Good afternoon, it is May 7th, 2026, and this is the meeting of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government's Planning Commission Zoning Committee. Our first item on the agenda today is PLN-MAR 26-4, Mount Laurel Lands Company. Alright, good afternoon everyone, Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. This item on the agenda is a request by Mount Laurel Lands Company. This is a slightly unusual format for our staff reports. This is an item that still has to meet some requirements as far as the posting of notice, so this is really just an introduction to the general request. There is no staff report with analysis as of yet, so this is introductory. The applicant knows what requirements they have to meet, so they'll be moving forward, but just to get this on everyone's radar, this is a request for a little bit over an acre of property located out Old Paris Road, and this is seeking to take it from a single family residential zone to a wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone. The applicant is seeking this rezoning in order to establish a development that provides spaces for shops of specialty trade. The applicant at this point has not conducted a larger public outreach. He may have spoken with some individuals in the area. He is present today if there's any questions about that. As far as a place type and development type, they are seeking to place this in an existing residential neighborhood, and it's actually a typo on the screen. This is a low-density non-residential development project. So just to orient everyone, the subject property is this unique piece of land here that is located on Old Paris Road as it heads out, heads under the RJ Corman underpass, and then connects a little bit further up, it's visible right here, with Paris Pike. So it's this last little piece that is sort of bound by the railroad on one side, residential to the west, south, and east, and then once again the curve that takes you under the underpass and brings you adjacent to Paris Pike. Design-wise, we have existing residential in the area, so this yellowish color is that single-family residential. We've got R3 that is also residential across the way. When you go across the railroad is where you start to have actual commercial development, but as you can see in the aerial images, basically the railroad serves as a spine that divides the existing residential that has been there for some time on Old Paris Road with kind of that existing commercial development along the corridor. A little bit further down, this piece of property here was re-zoned for apartments, so this is an area that we've kind of looked at, but this is the first time we've hopped over to the residential side. Once again, existing single-family to the south, west, and east of the subject property. The applicant is seeking to use this property for shops of specialty trade. We do have some information to present momentarily about sort of the development plan that's associated with this, but because the statutory requirements were met, staff has not weighed in on the zoning side of things, so we are at postponement with that while the applicant meets their requirements, and so on. The very lightest of information, if you have any questions about sort of the location and the orientation there, I'd be happy to answer those. Chris will be on momentarily just to give you a quick walkthrough, kind of the concept behind the development plan, because that has gotten a little bit more attention. Okay, thank you, Daniel. Do we have any questions for Daniel at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Daniel. Good afternoon. Chris Chaney, Planning Staff. Yeah, the associated development plan, as Daniel mentioned, this is north Broadway, and then it's just north of the interstate, Old Paris Pike comes around, goes under the railroad track, and then meets new, well, Paris Pike, and then the railroad runs along through here. The development plan depicts two structures with multiple units. There's a gap between them here. They're along the rear of the property, along the railroad right-of-way, and then there's associated parking between the structures and the road. There's an existing entrance, and they're showing that as the proposed entrance, and there's also a proposed smaller entrance very close to the western property boundary. There is a transmission line that comes through this general area, and then there's a lot of other easements and lines that are depicted on the plan. And with that, I'll turn it over to you all if you have any questions. Okay, thank you very much, Chris. Do we have any questions on the development plan for staff? Okay, thank you very much. Applicant? I'm Matt Minyard. I'm the operator of Mountain Laurel Lands Company, and I want to thank you for your time today, and thank you for your consideration. This is probably the toughest one I've ever done. It's got a lot of challenges, and because the challenges are so many, I'm asking your support in a continuance here, and I will answer general questions, but to just clear the air on a couple of things, Daniel and Chris's representation of the zoning is not entirely factual as it pertains to actual zoning to use. So right here is the transmission lines from KU that go back prior to World War II. That's certainly an I-2 use by anybody's standard or measurement. I don't want to go into the hazards of electromagnetic energy, but it is a nuisance that creates social obsolescence to – furthermore, the railroad here, RJ Corman, runs six trains a day through here. That's I-2. To make the site even more challenging, these transmission line – communication lines run perpendicular to the corner, so the lot split from corner to corner with unrecorded easements of folks like Windstream and Spectrum. To make it more challenging, there's a bottleneck of traffic here, starts at the railroad bridge, that's a choke point, comes all the way back past Beverly. So in quizzing my neighbors, you know, their input is they want something that's not going to generate a lot of traffic, and that brings me around to the development plan you have in front of you, which is really incubator space for small businesses, specialty contractors, guys like me that go to the shop and load up, and I'm in the field all day. To put it in perspective, the size of these units are about the size of a two-car garage, and they're really not intended to be warehouse, they're intended to be staging areas for like jobbers. So if you buy a tractor-trailer load of the lighters and you put them on displays throughout Kroger's and Speedway and all these, that's what this is really designed for. It's designed for a minimum amount of traffic. And then there's a green side to this project as well. The way the buildings are aligned, it creates and builds what I call living, functional architecture. It's basically a sound wall. These will be concrete buildings. They'll be 14 feet high in front in anticipation of a box van going in them. They'll be 16 feet high in the back, and they're going to create a sound wall and a weather wall and a wind wall where the severe weather in the winter whips across here and hits the front of old Paris and Strawberry Fields. So there's a lot of things going on here. I'm struggling to get through everything and try to meet every possible contingency and make everybody happy that's a stakeholder. And it's extremely challenging for me to do that and make a project that's functional that will be an asset to the community for at least 100 years. That's all I got to say. I'm praying that you'll grant my continuance. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant at this time? Yes, sir. Oh, yes, sir. One quick question. Did you consult with the staff about your differences in regards to the zones? Yes, I have, and from their perspective, they have to work with the actual zone that's put on the property. But the fact that it's actually used for I-2, based on my understanding of the way Tracy and those interpret it, you know, just because it's I-2 doesn't mean it's zoned I-2. I'm confused. I'm very confused too, sir, because with the deepest respect for planning and zoning, okay, what you see with the transmission line, okay, that's high voltage, you know, KU will not live a blade of grass, and the fact that they're on the edge or encroaching into my property with their transmission lines doesn't scare them. But as, going back to Daniel's prescription and Mr. Chaney's, you know, they're working with the actual zoning, not how the property is used. So the fact that transmission line in a railroad, these are R1B, I think, but in physical use and living use, there actually are two. So as a developer of the property and the steward for the next generation, I have to consider what's actually out there and the impact of the quality of life of the end users in those structures. So if they were multifamily, then the freight train goes through the property six times a day. The electromagnetic buzz of the current goes through the transmission lines. It never turns off. And then finally, you're close enough, well, actually, you can stand on the side and see the interstate, and the noise that you hear on the interstate is the rubber tires on a concrete road, asphalt road. That's what makes the noise. It's not the motors of the truck. So as it pertains to someone living there, you know, they're going to be from here to that wall from the diesel locomotives and the clickety clank of the railcars. So you have to think, you know, if we go with residential, these properties are going to suffer from social obsolescence to where they're going to generate end users that could possibly breed into crime, mental illness, and all these things that come with blighted properties. And the goal here is to solve a problem. This track has been vacant. I've been practicing over 45 years now. This track has been vacant for over 45 years. In researching the history of it, you know, I go back to the Indian that owned it, you know, or, you know, it was a turnaround for the trolleys in the 30s. Prior to the trolley use, the reason those easements, the overhead easements, the road cut right back to the railroad and went down to the railroad bridge. And I'm thinking in the horse and wagon days when they built a railroad, that's how the materials came. Well, time goes by, it never got changed, and there's a blind turn going under the railroad bridge. So they swung it out in 39 prior to World War II to prevent the accidents. So when they did that, you know, the lines, they just stayed. Thank you. I didn't mean to go on so much, but I try to be in-depth as possible and research as much as possible to make sure I do the correct thing. So I want to sum up on the zoning. You know, their notion of the zoning should be it's not physically what goes on. And because my property has a long history of commercial use that it prospered at, that's why I'm entitled to a zone change of B4. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you all. Okay. Moving on, our next item on the agenda, sorry, do we need to, oh, take a motion. Yeah, act to postpone the item. Can I clarify for Mr. Wilson? Yeah. So utilities and a railroad cross zones all over our county and all over, you know, the state and nation, and they don't adhere to zone requirements. So, yes, you will find transmission lines and the railroad in every single zone. Residential, commercial, that doesn't change the physical use of the property to commercial? Does that make sense? Yeah. It makes a lot of sense and not be disrespectful to anyone else, but I don't know if this has any impact upon what's actually taking place, so I didn't make a big deal of it. But believe me, as a matter of practicality, I accept your definition. Thank you. Okay. And I should have asked, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak to this application today? Okay. All right. Questions or are the floors open for a motion? Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. You want to do it? Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone PLN MAR 26-4. Okay. We recommend postponement. Or just postpone at this level. Okay. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Do we have a second? Second. From Commissioner Molly Davis. Any discussion? Seeing none, if you are in support of that motion, just please raise your right hand. Thank you. That's unanimous. Okay. Next item on the agenda today is PLN MAR 26-9. Yeah. The applicant for 26-09 has requested a postponement, so there is not a staff report that's been generated that. They'll come back to next month's committees. So this will be the next item on the agenda is 26-10. 26-10. