, we'll acknowledge the multifamily building. It should have been noted as some type of mixed use for that size, that that's 100% accurate. We think that there is a way to make commercial work up here. We understand their position that this is not how it works, but we're just basically asking for the opportunity to continue that conversation. And if not, we also are open to a modified application. Okay. Anything else for Mr. Nicholson? Well, it's not to miss it. It's actually to the both of you a little bit because I probably will have to step up my medication in order to deal with this one. This could take a lot of time in order to work out because you got all kinds of entities connected with it. But let me go back to the issue of what you're saying is that on the front end, the CC part, as it is presented today, that's what you're recommending disapproval. What Mr. Nicholson is saying is that he thinks that there's a way to work around that and you all are hearing, I'm hearing the same thing from you all. You're willing to have a different discussion other than the one that was put on the table to begin with. So my question, I guess, is does your plan, future plan, deviate enough to the point that you think you can get some kind of a different perspective from the staff? That would be entirely our goal. Okay. Any, not to cut in, yeah. Once again, we review modified plans, you know, all of the time. So if there was, basically this staff report serves as a roadmap in staff's estimation to the things that they're doing correctly, the things that need more explanation, things that staff's view would be very difficult to overcome. Ultimately, you know, staff is not the decision maker there and they could proceed with a recommendation of disapproval. You all could make your own recommendation and then ultimately the Urban County Council would make their own kind of in summation of that. But the applicant has indicated they're interested in meeting with us to talk some of this through. But we wanted to just sort of get on record on our end some of the very big from a comprehensive plan compliance because of that 96 plan that what was shown here was not in agreement with that in our estimation. And I think our kind of position on that is like we understand staff is at disapproval and will remain at disapproval for the foreseeable future until we bring in some revised plans that, you know, kind of get at their main concerns. We're hoping that the committee just doesn't go ahead and put a disapproval recommendation moving forward while we are very much acknowledging this is going to take some time. Well, if I can say, I'm concerned about that too. I would not want to put anything before the general public that would suggest that we are against something because I don't want to get them the perception that this is not going to, it can't take place. In other words, if I vote for disapproval on anything, I am simply saying, no, this is not going to go, period. And that's essentially what you're saying as it is. My dilemma is, is that I agree with Mr. Nichols. I don't want to present something publicly that would be, you know, if you're in negotiations, why would you say no? You can't say yes, but you can't say no if you're in negotiations. But I clearly understand both sides of this, which is why I'm going to go back on my medication. And to be clear, we will not be trying to go forward at the end of the month. Okay. Do we have anything else at this time? I would just add with the question that you raised earlier, Mr. Chair, the buffer for the standard buffer from any non-ag zone to an ag zone within the urban service area is a 15-foot buffer with the landscaping. So it's small. You're right next door. Yeah. And I think it's important to note that while the adjoining properties are zoned, in essence, single-family residential, correct? So the Hume Road side, you're looking at that single-family residential. The opposite side is that ag with the floodplain. Yes. I think for context, it's important to know that the Hume Road parcels, while they may be zoned for residential use, a lot of them are also agricultural in nature. And I think that that should be afforded additional scrutiny and sensitivity. Do we have anything else? Yes, yes, yes. No, just at this point. Okay. If there's anyone who would like to speak, please approach the podium and state your name. I love that line where somebody said they weren't accustomed to making these presentations. I certainly am not. I'd like to point out something, if I may, here. Hold on, John. John, would you just put your name on the record, please? And if you want to walk, we have a mic that you can carry. I'm sorry. John Serliano. I am with the Hume Road Neighborhood Association, and I live on Amy Lane. Thank you. So this is not a building. These are parking lots, and then this is a stormwater handling area. I don't remember how many square feet this is, but I know that people said, well, the stream runs this way. But this is a huge flood. All this is all sinkholes. This is not just wet. It's sinkholes. And we've been over this, not onto their property, but onto these properties. And our neighbors here, the Brookses and the Perrys, are extremely upset. They're not part of Hume Road Neighborhood Association, but they expressed and asked me to express for them their complete disappointment with this proposal. Furthermore, so this, we are really worried. This is environmental. This whole area from here all the way up is populated by wild turkeys, by deer, by the hundreds, by migratory birds, and other wildlife. And I think it would be terrible if we made that, if we changed the character of the town by getting rid of so much land that is open to wildlife migration and life. So at one time when the previous, the very nice colored plan with the road on it, thank you, was discussed with us in the spring, was it? When did we have that thing down at the downtown center? That would have been, I guess, 2024 is when the plan was