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. All right. All right. The next item on the agenda is a request by LCD Acquisitions, LLC. And this is to rezone a host of properties located on Chair Avenue, Hayman Avenue, and South Broadway in order to rezone the existing B4 and I1 areas into the corridor node, the CN zone. The intent behind this is to establish a high-density residential development that's proposed to consist of 321 residential units along with an associated parking structure. The applicant on this item did hold a public outreach meeting. It was attended by Jeremy Young with our staff. Largely, it was just attended by neighboring property owners who had some general questions about the development, but nothing kind of larger in scale. Included in your packet is information and renderings provided by the applicant that could provide some context. I will also provide some of those in my slides as well. But just to orient everyone, these are a host of properties that make up an area generally between South Broadway and Oliver Lewis Way. So it is a number of parcels in sort of an irregular shape that have been grouped together for this request. This is an area that was formerly used as warehouses. It had connectivity with the railroad and really represented back when this area really had a larger industrial capacity. Over time, we've seen rezonings for areas, developments like the Lex that have started to bring these a little bit closer in line with residential, commercial kind of downtown uses. So what we see today are these lightish and dark purples are industrial zoning. To the north, we've got the redevelopment that's occurring associated with multifamily and affordable housing development to the north. To the northeast, we have sort of the beginnings of downtown, the Lex. And so this is an area, the intersection of multiple different corridors. The applicant is seeking to kind of place this within a corridor type place type. And so it's looking to leverage that in order to develop high-end apartments or high-density apartments that will be targeted towards students but open to the general public as well. Arrow view of the property, you see how that kind of plays out. Once again, South Broadway, Oliver Lewis Way. You'll notice that the existing, and it shows up on the development plan as well, there is a large amount of right-of-way associated with Oliver Lewis Way. So there is larger than normal setbacks there along both road fringes due to easements, right-of-way, and other issues. So as far as, once again, the place type and development type, this is an applicant is seeking to locate it along the context of those two corridors. Staff agrees. The applicant's choice in development type and zone is both also recommended. One of the things that I did want to kind of iron in on it, it sort of leads to kind of staff's justification for the rest of the application. And the see-in zone is not a zone that we've really seen a ton of. We've only seen really one application for this zone since it was created. But the intent was to create a zone that would interface well with transit. Create a high-density residential zone that would encourage walkability, would serve as sort of, in these more urbanized areas, an ability to develop more densely. But one of the things that it does call for is having enhanced transit facilities and being able to kind of integrate with that. So some of our commentary, as the things that we are liking to see from the applicant, really relate to providing more information as to how transit is going to be enhanced with this development, and what partnerships they can do with Lextran and what facilities they can achieve on-site. We do have some renderings of the proposed development. So just to orient everybody, this is, here we would have South Broadway, and there's the underpass here as it's heading towards downtown. Oliver Lewis Way kind of curves around. And so some of the things that staff have been looking at in this development have been understanding that there are some barriers in the sense of this is a large amount of right-of-way in front of the building, but we still wanted to see on those major approaches, Oliver Lewis Way and South Broadway, how the buildings are interacting with the street. Are we having entrances? Where are those kind of being accommodated? How is this really going to interplay with both of those? So staff has some questions about that. Also the potential for transit, but here you see how the site generally functions. We have essentially two residential structures, each five stories in size, that are connected by a fifth-story pedestrian bridge that then connects to a standalone parking structure to the rear. So a little bit of an unconventional design due to, in part, the number of streets and local roadways that they have existing kind of within the property. This is a view, this would be from South Broadway. Once again, the entrances, I believe, for the development are actually located further in, so it's really more of a presence once you're into the site. So seeing how, if there's any avenues for entrances to be added or some type of extra intentionality being afforded, kind of the most prominent views. And this is sort of internal on Shear Avenue looking out towards South Broadway. This is sort of what their lobby areas are looking at in the scale and scope that they're looking to find. Ultimately, staff is looking for postponement. This does meet a number of goals and objectives that relate to things like reutilizing this kind of vacant land or land that's being currently underutilized, providing residential density. We're really looking to see how this relates and plays and can enhance transit as well as sort of activating and utilizing that space as well. So we're still looking for some more information from the applicant and we will be in contact with them kind of during this time as well. But at this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have of staff about the zoning. And then Chris will be on momentarily to discuss the development plan. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. Do we have any questions on the zoning? Chris, this current CN zoning now, is that the property of Polo Club Man O' War? No, that's CC. Yeah, CN was what was requested for the Prawl Town development before they went to the form-based B1. So there is not currently a property in Lexington that has this. So this would be the first if it was granted. Okay. Interesting. Any other questions on the zoning aspect? Thank you, Daniel. Thank you. All right. Let me see what we got here. Okay. So we may refer to this a little bit more. I think it's a little more visually understandable with what's going on. Daniel provided that as well as the actual development plan. But we'll maybe start here and I can work back and forth between them as we need. So again, as Daniel said, it's Oliver Lewis Way here, South Broadway, Chair Avenue, kind of bisects the property here. This is Emmeline. This is lower into Hayman. So again, they have the larger structure that's on the corner of this is Scott Street that currently ends at Chair and Oliver Lewis. So it's kind of on the corner of that. But as Daniel noted, there's quite a bit of right-of-way around the building that's not part of the subject property. So it kind of creates this unique buffer around the property. And then again, they have a... So there's one multifamily, five-story structure, and another in the middle. They're connected across Chair Avenue with a pedestrian bridge and across this area with a pedestrian bridge to the standalone parking structure. I don't know if this really helps much, except that the other aspect of this that kind of complicates things a little bit more is there's a proposed extension to Scott Street. So this is Chair Avenue here. This would be South Broadway and Oliver Lewis to the north. This is Emmeline. So this is the larger multifamily structure. This is the long, skinny one. And then this is the parking structure. And then this is the parking structure down here. So currently, there's lower street that curves and turns into Hayman Avenue that comes out onto South Broadway. The proposed Scott Street extension would start at Chair Avenue and comes down roughly in the corner here of those two streets and then parallels the railroad. So it's not shown on this, but it's going to come through like this, parallel the railroad across South Broadway. So we've had a meeting and some discussions about how that's going to work with the development of this site. This is a retaining wall, this dark line. And it's 10 feet from the corner of the structure. So basically, that means that lower street's going to be cut off and Hayman Street will be cut off in that corner. So we had some questions about termination of a public street. So there's some questions about timing. We'll have to have some additional discussions about that, about how that all plays out as far as how those streets get terminated if they're public-private streets, things like that. So we've been having some ongoing discussions about that. And then they're also proposing... So this is lower street here, the Scott Street extension would come through here. They're also proposing a small amount of surface parking across lower street. It's not very much. It's just surface parking, no structure or anything like that. And that is outside the Scott Street expansion. But I think they had originally shown townhomes, but they've removed those because of that street expansion. So that's kind of what... This is the other kind of aspect of the development. It's associated, but not part of the main structures and parking structure. And with that, if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris. I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly. I believe you said that... Well, let me ask it more straightforwardly. Does the applicant own the piece of land from that chair all the way to Oliver Lewis Way and south north of Emmeline? You mentioned the right-of-way. So they own essentially that entire kind of rectangular... Yeah, this is the property line right here. Okay, so who owns the part to the right and the part above? So this is public right-of-way and this is public right-of-way. That entire thing? Public right-of-way. Wow. So that really eliminates the possibility, unless they had a variance of some kind, for there to be any kind of street frontage, some kind of activation of the space along the corridor, which is very unfortunate, I think. Right, and I believe there's a great difference between Oliver Lewis and the site as well. I think it slopes down onto the site. At the northern end, could you just kind of describe again what happens when Scott Street gets extended? It is a little harder to see on this one, but this is showing the proposed right-of-way and they own, I believe this is the property line, so it will cross a portion of their property and it is proposed to be not a flyover, not a viaduct, but retaining walls with fill. So this will be a solid retaining wall where this dark line is. There will be one on the other side as well. So there will be a significant wall 10 feet from the corner of the property. I'm sorry, the corner of the parking structure, not the property. It actually crosses the property. That seems rather potentially close. It is, and so there's concerns about the bridge between the two sites, the two, I guess, pieces of the property. There's one there and one there. Oh, there are two bridges. Where's the second bridge? So it doesn't show up as well. So this is Chair Avenue here. So there's a bridge there and then sort of in line with that to the parking structure I guess I'm not seeing that as well. Yeah, it's kind of hard to see with the line work, but it's right here in this location. So this kind of northern corner of the parking structure. Sorry for taking this. I just think it's important to know what we're looking at. Ah, okay. I see it. Thank you so much. I probably could have went to this one. So this is the main one across Chair Avenue and then there's one off the corner of the parking structure, and then there's one off the corner of the parking structure to that corner of the other one. What would the clearance be underneath that? I think they're about four stories. All right. Thank you, Chris. Just a context question. That right of way, is that state land from the Newtown Bike Extension Project because Newtown Bike is a state road? So that's part of the Commonwealth Transportation Department. Okay. Do we have any additional questions on the site plan, development plan? Thank you, Chris. Applicant? Afternoon. Scott Schuette with the McBrayer Law Firm here on behalf of the applicant as well as Jihad Alani and a few representatives of the ownership group as well that will have a little presentation for you all to give some background on their team, some of their other projects and then some site-specific information. Before we get into that, I think a majority of the justification for staff's postponement relates to the transit-oriented aspects of this. And so we talked to LexTran after the subdivision this morning and we've represented to them the two stops that are in that area that LexTran would like. There's one on Broadway and there's one on Oliver Lewis Way as well, so we'll enhance both of those. There was a discussion this morning about the potential of adding another stop internally for this site. We'd be more than happy to do that, but I don't know that LexTran would want to get internal for this site given the location of the two existing bus stops there. And then as far as the parking demand mitigation study, we will be able to turn that around quickly and get that to staff here in the next couple days. So we would ask for approval today not postponement. We believe that these issues can be addressed at Planning Commission and discussed and talked through. Jihad Alani will be able to discuss any of the site design issues you all have, but at this time I think we'd like to pass it to the ownership group and let them make their presentation for you all. I'd love to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Nick Lev. I'm a developer at Landmark Properties. Landmark is the nation's leading developer of purpose-built student housing. We were founded in Athens, Georgia in 2004 and have developed over 50,000 beds across the country in the last 21 years. We are a vertically integrated company, which means that we are the developer, the general contractor, and the property manager on all projects that we develop now. We have approximately a 300-person construction team and we will self-perform on this project although we will typically work with local subcontractors. As we've grown as a company, I think something important to note is a lot of smaller developers are what we call merchant builders. They build and then they immediately sell to recycle capital. Landmark, because we're so established, we generally hold our assets for the long term, which means we design them with consideration of that because we are going to be long-term investors in that property and in the community. So I just wanted to make sure I could work this correctly. Hi, I'm Eric Samuelson with Cube3, the architect of the project. I'm going to walk you through some of this even though I think a lot of the questions were already answered in some of the prior presentation, but hopefully provide maybe a little bit more color here. So we went through some of the zoning and some of the reasons that we're looking at here is there are a lot of recent development in this area. There's a lot of new development in this area. We have Davis Park Station to the northwest. We have the Lex to the northeast. And then we're also looking at the School of Visual Arts coming to the southeast. So there is a lot of development in this area and it makes a lot of sense for us looking at this site as development for housing. So some of the existing conditions, industrial use right now, there's a lot of parking and industrial buildings on site. You can see the various views from South Broadway and Chair, Chair Ave looking back up, Lower Street and Hayman Ave. So our proposed development, we talked about the use changing to CN. We're looking at 326 units and about 974 beds on site and about 392,000 gross square feet. The parking is about 591 spaces so it's about a .6 or 60% ratio of parking to beds. We also have 116 bike parking which exceeds the requirement for bike parking on this site as well. We have over our 50% requirement for covered as well. So working our way through the site, we kind of walked through some of the restrictions or challenges that we have with some of the adjacent properties and right of ways we have here on the site. So one of the heavy focuses has been this right of way here at the top. But we also have kind of front doors here along South Broadway that has been a heavy focus for us as well. So while we understand we can't get a front door along Oliver Lewis due to the right of ways setbacks that we have there, we're certainly not trying to turn our back to any portion around the properties. While we can't have a main front door and a grand entrance because of that, we still will have development that faces, you know, we're going to have windows, there's not going to be blank walls, there's going to be landscaping. So there still will be kind of a nice feature from our building along Oliver Lewis even if it won't be the grand entrance a part of that. So our thought process was that we would kind of create the central entrance with internal to our site. We have three buildings. They're kind of divided into four different parcels here. One of the parcels has the surface parking. But this allows us to have that surface parking be kind of that temporary parking for new students, deliveries, pickup. And that allows kind of for that leasing office to be centralized between all of these buildings. And then we have the covered walkways and other entrances into the buildings that kind of branch off from there. But we do have entrances elsewhere on the buildings as well, which I'll get into as we kind of get a little further. But the other thing we're working with on the site is the grade. There is a heavy amount of grade from Oliver Lewis down to our site. And also from South Broadway is higher than the internal to the site. So you can see the grade out portions of the buildings that are here and here. So those are both subgrade looking at it right here. So at the lowest level, there's only a half portion of the building because we're building into the hill a little bit. And so there's kind of the challenges we're working with with the grading on the site as well that restricts where we can put some of these entrances. And so that's why partially why we are looking at the center of the site is because everything levels out a little bit better right in the middle. And so that was really some of our big reasoning for having the leasing be in that central portion. So this is a little bit larger. The plans turned a little bit. So you can see in the bottom right, it's a little small, the north arrow. So north is actually to the upper left corner. These are just reoriented to help with our view. So the larger building, while it doesn't have the leasing office, it does have a main entry. It is located underneath where the skywalk will be. And so that will have its own kind of main entry with glazing and signage that you'll see as you come down Chair Ave. It also has kind of loading off to the left. It has, you know, egress to the left as well. And then as you go up the building, we do have another entrance here that will be off M-Line Ave, our lane. So there are kind of three entries to here. The main entry is internal along Chair Ave, but there is a kind of secondary entrance along M-Line as well. Within here, there are two courtyards that are at grade. So those are for student use. They'll be green, most likely passive use within these, but there'll be areas for students to go and relax and be outdoors. Then one other thing to note is the skywalk here at the fifth level. So there's four stories underneath it, but it is at the fifth. So this will connect to the buildings. All of them are intended to be at the same level. So you can traverse over towards the parking deck at the same level. It'll provide ample clearance below it. And that will connect to this bar building at this location up at the upper level. And there you can see we have our leasing here at the corner with our main entry. We have secondary kind of entry underneath that is directly across from the entries on the larger building. We have loading and trash kind of internal behind. And then you can see here's where we get to the grade. So the building actually steps. And then the second level here. So this is actually one story above where the main entry is. But as you get towards South Broadway, it's actually at grade. And so at this area, we do have an entry at South Broadway. So we have kind of a study and lounge space at the ground level. So there'll be nice big windows, open areas, seating areas, and there will be an entry that all students can enter at that location. If it's a rainy day, they can walk in that door and they can get to any building through the connections and to the parking areas. Then as we work our way up past one, there is that other bridge connection right here on the bottom left. And that will go to the parking structure. So this is kind of the typical level on the first floor. We have entries off of lower and off of Hayman. And then we have ramps that lead our way up. And then at the top level, we do have a partial indoor amenity and outdoor amenity that is connected with that sky bridge that connects all of the buildings. So looking at the elevation, so we're really looking at kind of doing a brick masonry, you know, along South Broadway and some of our prominent corners really tie back to, you know, a lot of buildings we see here in Lexington. And then kind of along the other areas, we're using kind of different forms of fiber spent material and looking at breaking up some of the facades with vertical elements. You know, there's some horizontal aspects here with the length of some of these buildings. So we are trying to use some vertical pieces of bays and other things that break up some of the length of the building as you're looking down. But you can see kind of the mixture of kind of the red or brown brick masonry and the fiber spent and trying to use some of the verticality to split up the building. And you can see it a little bit better here in the renderings as shown. This is from South Broadway. This front corner is where we are talking to have kind of a study lounge space. There is a door here. We can move that door around. There will be signage there as an entry for that door. There is some flexibility on the exact location, but that front corner is where we were looking. You can see the bridge in the back, as we mentioned, kind of in the middle is where we have our leasing and that central kind of node of where everything happens. And then we do have an entry here off of Emeline. And then this is just kind of central to the site, highlighting kind of our main leasing, main entry to the building. But we do, underneath the bridge, we do have our entry to the other building as well. There will be signage of some sort as well to signify where these entries are to help way find. And then just the overall view here, kind of showing the big picture, I guess. Okay. I think that's everything. Thank you very much. Yes. Okay. Just one other point about that Scott Street extension. That is obviously something that we're monitoring. That is going to be in partnership with engineering. We're going to have to work together with them to make that work. And so that's something that I think will be addressed through the final development process when we're dealing with engineering on that issue. We have a question for the developer. I believe it would be a question just for anyone who could help me understand something and explain something. So I'm pretty familiar with this area because I bank at the credit union on the corner of Oliver Lewis Way and South Broadway. And it is a very treacherous entrance to go down South Broadway and turn right onto Chair Avenue. In terms of elevation, the road's not in great condition. So this noted that. And this development does leave kind of a bunch of parcels kind of, I guess, where the trees are now. But my big question was, you have a number of elevations in the packet. I noticed you did not reference this one, which has a vast garage facade north and south. And I'm wondering which building do you consider the garage and where are these facades located? That'll be on the rear and that'll be basically on backing up to the railroad tracks. Could you bring some more? On Hayman Avenue. On Hayman Avenue. So that will be located right here. This is the garage. The garage is located on the south. Oh, thanks Daniel. Sorry. So who has a view of these walls? On the railroad tracks. And you'll see the multiple parcel lines coming down. Those are all owned by the city of Cincinnati who was the operator of the railroad in the past. So most of it is internal and then on the other side is the railroad parcels. And that is elevated as well. Okay, thanks. Okay, do we have any other questions for the development team or council? Okay, thank you very much. I would like a clarification from staff. Essentially the objection or the basis of postponement, the Lextran questions and the... there was one other thing. That was a basis for postponement. A parking study. Also the treatment of understanding that they do have some topography and some right of way space but just having some discussion about sort of the activation and what can be done along both those Broadway and Oliver Lewis, the frontages, if there's anything that can be done there. So on the Oliver Lewis portion, I mean, they have no control over that land though? I guess to the extent of improvements to things like bus stop, bus shelter, sidewalks, those are things that can be done and negotiated within that right of way. Obviously they can't extend their building and get the rights to move their building closer but just recognizing that anyone coming as a pedestrian from that side is going to encounter that frontage and having to walk all the way through or all the way around or just, you know, having that discussion as to what the constraints are, what the opportunities are and if we can do anything with that moving forward. And I think that would be the result of no matter what use goes there there's going to be that issue, whether it's a commercial building or residential building and I think what the architect hit on about that South Broadway kind of community room there with the larger windows we think is activating that South Broadway side. And would the windows be similar to the windows on the leasing office that were much taller? Correct. Okay. Yes, Mr. Wilson. First of all, thank you all for the presentation as such. This is a question from Ms. Wade and the question is did you all get the information that apparently they worked with some expediency from this morning to this evening and I appreciate that. The question is does that change your recommendation? I would say no because we like to get that information in writing from them or depict it on the development plan so that we can respond to that. Fair enough. And we will have that in writing and we will have a plan to them. We will work with LexTrain directly to figure out exactly what they want and what they can accommodate at those two sites and we will have that all prepared and finalized before the Planning Commission meeting. Okay. Okay. If we have nothing else for the applicant, thank you gentlemen. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this request today? Okay. If we have no further Commissioner question or comment, the floor is open. I've got a way to split the hair on this particular issue and that is to offer a motion for approval pending the acceptance of the and the written explanation as to what they were going to do. Okay. So Mr. Wilson made a motion for approval pending the information review that was provided to us which they have not seen and nor have they approved. Okay. And that was immediately seconded by Mr. Davis, Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion to that motion? There's a motion and it's been seconded. And so if there's no discussion, we will take that to a vote. If you support that, please raise your right hand. Okay. That carries almost unanimously. Okay. Moving on to the Okay. So that takes us to PLN MAR 2611. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Ryle Browning with planning staff and this is PLN MAR 2611 Fox South LLC. So this is his own change request and the acreage is 0.684 net acres or 1.09 gross acres. It's located at 500 Southland Drive and the applicant indicated on their application materials an enhanced neighborhood place type as well as a low density non-residential mixed use development type and the applicant is seeking to rezone this property in order to establish a neighborhood business use specifically a coffee shop and record store. So here we can see the vicinity map with the subject property located in the center in white and it's located along Southland Drive here, which is where it fronts and then Mitchell Avenue runs along here. You can see Rosemont Garden to the north of the property as well as Clay's Mill Road to the west of the property. Thank you. And then here's the zoning in the surrounding area so to the north of the subject property it's zoned P1 professional office as well as R1C single-family residential although there isn't a professional office located to the north of the property currently and then to the east of the property there is a neighborhood business B1 zone to the south there is also professional office as well as neighborhood business and that is where the Health First Bluegrass facility is located and then finally to the west there is additional R1C single-family residential zoning. And then here's the aerial view of the property so we can see the subject property located in the center outlined in yellow and you can see here just the single-family residential to the west and we can also see that neighborhood businesses to the east with that Health First building located here to the south of the facility. So from the aerial we can also see that the subject property has parking to the front of the building as well as to the side of the building on the south side of the property and the applicant is seeking variances related to the maximum front yard and the vehicular use area and we'll discuss those later after reviewing the development plan. So the applicant did choose an enhanced neighborhood place type, a low-density non-residential mixed-use development type, and a B1 zone and staff agrees that these are appropriate for the area as this proposal is seeking to add neighborhood serving retail services and employment options to the area. So staff is recommending approval for the requested zone change to a neighborhood business or B1 zone and staff finds that the proposed development will fit with the existing neighborhood character and intensity by retaining the existing structure and converting it to a low intensity commercial use and the proposed development will also introduce new neighborhood scaled and oriented business uses into what was previously strictly professional office. The proposed development will additionally support local prosperity by providing a flexible space for small business development and finally the proposed development will encourage neighborhood serving businesses and community focal points by providing a gathering space to serve the community. The request is also in agreement with the comprehensive plan policies as first the applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior of the building so it will remain within the character of the area. Secondly the request will repurpose an existing structure for another use and finally the development provides pedestrian friendly connections to other neighborhood level commercial uses and additionally the justification and corollary development plan are in agreement with the development criteria as the proposed rezoning meets the criteria for land use as it promotes modifying the current office space to include a low intensity business use that will provide neighborhood amenities and an existing mixed-use neighborhood. The proposed rezoning meets the transportation connectivity and walkability development criteria as the proposal will utilize the existing pedestrian and vehicular connections that are in place for the existing office building and the property is in close proximity to existing transit stops as well. The proposed rezoning meets the criteria for environmental sustainability and resilience as the applicant intends to maintain the existing tree canopy including street trees and adding existing trees or sorry adding additional trees as recommended by the urban forester. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the site design criteria as over parking will not occur no new parkings being proposed for this property and additionally the proposed rezoning enhances well-connected and activated public realm by providing a destination that is accessible to the existing Southland Drive sidewalk network in a previously less active section of the corridor and finally the proposed rezoning meets the building form criteria as it incorporates reuse of a viable existing structure and minimizes significant contrast in scale, massing, and design and this is subject to approval of the development plan. So if you all have any questions I'd be happy to answer them now. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions at this time? Okay seeing none thank you and then we can move on to the variance or I'm sorry do you want to do the development plan first okay? Okay on the development plan again we've got Southland Drive to the east and Mitchell Avenue it's on the corner there's an existing entrance off of Southland and an existing entrance off Mitchell this is the existing building they're not proposing any changes to the building itself with the associated parking and VUA around the building there is a good portion of lawn around the rear and side of the side of the existing building and really there's not a whole lot to it they're not not making many significant physical changes so if you have any questions. All right do we have any questions on the development plan? Thank you very much now we will talk about the variance. So in addition to the zone change the applicant is requesting four variances that are listed here they are specifically requesting to increase the maximum front yard from 20 feet to 50 feet reduce the vehicular use area perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 0 feet reduce the interior landscaping for the vehicular use area from 10% to 0% and then finally to reduce the interior vehicular use area tree canopy from 30% to 0% and so some of the relevant sections of the zoning ordinance that apply to these variances include article 8-16 H which states that for any neighborhood business zone the maximum front yard shall be 20 feet article 18-3 a 2d 1 states that the vehicular use area perimeter buffer shall be located along the perimeter of a vehicular use area and maintain a minimum average width of 8 feet as measured from the outer edge of the vehicular use area article 18-3 b1 states that any open vehicular use area containing 5,000 or more square feet of area or 15 or more vehicular parking spaces shall provide interior landscaping in addition to the previously required perimeter landscaping with a minimum interior landscaping area of 10% of the total vehicular use area and then finally article 18-3 b2 states that the tree canopy equal to or exceeding 30% of the total vehicular use area vehicular use area shall be provided and the specific landscape use buffer provisions were added to the ordinance to improve the appearance of the vehicular use areas and property abutting public rights of way to require buffering between incompatible land uses and to promote public health and safety through the reduction of pollution and artificial light glare so here's just a site photo and this is a view of the property from Southland Drive where the property fronts and then here is where like the front door of the property is located and then here's another view of the property this is from Mitchell Avenue so this is the south property line and an applicant stated in their justification materials that the variances are necessary due to the site constraints created by the existing physical conditions on the property and these state back to its construction in 1960 and staff acknowledges that bringing this site into total compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements would result in the need to completely reconfigure the building and its parking area however staff does have some concerns that granting full variances to other aspects of the site could negatively impact the area in particular staff has safety concerns with continuing to allow the vehicular use area to directly about the sidewalk so we can see here that the pavement is level with the sidewalk and there are some concerns about if vehicles would without a buffer be able to drive on to the sidewalk and the risk that that would pose to pedestrians so instead of the full requested VUA perimeter variance staff is suggesting that the applicant explore if it's possible to have a lesser variance where possible to create a buffer to separate that vehicular traffic and the pedestrian sidewalk staff is also concerned that granting the requested front yard variance would negatively impact future development of the site so you can see how it's set back here a variance granted to increase the setback would mean that for any future development that occurs on the site it would also not be required to comply so this would circumvent the intent of the maximum setback for the b1 zone and that is intended to create development patterns that are safer for pedestrians and also have structures that reinforce the roadways so if the applicant did not seek the variance the non-conforming setback that the zone change would create for the existing building wouldn't affect the applicants ability to operate the use that they are proposing so staff is recommending postponement of their requested variances as the applicant should review the necessity of the requested maximum setback variance and additionally the applicant should explore the feasibility of requesting a lesser vehicular use area perimeter buffer in order to protect pedestrians along Southland Drive as well as Mitchell Avenue so if you have any questions about these I'd be happy to address them as well thank you very much I have a couple if you could please go back to the slide with the I think there were for the actual requests here's a legal question can a variance on a zone change could it not have a stipulation that if the lot is redeveloped at some point at that particular variance sunsets because I'm struggling with the the front yard issue I mean typically no because we the variances run with the land thank you okay do we have any questions on the variance okay thank you thank you very much mr. Barrett you thank you Tony Barrett Barrett partners here on behalf of Fox South LLC Vinnie Paiva who is the owner and applicant and the driver of the zone change unfortunately is not able to join us this afternoon he had some travel plans that he was not able to avoid so but don't fear we have John Cable with us John is the tenant so he will be operating the coffee shop and he and his associate will be operating this into a coffee shop and a vinyl record store kind of like a bookstore with a coffee shop but instead of reading you will be listening to vinyl records and hopefully buying vinyl records so but the intent is to leave the property as it is today and as it has been for 50 plus years and just change the use principally and the reason I said I can address that when I come up here is any variances we don't need to get our zone change and our use we don't need to apply so if we can withdraw the building line require variance and just function as a non-conforming building we're fine with that we don't have any intention of circumventing that so we're just trying to apply for the variances that we need for the facility the property to to operate as the coffee shop and really nothing more and nothing less so we do not one of the underlying concerns in the morning and at technical was a drive-thru we do not we're not proposing a drive-thru it apparently was a first security bank at one time and they had a drive-thru of late it's been a doctor's office so and I don't think it would work as a drive-thru that without widening the road around it so I think with regards to the variances we will continue to work with staff on what variances we specifically need and how we can address the the pedestrian vehicular use conflict potential conflict and see how we can come up with a means to satisfy that concern so John do you have anything you want to add so as I learned this morning when Vinnie was talking apparently this is the vinyl record sales peak from the past 30 years where we are today and we're being ever flexible to capture a market where we're going to have vinyl records so that's where we are oh I will say with regards to stakeholders Vinnie held a meeting at the Good Foods Co-op invited Mitchell Avenue Neighborhood Association had about 10 or 12 folks in attendance including the two neighbors who immediately about the property everybody at the end of the meeting was in support of and understanding that request to reduce the canopy was not for the property but for the interior parking lot which was relief to to those in attendance so he has reached out to the neighbors there was a neighbor here this morning and spoke in support so I don't think she came to speak in support but when she well I guess she did because she and Vinnie have been in communication throughout the process any questions for me okay do we have any questions for Mr. Barrett yes thank you chair just to be really sure I understand can we flip back to the photograph that shows where the parking lot meets the sidewalk the up one there you go back one yes so you you're saying Mr. Barrett that you will work with staff to do something so that the parking lot doesn't go right to the sidewalk is that what you're saying that's what our intent is yeah very good that was my just my I want to be respectful of staff to flagging an issue where too many pedestrians are getting harmed by vehicles these days and I want to make sure they're okay thank you okay do we have any other questions for the applicant seeing none thank you Tony thank you sir you went from the public who would like to speak to this application today I said from the public that's right exactly I play a person from the public every once while I'm Brandon gross as many of you know I grew up in the southern area I live up by the high school some of this is anecdotal but I'm fully in support of this project I think the area between for those who are from the area between Southport and Rosemont is prime for reuses to activate that area of the of our neighborhood anecdotally I'm on a text group message with a number of middle-aged people who play poker every month or so together in the neighborhood they're all in support and so I've not heard anyone say anything negative about this and to be honest you on the sidewalk issue I've never even noticed that issue until today even though I'll walk past this building a gazillion times but I think offense bollards planters I think there's lots of things that can be done to resolve that particular issue and other than that hope you guys support this project I'm looking forward to it being three blocks from my house and I think I'll be great for the neighborhood thank you okay thanks Brandon do we have anything else otherwise floors open for a motion on the zone change and the variance Molly oh my god do something mr. chair mr. chair Zack Davis sir I would like to make a recommendation that the Planning Commission zoning committee approve the zone change for trying to find the address 500 Southland Drive to be rezoned from a professional office p1 zone to a neighborhood business be one zone okay this is a recommendation for approval second from mr. Jonathan Davis is there any discussion see if there is no we can go ahead and vote by raising your right hand if you're in the affirmative okay that carries unanimously I'm not quite sure about the how to address the variances can we say we make a recommendation for the applicant to work with planning staff to resolve any issues okay I'd like to make a recommendation that we postpone the discussion and approval of the variances until there's adequate discussion with planning staff okay mr. Wilson has something to say so if we could please have a second thank you mr. Davis what one of the things that we've done may be saying this a little awkwardly but when the staff makes a recommendation or postpone it that means they have not received all the information that they need for the appropriate movement of this in the last instance I've moved that we ignore that for the time being because I knew we are recording everything and it was on that and then I put into the motion that pending thing but my question is I don't want to necessarily get into a kind of a place where people can always come here and say I'll do this even though it's on tape I prefer to wait until they actually have that is the staff actually has that information and then they can appropriately act upon it as such from my perspective I think we should postpone this because that's the staff's recommendation but that's just one person just one vote on the variance I'm sorry on the various okay yeah can I have the tape please is I would I would recommend that we postpone but but just to mention your item mr. Wilson I do think we should respect the staff when they say to postpone and we did not do that earlier but this time I would like to support the staff I think everybody's saying the same thing yeah and okay and everybody respects everybody at the Planning Commission so okay that's a motion for postponement seconded by mr. Jonathan Davis thank