adopted. Yeah, okay. I'm sorry. But I think my neighbors heard the word protected community or protected hamlet. In other words, Adina, Amy Lane, that whole thing from starting from the substation up to the creek where Elkhorn, North Elkhorn Creek crosses Hume Road. And I think this devastates that idea. Because these buildings here, as a real estate person, this is a disaster of how to get in here. And if I were going to do this, I would scrap this and make this a much larger building where the views are beautiful. So this is just like urban sprawl or suburban sprawl strip center thing. And if that's what we want, then I think my family and the Neighborhood Association and the Brookses and the Perrys would be unbelievably disappointed, as would maybe some of the other neighbors that I haven't talked to yet. So I think that summary, you know, and I heard what Nick said and, you know, we certainly understand that. But in terms of these town centers, I was in Atlanta on Monday and Tuesday. And in Midtown Atlanta, there isn't one retail store that's open when you walk for blocks and blocks. They made them build it and there's no stores. Just blank. It's really depressing. So this is, getting in and out of this, I don't believe any retailer would ever go there. So I think we're building disaster into the design. But I think the principal concern for the Brookses and the Perrys is what they're looking at. They've spent millions of dollars improving their property and with not much barrier, at least that we can think of. And maybe we might be wrong about that. But as far as this is some kind of a town center thing like you have imagined further north, where the roads are, where the design seems to me clear, much clearer than this. And this property goes way down and then up again. This road, this water, the sinkholes and that water coming through there, and we've watched very carefully as Hume Road diversion has been built, the size of the water handling, you've got pipes that big. So this is not trivial in the minds of my neighbors and of the neighbors who are directly affected by this. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak on this particular application? All right. Seeing none, do we have any final questions or the floor is open for a motion? And I suppose we need several motions. Or perhaps not. Just a minute. One quick question back. The disapproval does not go before the main body, does it? The recommendation of disapproval would go to the main commission. Well, I guess my point is by the time it gets to the committee, it's going to be several months down the line is where I'm looking at it. I'm trying to figure out how you will approach it like you do with the postponements. In other words, you'll say that the committee originally said disapproval was in effect for the plan that they presented and now the new plan is on the table and that's the kind of thing? Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, we've seen this play out kind of a couple different ways. And we've seen where you get a recommendation from staff at your committee level. Then we go, we meet with the applicant, we get new information and new reports generated. And then the planning commission, we kind of bring you up to speed more or less. There are other times where the applicant has a recommendation and they decide to come back before the committee in order to show off the new design or to get some feedback that angle. And then it goes on to the commission again. So, there's multiple ways to take this. Once again, if a new plan is presented or a new justification or anything of the like, staff will respond to it. So, regardless of how you all procedurally would like to move forward, you know, we would still be having those talks with the applicants reviewing new plans saying they've changed X, Y, and Z. This has addressed or it has not addressed kind of those concerns. And you would have that from there. So, if it is your all's, you know, wish to go with a postponement recommendation and ask the applicant to come back before this body, you have the ability to kind of do that. You have the ability just to give postponement saying we understand that this plan is going to change and that we'll let staff work on that. Or you can uphold the staff's recommendation and have, you know, basically with that recommendation, you're saying the plan as proposed does not meet the comprehensive plan for the reasons outlined, but still would have flexibility moving forward if that plan changed. But, you know, the applicant's plan, you're not beholden to saying, yeah, you said no at the committee level, they changed the plan, but you had to stay there. So, you've got a lot of flexibility and a lot of that is just going to depend on some of the offline conversations that we have with the applicant. Can I choose door number three? Okay. Well, for what it's worth, I have a comfort level with a postponement. I think you're right, Bill. Anytime we send something to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of disapproval, it does send, whether intentional or not, a very strong signal. And this property, being where it is, being subject to a number of conflicting plans, hearing an applicant who is more than willing to work with staff, that's where I am personally. But the floor is open for a motion. I'll try anything once. I'll take them in. Let me see. First of all, I move for a postponement of the requested RFOR zone for the reasons provided by staff. Second. Okay. So, that's a motion from Mr. Wilson. There we go. Okay. That's a good idea. Thank you. Postponement of the request on the, sorry, which one is the postponement? That's on the RFOR section. Yeah, on the RFOR section. Okay. And Mr. Jonathan Davis seconded that. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, if you're in favor of that, please raise your hand. That carries unanimously. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I move for a postponement as well on the CC with the understanding that the staff and the developers will work together to come forward with a new plan or whatever. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. I'll second it from Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, if you're in favor, please raise your hand. Okay. That carries unanimously as well. Thank you, applicants. All righty. I believe our next and last item on the agenda is the PLN ZOTA 2516. And Daniel Crum, planning staff, and once again, just they are noted a little bit sequentially above this, but we do have those two postponed plans. Just giving an update, we did get a revised justification for the, what's the name of the, the war admiral application. So we anticipate that one will be moving. Staff will give you a new report and we'll be reporting at that at Planning Commission. We haven't received anything new for the Basler zone change, so we're still in a holding pattern on that. Quick note, you'll notice by the name and the number on this particular plan, we have not had 16 ZOTAs this year. That was a quirk with the online Acela system. So that was the, for whatever reason, is what we got. So if you were curious where the other dozen or so ZOTAs came from, it's just a quirk in the naming system. But this is an amendment to the PUD3 zone to allow for short-term rentals. This will be a very quick comment. Hold on just a second. Sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. Could we please, thank you. So yes, as is subtly hinted by the name, this is a zoning ordinance text amendment to allow short-term rentals in the PUD3 zone. The applicant is Turner Properties 4, and they are the creators, the originators of the PUD3 zone that was created and adopted a couple of years ago. Basically, this would amend two sections of the ordinances, Article 3, which deals with the regulations for short-term rentals, and then Article 22, which deals with the actual PUD3 zones themselves. The PUD zones are a very, very, very limited amount of the land in Fayette County. These are three zones. The PUD1 zone predates the 1983 zoning ordinance. It's located, the only area that we have of that is located in the neighborhoods kind of off of Harrodsburg Road, near the colony and the like. The other two PUD zones, the PUD2 is off of North Limestone here, and then PUD3 is the Turner development, which is along the railroad tracks as you're crossing over Main Street into Leastown Road. So these are specialized zones. These are zones that have different development standards, usually have some design criteria, and they have some somewhat modified allowed uses. In the instance of the applicant's proposed zone, this was a PUD3 zone was intentioned really as an adaptive reuse type zone for areas that were formerly industrial to take them to more of an entertainment, commercial, residential, mixed-use type development. So that was the most recent PUD3. So 2022, the PUD zone was created. However, at that time, the short-term rental regulations hadn't been adopted yet. So there was an understanding and a desire to do that, but it hadn't been formalized by council as of yet. As you all are well aware, we've had multiple cracks at the short-term rental regulations, first bringing in most of the urbanized zones, making some tweaks to how we review and approve those and the kind of the guidelines for reviewing them, and then we brought in the agricultural zones. At that time, we brought in just about everything. One of the oversights or one of the aspects that was left out were the three PUD zones. So these are zones that operate similar to other uses, but were just not included in the table at that time. And so as a result, are not able to currently operate within those limited areas. So the applicant put forward a text just to allow those in the PUD3. That makes sense. But rather than create two more ZOTAs later to address this if an individual wanted, staff recommends that we will go ahead and add those into the PUD1 and the PUD2 as well. So this expands the framework. And so it treats the PUD1 and the PUD2 zones, which are residential, incorporates them with the same framework as our other R zones. The PUD3, which is closest to those industrial, heavy commercial areas, was proposed to be included with those similar uses as well. So really bridging the same gaps to make sure that across the board, we're treating folks and giving them equal opportunity as long as they meet the regulations to apply for short-term rentals. Staff recommends approval of the staff alternative text. Once again, we want to create some consistency here. This doesn't apply to a terribly large percentage of the property in Lexington, but it was a hole that was sort of identified by the applicant there. And so this brings everybody basically to a level playing field. And we do not think that this will have any adverse impacts to the health, safety, welfare of the community. So with that, staff would be happy to entertain any questions. This is a pretty limited one. All righty. Thank you, Daniel. Commissioner Molly Davis. Thank you, Zach. Commissioner Chair Davis, sir. Do you, by any chance, Daniel, have a map that shows all the locations of all the PUD 1s, 2s, and 3s in Lexington? Yes. So this map here, generally, and once again, it had to be zoomed out a little bit. The PUD 1 is basically one singular neighborhood down here, mostly single-family residential uses. The PUD 2, which is sort of a live-work, artisanal manufacturing type zone, that's off of like Lugart Court near the intersection of North Limestone and Loudoun there. Once again, mainly single-family residential that allows for some basically low-grade artisanal manufacturing. It's very artsy, very limited in scope as well. You're talking about a couple streets just off of North Limestone in there. And then the PUD 3 is the only one of its kind there, is the Turner property, once again, just coming off of the overpass from where Lee's Town is transitioning into Main Street there. So the railroad that runs that, this