you is there any discussion if not single if you are supportive thank you okay that's unanimous yes could I ask one other quick question of miss Jones over here we had a meeting date not too long ago where you told us how to make motions especially in the big meetings that we have should that same application be made for the zoning in other words put in there things like for the reasons provided by staff and things of that nature is that important here I mean it it's always good to have it yeah but it's particularly important when you're in a hearing I mean these are okay these are still meetings and they're still public and they're still creating a record but it that that discussion was particularly related to hearings but it certainly never hurts if you do it here as well I just want to make sure I'm still on the good side of legal okay Thank You applicant next item on our agenda today is peel in mar 2612 good afternoon Jeremy I'm from planning staff I'll be presenting the staff report for peel in mar 2612 and the property is approximately four point seven acres and I should note that there is a mistake on here there's that acreage is not correct and it's important to this case there is no road frontage so the gross and net acres are both four point seven so that is a mistake on the slide yeah all access vehicle vehicular pedestrian and emergency they must use an existing private access easement between two commercial parcels and the surrounding area is primarily commercial with a YMCA position to the rear the applicant is proposing a multi-family residential development with approximately 100 apartment units the clubhouse with amenities and the justification emphasizes the desire to build middle income housing you can see there is sir Barton I'm sorry no that's the other state this is sir Barton here I've taken a detour there the adjacent zoning the blue is p1 that's professional office and the green is I'm sorry the brown is r3 and the green is agricultural and you can see on the overhead image that there's a creek that runs through here there is a small portion of floodplain to the rear of the property which does provide a bit of a constraint for the construction of other proposed development staff is not aware of any public outreach that the applicant has done at this time with the neighborhood sorry the applicant does speak to there's also a proposed greenway that's supposed to run along the creek here but there is no it isn't constructed and there is no timeline that staff is aware of for the construction of that trail I don't know why that's blank the applicant has indicated regional center place type with medium-density residential development type and r4 is the intended zone and you can see that the site priorities for that place type are place making internal connectivity walkability and creating jobs where people live property design orientation of buildings and streets minimizing parking in favor of multimodal options and then relation to surrounding neighborhood context so you know while it is true that Lexington does need housing pretty desperately there are a number of areas where staff feels that this proposal falls a little bit short of these requirements such as walk ability the orientation of the buildings and streets and neighborhood context so and with that being said you know it's staff does recommend disapproval of this application you know access and connectivity are the most significant deficiency the property depends entirely on the single private easement for access and it essentially cannot add new public street connections and it cannot create the required block structure or support a multimodal street network the the comprehensive plan places strong emphasis on connectivity walkability and multimodal access and the physical limitations of this site with it being in a landlocked configuration make that almost impossible the the applicant proposes buildings that are up to four stories but it does not provide any sort of analysis on how this proposed development would integrate with the existing neighborhood and the comprehensive plan does require context sensitive transitions of scale massing and design and they must appropriately relate to the neighboring development and we do not have you know any sort of renderings or analysis of how that would comply with these requirements and as you know the place builder is the primary tool that we use to assess zone change compliance with the comprehensive plan and there are several elements that are not met the goals and objectives it's it's failed to provide any sort of information on how this would integrate with the existing neighborhood it does not improve the transportation network it is very limited access there's no connectivity there's no you know multiple entrances or exits and also limited pedestrian access I know that there are go back a couple slides here so there are transit stops in this location this is a dentist's office here and roughly in this area and there's a transit stop on either side and accessing the one on the west side of Sir Barton is relatively easy I think it's roughly 800 feet from the property but the one on the other side of Sir Barton would be quite difficult the nearest crosswalk is is up if you're familiar with the where the Walmart is on Sir Barton or down here at old Rosebud at the very southern edge of this image so it actually the 800 feet turns into about three quarter mile walk so it does increase the the distance or requires a pedestrian to essentially try to cross Sir Barton at an unsignalized intersection so and that's speaking to the the multimodal access of this property the and also it fails to provide adequate you know road connections and for city services such as solid waste and fire and as for the policies the isolated nature of the property it does limit the the viability of pedestrian access the justifications do speak to the Greenway Trail but that has no projected time watch for construction so it really couldn't be considered an access point at this time and again it lacks the adequate road connections for city services and it does not promote the desired place type as far as the land use criteria it fails to create a mixed-use neighborhood with safe access to community facilities and green space or access to a multimodal access to businesses employment and shopping it fails to meet the criteria for transportation connectivity and walkability does not provide road frontage or activation with the with the street as it does not have any any frontage along Sir Barton as far as site design doesn't have any neighborhood focused open space like I said before the it is along the Greenway but none of that has been constructed and there is no projected date when that would be constructed and it does not meet the requirements for building form it hasn't demonstrated compliance with the multifamily design standards which is required for multifamily development and it fails to maximize connections with the street and create a pedestrian friendly atmosphere and if you have any zoning questions I can answer those at this time thank you mr. young do we have any questions on the zone I have a question on when when you say it does not engage with the street or it does not have any frontage the way this was platted would anything it was originally designed as a professional office so the requirements for for a professional office would be the expectations for a professional office would be somewhat different than they would for a residential construction as well as you know the the projected place type does require that type of activation with the street thank you and Jeremy when you say neighborhood do you mean the Tuscany neighborhood behind or just the general just the general vicinity so you know the the adjacent there are two banks in front of the the subject property there's a jury adjacent church and then there's also a dentist's office the YMCA as well as the single-family homes that are in the area okay and then on the green I'm sorry the trail is that a city project yes okay okay and I spoke with Scott Thompson this morning he said there's no projected timeline he said it could be a decade or more so all right if there are no other questions for mr. young thank you very much okay we can move we can go to the development plan all right moving along MJDP 2632 okay so on this plan north would be to the left so we've we've turned close to 90 degrees so sir sir Barton way would be plant at the plan north and the Greenway would be to plan south the access easement between the other two parcels is in this area so their main entrance would be roughly here so again they're proposing five multi-family structures and a clubhouse with a pool and then with the parking kind of around the clubhouse in the center so again some of the concerns that we had were the the lack of frontage lack of or and then the VUA in the the front the zone requires that there's no VUA between the principal structures in the street which obviously they don't have street frontage the street would be to the to the east and then also no cross connection between the adjacent parcels we've looked at it earlier on previous development plans there was no cross connection proposed with the the church to the south but there was a connection shown here there is some development in that area that would make it a little difficult to shuffle things around but that was shown on a previous development plan and then another concern we had was the utility box yeah sorry I lost my train of thought Oh originally they they were indicating that there would be a hundred units and with fire the hundred unit is the well there was concern with the number of units versus one access versus two accesses so they have reduced the number of units to 99 to meet the zoning requirement it's actually a requirement of the zone to have a second access if there's 100 units or more so they have reduced that to 99 to meet that requirement for so they only have to have one access from that standpoint but there's still concerns about cross connectivity within the development and then some connectivity with the internal pedestrian connectivity and connections to the existing network there is a on the north side of the access easement there is an existing sidewalk but again that's off their property they have no control over the adjacent properties with that open it up to you all for questions yeah thank you all right we have a question thank you thank you Chris is it the opinion of staff that there is a zone that makes more sense for this parcel to be developed in a residential manner might be a better question for Jeremy no I don't I think the staff is of the opinion it should not be rezoned to a residential zone and I would note if we go back to the main development plan all of the I'll maybe go back to the aerial view no no the description of like where's the area yeah so all of the lots that don't front on to Sir Barton are undeveloped they have access shared access easements but those lots in the back from what I can tell in our research have never been granted like permission to use those access easements it's it's sort of odd I think the Planning Commission sort of kicked at the time in 2006 sort of kicked that down the road and said in the future when we develop these lots in the back they're going to have to make sure that the access to it is adequate for the proposed users visitors and employees so they intend I mean it's intended for all office use in the back which generally has a different traffic pattern than residential but there was never we can't find any information about the Planning Commission granting permission for that access easement to specifically be adequate for these back parcels so that's a little concerning because I think it was sort of like we'll evaluate that when those and at that point it was proposed to be two lots when those lots develop well now we're at the point where those lots are proposed for development and we have to figure out if an access easement is really you know adequate for medium density residential development and if you know the location is the right place for that so thank you we do have a we pulled the minutes from the 2006 development plan and looked through that briefly this morning and at the time staff said at the time and this was for the development of lot 10 not this particular lot lot 9 it they said at that at at the time that of development of lot 7 and 9 and lots 11 and 13 design considerations should be given for a defined access easement curbing pavement markings and signage to accommodate the general public employee so to Tracy's point it sounds like they kind of kicked it down the road until the lots came in for their individual development so is there an easement recorded with fake kind of clerk right now to this lot so the plat that occurred for the two front lots did record an access easement for those two lots to share but those lots also have the required frontage on a public street right no I'm just establishing that there is existing two easements it's shared along the property line so okay 40 feet of an access easement presumably 20 on each side yeah okay I just wanted to establish that that is recorded okay all right do we have any other questions for Chris thank you very much mr. Murphy I was gonna say if anybody has all the answers it's Dick Murphy I'm Dick Murphy and pleased to represent our AK properties the applicant Kevin riches with me of rich designs he's our landscape architect and designer for this that's this morning I apologize for a mix-up we have and I'll repeat that today as you know after the technical committee we are allowed to submit a revised development plan we have to submit that 48 hours before the next meeting which comes out to 830 a.m. Tuesday we had to submit our revised development plan well I was out of town Monday and Tuesday Kevin works at a Louisville he filed the revised plan on a cellar on Monday but you also have to file paper copies with the staff we did not we failed to file the paper copies with the staff so the staff didn't know we had filed a revised development plan so they were unable to review that so I wanted to apologize for that so I know the staff is is reviewing this review the development plan especially with older information we've made some changes on it what I've passed out to you are on the first one this is this is our revised development plan and I just outlined in yellow for you our lot in the access easement going out to subordinate way now if you're mark like me I have trouble making out all this detail in a two inch by two inch square postage stamp on a development plan but this is our official revised development plan but what I've also passed out to you is an exhibit which we had prepared for the open space exhibit but that shows our property and much more detail on this so it's even possible to read some of the numbers on the plan and that sort of thing on it so I'll be mainly going by this one and and the pictures this lot was approved I think the staff mentioned it was rezoned in 2002 24 years ago almost a quarter century ago there have been subsequent plats on it but this property has never developed in a quarter century zone B will p1 excuse me never developed five years ago my client r.a.k. properties which is stands for retina associates of Kentucky retina associates I'll endorse them I've been there they fixed my torn retina they're outstanding they bought this with the idea of moving here in 2021 very soon after that they had a corporate discussion and said no we're not moving there staying where we are so they've they've been trying to sell this as p1 unsuccessfully and now we're asking to rezone it to something which we think will make some use some good use for this property so it's been unsuccessful and in the present zone we are taking this lot as it is it's a platted lot that easement was created this easement right here was created by plat is planted and it doesn't only affect these two properties that forget it impacts this property there was a recorded agreement between the parties all these three lots about maintenance of that access easement actually this lot paid a share for the construction of that easement it's a if you go out there it looks like a public road has curb gutter pavement it has sidewalk on one side of the street as was sort of the custom back then when they built this this lot paid its share of the cost for building that and is obligated to pay its share for future maintenance of that lot as I said it looks just like a public street except under today's standards we need sidewalks on both sides under the standards back then they just had sidewalks on one side but this lot's there it's the lots not getting any bigger because we're hemmed in by the lots fronting on Sir Barton Way we don't we don't have any possibility of further frontage on there there was some discussion about the number of units on the property we have reduced that this this plan you're seeing still lists a hundred but the official plan we filed on a cella we reduced at the 99 units and that's because at the technical committee we had a discussion that the fire ordinance and we Kevin had checked with the fire department before he filed it said up to and including a hundred units you could have one access point and but was pointed out at the zoning ordinance says a hundred or more you have to have two access points so we've done it to 99 to make sure we're there within the one Kevin has run this by the fire department and solid waste they're good with our access situation on there they're good with our the access situation which we're showing you on this property at the pre-application conference the staff dashed my hopes on this when I got the disapproval recommendation because we felt so good coming out of the pre-application conference they had said not not the planning services staff but the long range people had suggested we we had showed our our buildings up away from the creek they had suggested well why don't you you might want to consider moving them closer to the creek because they're the people living there would enjoy the views over the Vista in the back which is open space and so I we did that and this picture shows you the Vista going through the back the property of this picture I was I took the picture I was standing right at the about the end of the access easement looking out here and the this is the Whitaker family YMCA which is directly behind us takes almost our entire back boundary line is bordered by the Whitaker family YMCA and if if you have been out there it's a wonderful place so we moved our buildings back further here as a result of that and I've messed up here let's see if I can go back to that opposite direction okay okay there we go okay and the we have from the front to the back from where I'm standing to the back this property drops off about 12 feet so on our design we have done this we thought when you were doing it sensitive to the context because in the front our amenity building the clubhouse and pool that's a one-story building these buildings on the side are two-story buildings and as we go back and it drops off our buildings in the rear are three-story they actually have a fourth story underneath on one side but are back here but we so we take advantage of the height differential as we go from front to back and making it sensitive to the context of the building the many of the issues on this property would arise on any development of this property whether it's professional office whether it's some kind of commercial activity I can't think of a retail establishment that would go back here because visibility is everything for them they're not visible necessarily from Sir Barton way but a lot a lot of it establishes it would apply to any use of this property the we had I've had have had outreach to neighbors that most important one is Patrick Madden because we are in the area which he developed and Mr. Madden retained sign off over our design of this we have to get him to sign off on this we've had preliminary discussions he said is generally no problem he's gonna look it over a little bit more there's generally okay with things I had a discussion with a man a person who lives on San Milano place around here right about here and he was concerned about the two things level of traffic on this that this would be generating traffic I pointed out that we have no vehicular access to that area he did point out however that they are concerned in the neighborhood because there is a larger volume of traffic now he said it for all the additional traffic that goes on Sir Barton way they have additional traffic on I think it's past goalie place on there and we would be providing additional traffic on Sir Barton and possibly increasing the traffic back here I did mention that the medical office which went on there probably would be a higher traffic generator than we are through the day but he said they don't want the traffic the other issue on that was the screening we have he asked me if what we're showing here on our plan is what we plan on doing along the back line I said yes it is he he asked suggested that we have every other tree be an evergreen tree so that that would be a more of more of a screen through the wind And I think we don't have any problem with that one on there. Staff has mentioned connectivity. I think we have excellent connectivity. I want you to, I mean, staff has the right to change their mind. At a pre-application conference, we were asked if we could put more units on this property. The staff does not make a commitment at the pre-application conference. They have every right to change their mind. But we, I want you to know, we didn't come up with this zone change out of left field. We felt confidence going through forward. I know there's no guarantee on anything on that, but I want to explain to you why we have a zone change in front of you for this property. Because we felt real good about this and real good about using it for residential uses. In the staff report, it is stated that having a multi-use trail planned on our property, which will connect us to one of the best recreational facilities in Lexington without having to cross a street to get there, that is a reason to turn us down. And it's because of a timing issue. And I would present to you, any of these trails through the developments you have, they're never built at the same time that the development is. There's always some kind of offset here. There's going to be an offset here. But the fact that it's not built should not be used as a reason to turn us down on that. And the other thing I heard was that the other uses, the fact that we have a church, recreational areas, banks, and commercial uses in this area should be a reason to turn us down. I always felt that having churches, recreational uses, banks, and other commercial uses nearby, walking distance on a LexTran trail are reasons to approve a residential zone change on this. So we feel, on the contrary, that we have designed this in a context-friendly manner within the property, that we will have great connectivity on it that is a planned improvement that the city is going to be making, a multi-use trail. And it's not just a multi-use trail we can use for recreation. We can get somewhere on it to the YMCA. And having the other uses out there in Hamburg are excellent. We have to recognize Hamburg is a automobile-centric development. People come out here, and it's probably the most automobile-centric development in the area. We have a development, yes. We have an access easement that people will drive on to get there. But we also have pedestrian connections out here, maybe as good or better than other apartment communities in the Hamburg area. We have applied for some waivers, which I won't get into now. You've heard enough from me on here. But I'm asking you to recommend approval of this. I think it merits your approval. If you don't think you can approve it, I will ask you to postpone it so we can get more information together to give to the staff and refine them, especially because we didn't get our plan filed with them on time. Because I think there are some good plus points on this. And I'd like to discuss them with the staff some more on this as we go over it. So anyway, I'm hoping you'll recommend approval of this. We'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have on it as well. And I've got more I could talk about, but I'll hush up. You've heard enough from me here. OK, thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions? Mr. Davis. I don't know if we have enough information to be able to approve this right now. But if staff didn't have an objection, we can talk about postponement. Is there any hard objection from staff regarding that? That was just the result of an internal meeting. OK. Sorry. So that recommendation was just the result of an internal meeting that we have prior to any of these, where we sort of sit down like this and hash out the pros and cons. And that was our result of that meeting. So I don't know if we'll change our recommendation, but you all certainly have the authority to. OK. Would you believe it? I don't have a question. I'm just glad to see a fellow landscape architect on the team. Yay. I'm sorry. As I editorialize, I think if the planning staff is willing to discuss this more with Mr. Murphy and Mr. Rich, I would be in favor of postponing. OK. OK. No, no, no, not yet. OK, thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it very much. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application today? OK, seeing none, after hearing from the applicant, a lot of my concerns about this vanished. I think that it's very, very thoughtful. I agree with the sentiment that just because the trail is not built and we don't know when it will be built, I don't think that's fair to hold that against this application. And I think what Mr. Murphy said about any development is going to have a lot of these same objections or issues is true. And it's evident that this design has really done what they can to mitigate that. I would be comfortable with approval, but the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. You got two individuals said they want to do a postponement, so it don't matter. If I say approval, it's still going to be back to a postponement. But since staff didn't get everything they needed, I think it's giving them their respect and allowing them to review it as a postponement. I'm uncomfortable with it as well, but just to make sure that they can get the information and review it, I'm cool with a postponement. OK, is that a motion? I'll make a motion for a postponement for PLN MAR 26-12. OK, thank you, Mr. Forster. And Mr. Davis, you seconded that? OK. If you're in favor of that, please raise your right hand. OK, that's unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Rich. OK. Our next item on the agenda today, PLN Zodon 26-3. Mr. Nicholson. All right, Mr. Young. Jeremy Young for planning staff. This is PLN Zoda 26-3. And just a note, there's some sort of numerical error in Excel that we haven't had to, Zodas, that you all missed somehow. It just assigned this one number three. I don't know why. But anyway, so the applicant's request is to make a minor change to Article 8-1, D-1 of the zoning ordinance. And that ordinance regulates horse race tracks in the AR zone. Their request is to add the section where it says retail sales to serving of alcohol. And the background is Article 8-1 currently allows Keeneland or any horse racing track, which that's the only one in the AR zone, to serve alcoholic beverages. And the key word here is serve. And Mr. Nicholson did meet with us. And I think our consensus was that the word serve did limit that to buy the drink sales and did not allow them to sell packaged liquor. So the applicant has indicated that they would like to, as part of their gift shop on site at Keeneland, sell their commemorative bottles as an added amenity to the other items that they sell. And the intent of the agricultural zone is essentially to preserve their rural character, the agricultural zone, while allowing certain limited conditional uses. And as I pointed out before, 8-1 does allow horse racing tracks as a conditional use in the AR zone. And I don't think I need to explain where Keeneland is. I think most people are quite familiar with it. But you can see they own a fairly extensive number of tracts of land out on Versailles Road, just to kind of give you an idea of the surrounding properties and many sort of potential effects this would have on the neighboring parcels. And staff recommends approval of the following of the applicant's proposed text. We think it is supported by a number of goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. It supports tourism associated with the agricultural and equine industries, while maintaining the rural character of the agricultural zone. And the conditions and the activities on Keeneland are quite unique. And staff doesn't believe that this tax amendment would risk other properties in the AR zone from being able to obtain and sell packaged liquor. So if you have any questions about our recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Young. Do we have any questions at this time? Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Nick Nicholson here on behalf of the Keeneland Association. Jeremy did a great job kind of giving some background. I did want to kind of provide where this is coming from. The Keeneland Mercantile store in City Center had to shut down. And as part of that shutdown, they had been selling the Maker's Mark commemorative bottles there and doing quite well. And with that store being shut down, with that store closing, you had to transfer a packaged liquor license to a specific address, or you had to abandon that license. And so we were wanting to transfer it to the other property that we own in town, which would be the racetrack itself. In order to do that, I kind of went through the zoning ordinance with the client. And I was like, I kind of feel uncomfortable with the way that the language is for you to sell an actual bottle of liquor because that's not serving, in my humble opinion. Met with staff, and they kind of agreed. And so we tried to limit this as much as possible in order to make sure that this is adding an accessory use technically, but it is an accessory use addition that is already in line with what is actually occurring out there on site. This is only for basically sales of the commemorative bottles in the gift store or the future visitor's center that got approved with the kind of large expansion that we just went through, but we have not actually kind of fully built out that gift or the visitor's center. We also know that we're going to have to develop very interesting policy with regards to when we can actually sell these bottles, because we're not going to set up a situation where someone can walk into the gift store in the middle of the race day and then walk into the paddock and have a bottle of whiskey. And more importantly, we're definitely not going to allow them to take that bottle and then go tailgate after eight races and have a very, very long and fun day. That is something that the lawyer in me is very, very nervous about, but it is something that we're going to work on. There is no intention whatsoever to have a package store in any way, shape, or form. This is for the commemorative kind of Maker's Mark bottles. The other point I did want to make out is this use has to be accessory to the main conditional use of the racetrack itself. It never can go full blown where we're putting a liquor barn out there. This is accessory to the racetrack, and more importantly for kind of additional comfort for you all, is it subject to our conditional use permit review. And so if this ever gets out of line, the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Gross back here, is able to basically haul us in front of them to explain how we are still in compliance with our conditional use permit. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. OK. Thank you, Nick. Do we have any questions? Melanie? Hello, Mr. Nicholson. How are you? I'm well. How are you? Very good. Good. Well, we'll see. OK. So I think the question that I have is, while I think we all want to support Keeneland and what it's trying to do, there isn't really anything that would prevent you from having things besides a commemorative maker's mark bottle there if we approve this. Is that correct? That is why I kind of point out that we are subject to the conditional use permit. If the Board of Adjustment ever feels that we are out of line, for the purpose for which we have put on the record, then they would have the right to pull us back in front and review our conditional use permit. And Keeneland is certainly not going to jeopardize losing its conditional use permit to operate a racetrack. So that is kind of why I've gone into explicit detail, indicating that this is not a package store in any way, shape, or form. This is for our commemorative bottles. This is for Keeneland logo stuff. And that's kind of why I'm putting all of that out there. And is Keeneland's gift shop open year-round? It is. And Monday through Sunday? I think so. I don't know the exact hours of operations. I can find out. But we run tours year-round every day. And it's kind of part of the horse country experience. And so people are coming at all times. Keeneland is also a very unique property that it is actually required by deed to be open 24 hours, seven days a week to the public. It was part of its original mission. And if it ever is not a horse racetrack, it has to revert to the city for a public park. It is a very interesting little piece of property. How interesting is that? Well, thank you very much. OK, do we have any other questions for Mr. Nicholson? Just for clarification for Ms. Davis, the hours, according to the website, Monday through Saturday, 9 AM to 5 PM and closed on Sunday. You'll have to, I guess, treat the bottles like you do when you go to duty-free at the airport and have them sealed. And you can't unseal them or a big bomb goes off or something. Oh, I have a feeling we will not be selling to Eric Racy now. Hours. OK, any other questions? If not, thank you, Nick. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this ZOTA today? I'm Amy Clark of 628 Castle Road. And I do have a comment, a query, in fact, which is rather more general. It addresses this particular application, but actually others as well. I recall that some time ago, I think it was when a B3 amendment was proposed, staff brought it to the attention of the commission that there was something of a problem there. Our zoning ordinance says a proposal to amend the text of any zoning regulation, which must be voted on by the legislative body or fiscal court, may originate, a ZOTA may originate with the planning commission of the unit or with any fiscal court or legislative body which is a member of the unit. Excuse me. This is the state statute. And it says a ZOTA may originate with the planning commission of the unit or with any fiscal court or legislative body. By contrast, our zoning ordinance, and this is 6-2, says that a proposal for amendment to the text of this zoning ordinance may originate with any person or governmental body. And at the time, it seemed to me there was discussion about amending our zoning ordinance to restrict initiation of a ZOTA to what was authorized by statute, which is the planning commission can initiate, the legislative body can initiate. So it's really quite accidental that I'm speaking on this with Keeneland standing up, because there are two ZOTAs under discussion today. And the other ZOTA in particular, but I think it could be said of this one as well, has stimulated a lot of concern that this is a very site-specific amendment proposed to the zoning ordinance. It happens to be a use of which there is one instance, and there's only likely to be one instance. I would suggest that part of the problem is in admitting a ZOTA for consideration and review and decision by the planning commission and subsequently the council that doesn't come from the planning commission or our legislative body, the council. And so my question is, is there any plan to bring our zoning ordinance better into harmony with what's authorized by statute? Or was this matter reviewed, and they decided to drop it? I think it's a problem. I'd be happier seeing every ZOTA either initiated by the commission itself or by the council. I get to ask questions, but I don't get to demand an answer. I would recommend it for your consideration. As far as the Keeneland proposal goes, I was- I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you, but we're on four minutes. Let's take one more minute if we can accomplish that. That's all I need. Thank you. Of course, there's a famous statute that's very site-specific regarding a horse race facility. I would suggest that possibly if there's concern that people will break open a bottle and use it, you could do mail order. And we've seen that there's been some real unease and difficulty defining what's accessory, what's an accessory use. And so I'm not sure how you could at least more carefully define it so that the tail is not wagging the dog. Thank you. OK, thank you very much. That wasn't more than a minute. You're fine. OK. Mr. Nicholson. Thank you. On the Keeneland aspect, there's nothing we can do about the state's horse racing commission's geographic restrictions on how close a horse track can be. But this text is in the ordinance, and this is a minor tweak. While it is site-specific in this instance, if the horse racing commission so chose and decided to get rid of that geographical restriction, this suddenly becomes not site-specific. And so I would disagree with that conclusion because it does govern any horse racetrack that could occur in the AR zone. Again, on the mail order kind of situation, a store gets to dictate when it sells and when it doesn't. And so I'm not concerned about any way, shape, or form about this actually occurring. I'm trying to make sure that my client does everything in a safe and respectful manner. On the limiting of the ZOTA to only the council and the planning commission, we have discussed this at length, and that proposal was pulled from a former ZOTA. And so it was reviewed and was decided to get pulled out of that ZOTA. The council is more than willing or more than able to revisit that situation. The argument that at the time, I think the reason why it got pulled, is it is without a question that a legislative body is authorized to authorize anyone that they want to utilize their power. Just like how the planning commission has given the power to the staff to review minor plats, you all have that power, and staff can basically do that for you. The council has chosen who they think can utilize this legislative power that they were granted. And so I would respectfully disagree with Ms. Clark's interpretation of that statute. And until the zoning ordinance kind of is changed, I think we're in complete compliance. Thank you all. OK, Mr. Davis. Sure, sure. Hi, good afternoon, and thank you again for your time. I have a quick question. I think earlier in your comments, you said something to the effect of you believe that you would probably counsel your client not to sell these packages during racing hours. Is there a way to codify that? Is there a way to make that part of the deal? Because you suggested that they not do it, and then not doing it aren't the same thing. That is very fair. I think it would be difficult to get that detailed in the zoning ordinance itself. For example, technically, we're allowed to serve alcoholic beverages. We don't serve alcoholic beverages except during the race meet and the sales meet in special events. And so I think it would be difficult to codify exactly when that would be. It's why there's not hours of operations for every single use that's in the zoning ordinance. But I think it's safe to say that operations, especially as large as Keeneland, do everything to limit liability, especially when it comes to alcohol and dram shop liability, you name it, with regards to what is in the best interest and making sure that they don't step over any lines that could possibly lead to exposure and litigation. OK. Thank you, Nick. Seeing as there's no one else here to speak on this today, the floor is open for a motion or any further discussion. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. Is it motion, we mean? Recommendation? Motion to recommend approval of PLN ZOTA 26-0003 accessory uses to horse racetrack, specifically as in the information given to us today by the staff. Thank you, Commissioner Molly Davis. And actually, I had a second from Mr. Forrester before. So any discussion on that motion? If not, if you are in the affirmative on it, please raise your right hand. All right. That carries unanimously. Thank you, applicant. Our next item on the agenda today is, I'm sorry, Mr. Murphy, is South Broadway still postponed at this time? OK, all righty. Then that moves us on to our revisions to Article 23-A-10 for the Economic Development Zone. All right, so I will be going over the text word by word, so bear with me. No. I meant on this journey, on this particular. They don't complain except the next item on our agenda is revisiting ZOTA 24-6, which deals with modifications to the ED zone. Just as a refresher, we revisited this as a group during the last work session. And so rather than go through in immediate detail all of the provisions that got us here, really wanted to focus on the issue that staff has been looking at, or the aspect that staff has been looking at since we all let and received comments as a group. So this deals with the zone within the 1996 expansion, the ED zone, the jobs producing zone. And so the conversation really for the past two years and some change now has been how to accommodate the applicant's desire to expand the allowable uses in different forms, what that looks like, what scale and scope was appropriate. The applicant's proposal at this point, once again, is really aimed at getting additional flexibility to incorporate residential. So the ability to do that above mixed use buildings, as well as additional flexibility in the overall unit count. So we showed this graphic before, once again, the framework that the standalone apartment buildings and residential units was not changing with this request. Really what it did was it said, hey, when we were providing a mixed use building, we're gonna count the first floor against our totals, but everything above that residentially just needs to meet that dwelling unit cap. So additional flexibility, but still keeping the supportive use framework intact. One of the things that Commissioner Mickler, who's not here today, kind of brought up with staff was kind of a weird, very niche interplay with what happens when you incorporate accessory parking into your structure. So the way that this would play out in most circumstances is on the right, I mean, on the left. So the applicant's proposed language says, hey, we're gonna have 15%, that's either a principal or another supportive use. And then the rest of that percentage could be other supportive uses or can be residential on that floor. And so in this instance, if a principal use like an office came in, they'd occupy that 15%. The rest of the use of that building could be that residential. And that 85% of that ground floor would get counted against their supportive use totals. Everything above it would not. So that's where they were coming from of, count the first floor, and then if we want to do more residential on the existing kind of basis that we've already been permitted, then we can go up. That was something that staff was in agreement with. However, when you have a first floor, that is an office for 15%, and then an accessory use, like say podium parking, it results in a situation where you could have multifamily residential above, and it counts for 0% against the supportive uses. That is something that staff is looking to examine if there's a way to sort of channel that, because in essence, the residential or the accessory parking really is more for the residential use than it is for the 15% or so of a principal use in that particular situation. So staff is looking at some language that