is the spine of that. So Turner Commons, it's got the upcoming distillery, Battle Axes, throwing, it's an entertainment type district. Sure. And it allows hotels currently. Okay. And do you have any more close-up information on the one that's at the south near Harrodsburg Road? I'm interested in the context of what's located there. I could bring that up on my laptop if you give me just a moment, but nothing in this actual presentation. I can show you that, though, if you'd like. Well, maybe just tell me where it's bounded by, and I could get a visual image of it. It's a residential neighborhood that's bounded by other single-family neighborhoods as well. So really, this would allow those single-family homes to be treated with the same allowances as everything around it. Once again, still having to go through the same, you can't have one of them within 600 feet of another. All of those regulations still apply. This was just, it got developed in the 80s, only applied really once, and wasn't really wildly successful outside of that. So it's a very limited scope. But yes, we can- It's okay. I can look it up. Well, tell me from a different tack, how are short-term rentals being managed these days? What's the public feeling about them? Are people registering? Are they being monitored? Are the unhosted ones causing trouble, or are they being okay? Yeah, so there's a lot in that question. I can speak kind of process-wise to kind of flesh it out. So generally, the unhosted short-term rentals, which are really kind of the most common ones where you rent an entire dwelling, your host isn't there, really is kind of the standard for Airbnb and the like. Those almost unanimously across the board require conditional use permits. We were seeing a healthy influx of those kind of since those came online. So usually somewhere in the ballpark of 5 to 10 requests each month from the Board of Adjustment. That's a public hearing. So the neighbors get notified when someone wants to host one. They have a report that lays out not just the characteristics of the site, the concentration of them in the area, is there any within 600 feet? We also have the ability through the Division of Revenue to get information on the compliance record. So we have ability to search the listing platforms, find those that don't have a documented license, and take enforcement action. If you don't have a good history of compliance with those regulations, it is proved very difficult to obtain Board of Adjustment approval. Historically, there's the neighborhoods, rightly have had some concerns with how these have sort of been implemented. In that timeline that we brought up earlier in the presentation, we've had three sort of different reviews. We basically created some regulations to bring that online, ran into some challenges with how that was being reviewed, being implemented. And so that second crack at it that happened in 2024, that brought some very firm guidelines. So if you're within 600 feet of another short-term rental, it is very difficult in order to get that approved. So we basically put some firm numbers. We put a consideration for disadvantaged communities, kind of communities in transition, as a part of that kind of review and analysis. So that has significantly helped, you know, issues of proliferation, over concentration. There were a number of neighborhoods that had concerns that, you know, due to their location, that they may be sort of overrun with these types of uses. So all of that, you know, kind of in together, has sort of slowed down the number of applications we've been getting in the ag areas. It's been extremely limited because there is a one mile buffer between these types of uses. So we do see a couple of applications for those. But once again, they have to meet very specific requirements that were really aimed at avoiding kind of an over concentration. So all of the zones here would still have to apply by all of those rules. And we feel like the zones and the categories that they've been slotted in are consistent kind of with the intents of those specific zones. So a lot of information. Right. So in a nutshell, if you're in a PUD 1, 2 or 3 zone, it's a principal permitted use and you simply have to follow all of the regulations to establish one. Meaning if there was one 600 feet. Yeah, let me modify that. So in our commercial zones, there's a little bit of a different standard. So the PUD 3 here is being proposed as a principal use the same way that it is for our sort of more intense commercial zones. The residential, the PUD 1, the PUD 2, they would have to go get conditional use permits. So that is going before the Board of Adjustment, etc. So they're consistent with those frameworks. They still have to meet all of the corresponding regulations on that. But the PUD 3 itself, because it's a commercial zone, we've aligned that with the commercial regulations, if that makes sense. It does. So you could have multiple. Yes. Airbnbs or short terminals in the PUD 3, which is the one over Main Street, over near Leestown. Yes. OK. Other two, you still have to get conditional use permits to have an unhosted or hosted short terminal. Yes. Yes. OK. So since this is the, this is, this is the only PUD 3 property in Lexington, correct? Yes. And there, theoretically, it is not beholden to just one. If someone met the other criteria, they could apply for a rezoning through you all to obtain the PUD 3. But yes, it was the developer and the applicant in question here is the only one at this time. And it was really designed around their Turner Commons project. OK. And correct me if I'm wrong, but what we are, under what has been presented, they could do, they could have no maximum of dwellings on this property and it's a principal use. Yep. What I'm struggling with, though, is it's sandwiched between two residential neighborhoods. And I mean, help me with that. Yeah. So the PUD 3, once again, is really an area that was formerly industrial. And then the intent behind that zone, once