would kind of provide a better tether, you know, to ensure that we are accounting for the ground floor of that building in the supportive use total, but still giving them the flexibility to not count the floors above that. So that was an interaction that got pointed out by one of the staff members. We do not have any new text at this time. The applicant has indicated that they're gonna get with us to talk through some potential ways to address that, that kind of very niche situation, but we wanted to make sure that there weren't any holes with the language that we were moving forward. So just wanted to sort of bring that to your all's attention to get any comments or feedback. This is language that we would be working with over the next couple of weeks before the next zoning hearing at the end of the month, and then bringing that back to you all. So at this time, any questions or comments? Okay, thank you, Daniel. Thank you. I believe the last time there was a hearing and we talked about this, not a meeting in this room, or perhaps it was, regardless. It's a little fuzzy for me at this point. Judy Worth mentioned that she had not, that the subdivision committee had not been apprised of the process of these changes. Were they made aware of that this morning? Yes, so staff also presented to them as well, yes. Thank you. Okay, any other questions for Daniel at this time? Seeing none, thank you, Daniel. Mr. Gross. Good afternoon, Brandon Gross. This time I'm officially on the clock, so I will talk really slow. Just teasing. So yeah, we appreciate all the work as was mentioned earlier today. We've been working with the staff on this for a little over two years. We initially submitted this, and we've worked through several variations with staff going back and forth. I think ultimately, we've landed at a comfortable place where at the end of the day, currently, the each ED area, there are three primary ED areas that are, quote, in the developments, or three developments. Each one are currently capped at 720 units total that they could possibly do underneath the zoning ordinance. And what this ordinance text amendment is really doing is it's allowing a mixed-use building to also be part of that, but we're still capped at the 720. We think it'll be a more efficient, more dense product will be able to come online. Because right now, we've got, I can't recall which one, but 24 units per acre is one of the existing caps. And I think that is for solely residential. Yeah, so for solely residential, 24 acres. While it is more dense than my current neighborhood, it's still a lower density than what we're looking at to meet our housing needs that we need in this community. So that's where we ended up with the planning staff. We are okay with their text amendment. The one thing is on the self-service laundry. We had asked for that to be a supportive. They put it into accessory. We're okay with that. We think supportive would be good, because what we're seeing, especially in multifamily situations, are people are building coin laundries that are both open to the public, but then the tenants have credits where they get to use it for free a certain amount each month. And so, and again, the fact that we're gonna be next to hospitals, for anyone who has a family member, both my mom and wife are nurses, they wash a lot, because every time you come home from the medical facility, all your clothes go into a special basket, all your clothes get washed. And so we could see a situation where having laundry facilities open to the larger public as a supportive use would be beneficial. So if that's something you guys want to change, and the staff's okay with that change, we're fine with that, but if not, we'll move forward with an approval today, as is. And the one other thing I wanna mention, let's see, make sure I go the right way. And we looked at this, and this is the first time we've seen this slide was today. And so my only concern with this slide is, in Lexington, we're really trying to push structured parking in this city. Currently, the only product that is really creating structured parking is the student housing. And that's because the amount a student is willing to pay to live that close to campus makes the numbers work. Otherwise, what we're seeing is what's called the podium parking, which is we would take part of the first floor, park cars underneath it, so at least it's partially structured, if not a standard five or six story parking garage. So I would be concerned if we were to count this against the supportive uses, that may discourage parking garages. I mean, parking structured in that podium area, because that would count against the overall supportive use number you're allowed to have, and that may discourage structured parking in these suburban areas. This is food for thought. We're comfortable with moving forward today with an approval with the staff without making any changes right now. But that's just one thing for you guys to think about. And then lastly, Ms. Davis, going to your question, we are at the subcommittee, subcommittee at both last month and this morning. So we've now been there twice to see them. And so Ms. Wurst comments, I think we're two months ago, possibly, I think. Well, we've talked to her twice. So she may not have thought the first one was robust enough, but we were there again this morning and we did have the work session. And so I'm here for any questions. Yeah. Thank you, Brandon. Do we have any questions? Thank you. So in the notebook, the first version we have is the applicant version dated October 30th, 2024. Put it in the garbage. Okay. So I guess my question is, and I don't know where, I'm not sure, how much of the net developable acreage shall be open space? We have- Not changing that. It's going to be 25%. That was taken out. Yes. Thank you. So the version that has staff recommended April 1, 2026, that should be the last version in your handout. And it has very few changes. Looks like we've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Seven lines of changes on the first few pages and then about seven more lines on the last page. So it's a very narrow request at this point. So all the other, I recall the discussion we had back on the open space, those items that you had concern with, they've all been pulled. They're not in this latest version. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Mr. Gross. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Gross? Okay. I guess I would just ask for clarification on, I thought Mr. Gross made a good point about the laundry and self-serve laundry being supportive rather than accessory. What is? Okay. Okay. That just made a lot of sense. And I thought that sounds, what, huh? Okay. All right. Put that on my business card. Yeah. So I think in that one, yeah, in that, yeah. Mr. Davis, I think in that instance, if you made a motion, you could say, I make this motion, except I would move that item into supportive. I mean, it can be fixed between now and the hearing. All right. Do we have anything else for Mr. Gross? If not, thank you. Thank you, sir. I'm here if you need me. Okay. Is there anyone here who would like to discuss this? If not, the floor is open for a motion or discussion. I make a motion that per applicant's request that we proceed as requested. So that would be recommending approval to the planning commission with that amendment that we just discussed with the moving from a accessory to supportive use for the laundry, the self-service laundry. Okay. Correct. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear. Thank you, Mr. Forrester seconded that. Any discussion? If not, if you are voting in the affirmative, please raise your right hand. Okay. That's unanimous too. All right. Thank you. Do we have any staff items? Great. Without objection then we are adjourned. Thank you very much. ♪ Turn that blue into red ♪ ♪ Doctor, doctor give me the news ♪ ♪ I got a bad case of love in you ♪ ♪ I need a heart attack, a heart attack ♪ ♪ I got a bad case of love in you ♪ ♪ No pills gonna cure my ill, I got a bad case of love in you ♪ ♪ A pretty face don't mean no pretty heart ♪ ♪ I learned that, but it's from the start ♪ ♪ A little bit shy, mama I ain't that kind of guy ♪ ♪ Doctor, doctor give me the news ♪ ♪ I got a bad case of love in you ♪ ♪ No pills gonna cure my ill, I got a bad case of love in you ♪ ♪♪ ♪ I know you like it, you like it a lot ♪ ♪ Tell me mama, are you gonna stop? ♪ ♪ You had me down, but 21 is in ♪ ♪ I swallowed you just on your lip ♪ ♪ Shake my fist, knock on wood ♪ ♪ I got it bad, and I got it good ♪ ♪ Doctor, doctor give me the news ♪ ♪ I got a bad case of love in you ♪ ♪ No pills gonna cure my ill, I got a bad case of love in you ♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ James Dean, James Dean, I know just what you mean ♪ ♪ James Dean, you set it all so clean ♪ ♪ And I know my life would look alright if I could see it on the silver screen ♪ ♪ You were the lowdown rebel if there ever was, even if you... ♪ ♪♪ On this edition of Lexington Now, Corrections and Firefighters, Part 3 of Mayor Wharton's Budget Plan and the Lexington Children's Theatre. ♪♪ I'm Neal Noah and welcome to Lexington Now for the week of May 4th, 2026. We begin this week with a trio of public safety stories. First, we visited Community Corrections and talked with some officers about what a typical day there looks like. I'm Officer Gerald. I'm a first shift custody officer. We work the outer ring and inner ring of the jail. I'm Corporal M. Collins. I'm a correctional officer at the FCDC. Right now I work in the intake area. I started here 8 years ago and I've been here, joining ever since. My name is Corporal T. Johnson. I've been with the division for 8 years. I'm Corporal Abelmonte. I work the outside service. My name is Sergeant Vanessa Coleman. I work at the Fayette County Detention Center. I've been here a little over 9 years. We come in at 8 o'clock in the morning. We have our shift briefing. We come out, we replace third shift, and we're here until 4.30 when second shift comes in and swaps out with us. First shift, we take care of all the lawyers come in, talk to their clients either in the attorney booth or here at the tables. You've got laundry. You've got lunch feeding, all the med pass. Sometimes you send them out. That's where they all go out to court. Then you bring them back into court, video arraignments, all that stuff. If they've got doctor's appointments, they'll send them out on first shift usually. Typically, when we're working the intake, we get assigned into different areas. Typically, we learn every part of the area to make sure that we're able to help out with each other. If anything, if anybody happens to be behind or lacking, we're able to go over and assist. Our days typically run smoothly if everybody's working together, and we try to promote a lot of teamwork. We try to put everything together and do as much as we possibly can for each other. On a daily basis, we ensure that our inmates get to court in a timely fashion, safe, timely fashion. We escort them to court. We escort them back to the jail in groups, sometimes 24, sometimes less than that, but that's the most that we take. We also do drop off at prisons. We do pickups from Eastern State. We do drop off at Eastern State. We also take people to the dentist, doctor's appointments. Some have chemo. We have to do that. We have to transport them to that. In the morning, I'll be here by 6 o'clock. I bring the vehicle inside. That's my job all in the morning. Then we go to briefing. After briefing, we go pull all inmates that got to go to court. Then we bring everybody downtown, and when you arrive downtown, everybody has a specific job to go to court, bring the people to court. It depends which court you are assigned for. As a commander, we go and help do our cell checks with our inmates and our officers. We're here basically over safety and security, here for the officers when the officers need anything. We're here for contract staff, any questions like that. If we have any emergency tones, we go to the tone. We take over the situation, try and control everything, and stay safety and security-minded within that tone. That's pretty much it. We're here for our officers and help them when we can. We get a lot of calls from the community as well, so we help them and deal with attorneys and other officers from other agencies. I was looking for a career job since I was younger. I've always wanted to be an officer. I wanted to be important to the community. I wanted to be able to be an outreach, someone that could be looked up to and people to strive after. From where I grew up, I grew up in Chicago, so when I seen there was an opportunity and they were open, once I moved down here, I just went ahead and applied. I was able to get the position, and I've been here since. A friend. They had told me that I would be really good at this job. I personally have had a family member that's been incarcerated before. Family member was very close. It was actually my father. I love my dad. He's not a bad guy. He done something dumb. I think having that attitude of loving every human being, and being able to see the good side as well as the bad side, and not judge them, because that's not our job. I think that's what makes people successful, and I really thought I would enjoy it. I was a little nervous, very apprehensive, a little nervous, but at the end of the day, I fell in love with it. I started at a smaller facility, and I came here. We keep the city safe. When they arrest the people, they come over here. We are the ones that take care of them. We have custody control. We've got to make sure we feed them. We've got to make sure they have medical assistance if they need it. We've got to make sure we can answer their questions. This is pretty much it. We keep it safe for the people. The officer's duty is to take care of, supervise, and control all the inmates in here. It takes a lot of patience. You have to care about what you're doing. Being a community and a team member, being able to see the public, to see you and know that you stand for something. We have to see the positive side and stay positive. We just celebrated Firefighter Appreciation Week. Here's the announcement. Today, I want to recognize the brave men and women of the Lexington Fire Department. Lexington's Fire and Emergency Services has protected our community for over 150 years, and they remain one of the highest-ranked departments in the United States. We're very proud of that, and they've worked really hard to attain that. Public safety is the very foundation of a strong community, and our firefighters are a vital part of that foundation. When disaster strikes, whether it is a flood, a tornado, a windstorm, an ice storm, our firefighters are right there to protect our community.