again, was to create mixed use, but along the same veins, very entertainment, heavy and focused, distilleries, throwing axes, et cetera. One of the uses that it permits by right is hotels. And so that really, more than anything, was staffs, you know, you can have dwelling units, you could have folks staying there in a short-term capacity. It really was just a matter of whether or not they are staying in a traditional hotel, as we would normally see it, or a, you know, what is normally otherwise a dwelling unit. So it really allows for that core use, short-term rental of a property, you know, paying all of the necessary transit taxes and the like. They have an approved development plan. So anything that they propose moving forward will still need to comply with the zoning ordinance and the, with regard to kind of the interactions with the adjoining neighborhood. They were very involved during the creation of the zone, as well as the development plan review process. So, you know, do understanding that there are some sensitive neighborhoods nearby, but overall, the type of uses that they're allowed to have, staff did not view this as a issue of health, safety, or welfare in introducing that. Okay, and I think contextually for the hearing, if staff could have something of a small recap on, because the neighborhoods, both Meadowthorpe and across the West Main, were very active and very involved, maybe remind the planning commission of what sort of restrictions or requests for respect were put on the plan at that time. And that may help the hearing. Yeah, would love to. A little bit, sure. A further thought or question, given the discussions we've had about affordable housing, and it's not being in great supply in Lexington these days, does turning over things to short-term rentals remove the possibility of some of these newly developed spaces in Turner Commons being affordable housing units? I would argue, I don't want to say argue, I would say I don't know how applicable that is, even though it's a countywide ZOTA, we are just talking about one property. It is an interesting thing. So once again, understanding that any of the rules and regulations that we put forth for the PUD 3, if somewhere down the line, we found another industrial area that met the criteria, and staff can have a refresher once again of what even is the PUD 3 that we can provide kind of at the planning commission hearing, we would be happy to do so as well. So in this instance, it is basically one property, but understanding that it can kind of branch out further. With respect to affordable housing, the way that our zoning ordinance typically handles that is, we just kind of talk about things with regards to just being dwelling units in general, and that we do provide some bonuses for folks that want to develop affordable housing. Really, those benefits really apply to entities that don't want to go through the time, effort, and money to get a zone change. But for an applicant that kind of has more or less created their own zone, and received kind of permission to do so, is a little bit of a different tax. So, you know, the applicant can kind of share the discussions on, you know, for their particular property, what their vision was as far as mixing of units, if that affordable housing was going to kind of play a role. But my understanding is that kind of the initial look at this was that those were going to be market rate units. But even if they're market rate, it still takes units out of being able to be occupied permanently for short-term rental use. And is that the right thing to do at this time? I don't think that that is the question we're supposed to answer today. I mean, I think we're getting way off track with that. Is there anything else, or did anybody else have any other questions for Daniel on this specific ZOTA? All right. Thank you, Daniel. Applicant? Good afternoon. Chris Ferris on behalf of the applicant. I'm filling in for Zach Cato, who led the charge here, but have some background and happy to answer any questions you all have. Mr. Crum did a great job explaining. And for context, the Turner Commons was really designed as an entertainment, commercial, restaurants, retail development to revitalize this whole industrial area. As a component of that were areas that were intended to be used to the extent of residential for hotel or other transient purposes. An actual residential neighborhood was not conceived in this area. And going back to the timeline, the creation of short-term rentals, which are certainly around in 2022, was always a concept that was raised. I think people were aware. I believe the neighborhoods were aware. I believe planning staff was aware back in the 2022 time frame. It's just when the PUD was created at that time due to subsequent events, short-term rentals weren't addressed. And really what we're just trying to do is administratively clean up that issue with the text amendment. And so I'm happy to answer any questions that you all have. All righty. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. Is there anyone here from the public who would like to speak on this ZOTA today? Seeing none, do we have any final commissioner comment or question? Okay. Floor is open for a motion. Oh, Mr. Chairman, I move for approval. I move for approval of the staff's alternative text for the reasons provided by staff. Second. Thank you. We have a motion from Mr. Wilson, second from Mr. Jonathan Davis. Do we have any further discussion? Seeing none, if you're in favor, please raise your right hand. Thank you very much. Mr. Crumb, do we have anything else on our agenda today? One last item. Our dear administrative staff, Mr. Sheehy, this is his last planning commission subcommittee. He is moving on to bigger and better things, so just wanted to thank him for his service. He's in the back if you want to point at him. Thank you, Bill. We appreciate everything. All righty. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, everyone, and we'll see you next week.