We have both subdivision and zoning items today. Our first item on the agenda is the approval of the July 23rd and July 30th minutes. Copies of those were distributed to the commission in advance. Do we have any revisions? If not, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Chair? Yes, sir. In regards to the minutes for July 30th, I believe that's our wonderful data center meeting. The language in the minutes referred to a amendment. There were actually two amendments which are listed in the minutes. I think that should be changed to reflect that both amendments were considered in the motion and did pass. Okay. We can certainly make that revision. Would you like to make a motion regarding both sets of minutes but including that revision if there are no others? I would do that. So for the minutes of July 23rd, 2026 and the changes made on July 30th, 2026, I would move for approval. Second. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Jonathan Davis. Is there any discussion? If not, we will take that to a vote. That's a motion to approve both sets with one amendment to July 30th. Okay. That carries with one abstention. Thank you. Next, we have postponements and withdrawals. Mr. Chairman, I'm Dick Murphy. On Page 5, Item 2, South Broadway Project Owner, LLC, MAP Amendment Request and Parker Tobacco Company, Inc., the Dean Lexington, that's PLNMAR 26-8, I represent the applicant. We request a one-month postponement. We are continuing to work with Mr. Simpson and he and I both agreed that I would ask for a postponement. Okay. Mr. Murphy, that is a request to our, I believe, our September 24th public hearing? Yes. Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant? If not, the floor is open for a motion on this postponement request. Mr. Chair, I move for a postponement appeal in MAR 26-8, South Broadway Project Owner, to 924 as requested by the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Burke. Second from Mr. Wilson. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we will put that request to a vote. That carries unanimously. Thank you. And on page 17, item 7, Anderson Communities, LLC, MAP Amendment Request in Germond Property, Andover Commons Development Plan, that's PLNMAR 26-18. Again, I represent the applicant. We are requesting a one-month postponement on that. We are continuing to work on the items that were identified in the staff's postponement recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Do we have any questions for Mr. Murphy on that front? If not, the floor is open for a motion to postpone to September 24th. Mr. Wilson. Mr. Chairman, I move that we postpone Anderson Communities' amended request of our PLNMAR 26-18, Anderson Communities, LLC, until September 24th. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Second from Commissioner Larry Forrester. Any discussion to that? If not, we'll go ahead and take a vote on that request. Who seconded? Mr. Forrester. That carries. That carries unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Gross. Good afternoon, everyone. Brandon Gross. I'm here on behalf of Goodwill Industries. I'm going to refer you to page 21, item C1. This is the attended donation center ZOTA. If you recall last month, the staff had provided alternative text. We wanted a little bit of time to digest that. Goodwill is now comfortable moving forward with that text as presented by the staff, so we will be at the committees next week. That will actually be Lauren Nichols' case. She's already made me her associate, so I'm here postponing for her. We will move this, if you don't mind, to September 24th. It will be the plan for the hearing before you. Okay. Thank you, Brandon. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? If not, the floor is open for a motion on the request to September 24th. Mr. Forrester. I move for a one-month postponement for PLN ZOTA 26-7 to September 24th. Second. Okay. Motion from Mr. Forrester. Second from Commissioner Wirth. Is there any discussion to that motion? If not, we'll go ahead and take a vote on that. Thank you very much. That carries unanimously. Thank you, Brandon. I'm Matt Minyard. I represent the Mount Laurel Lands Company. I'm on page two of the agenda. I'm asking for a permanent postponement. Okay. All righty. Do we have any questions for the applicant? That's a request for an indefinite postponement? An indefinite postponement, yes, sir. Okay. If we have no questions, the floor is open for a motion. Mr. Owens. Mr. Chair, I will move for an indefinite postponement of plan MJDP 26-24, the Mount Laurel Land Company property, along with the associated development plan. Okay. Second. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Second from Commissioner Forrester. Do we have any discussion to that motion? If not, we will put that to a vote. Okay. That request carries unanimously. Mr. Nicholson. Good afternoon. I have two postponements for you all for your consideration this afternoon. The first is on page 11, item number five, the Oak Age Entry LLC, a zone change off Athens-Boonesboro. I'd ask a one-month postponement to, I believe, the September 24th Planning Commission meeting. We are going to sit down with staff next week in order to kind of work on some of the internal roadway systems. Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Nicholson? Per applicant, PLM MAR 26-16, Oak Age Entry, one-month postponement per applicant. So moved from Mr. Davis. Do we have a second? Mr. Forrester, thank you. Do we have any discussion to that? If not, we will put that to a vote, please. Okay. That carries unanimously. And then on page 14, item number six, on behalf of Ball Homes, I would also ask a one-month postponement to the September 24th Planning Commission meeting for basically the same reason. We're going to sit down with staff and kind of work on the design of the development. Okay. Mr. Forrester. Mr. Chair, a motion for a one-month postponement for PLM MAR 26-17 based on the applicant reasons, and that's to September 24th. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. A second from Mr. Wilson. Do we have any discussion on that motion? That does include the development plan also going to the 24th. All right. If we have no discussion, we'll put that to a vote. Okay. That carries unanimously. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Nick. Okay. Do we have any other postponements or withdrawals? Okay. So if I'm not incorrect, that takes us to page seven, where the Planning Commission will continue the discussion on PLM MAR 26-12. This was continued after the conclusion of the hearing last month. And so at this point, it is an opportunity for the Planning Commissioners to have discussion, and the floor is always open for a motion. Is there a two-key? Sorry? Oh, did I skip two keys? Okay. Sorry. It's right in front of me. Okay. I went slightly out of order. Our first item that we're going to hear today is on page one, under Development Plans, PLM MJDP 2630 WML Properties. Sorry. Good afternoon. We are looking at PLM MJDP 2630 WML Properties LLC. Two keys amended. Here's a copy of a development plan where they are proposed. They're at the corner of Pine Street and South Upper. This was an existing pizza restaurant at one time, and we have a new owner, and they have wanted to add a patio to the rear, removing some of the parking along the side, and still having the entrance off of Pine Street. Sorry. This is what the property looked like at the beginning of the year, showing the parking lot on the property. We're here to review the plan for the development plan, where requirements not met, commercial entrance must conform with LFUCG standards, compliance with the Board of Adjustment findings and conditions in May of 2002. We have design considerations. If an area of disturbance is over 2,500 square feet, a land disturbance permit is required. If an amendment in the driveway, use commercial driveway entrance compliant with the standard drawings at 307-2. Planned discussions, questions and concerns. We had discussed 14-foot width of access on Pine Street. They're showing 14-foot, and we have a 24-foot drive aisle here, so to be able to get in and out of the property, this needs to be widened to meet the requirements for a commercial entrance. Discuss the location of the dumpster, which they have in the rear portion here. Discuss the use on the property in the B1 zone, and does the raised patio disrupt the existing drainage patterns. The development plan, should this be approved, we have engineering traffic, landscaping, urban forester, bike and pedestrian, open space, division of fire, division of waste management, division of water, the United States Postal, and correct all note deficiencies as listed requirements not met hereon. The reason we are looking at this today is because there was a Board of Adjustment case on this property in May of 2002 where they proposed asking for variances for landscape buffers on the property and dimensional variances. Here is what they had. This is the site plan that they showed us in 2002 for the Board of Adjustments where you show the entrance coming in off of Pine Street and then exiting off on South Upper Street with 15 parking spaces. Here is the list of the variances that they asked for at the time to eliminate all zone to zone screening required by Article 18-3A1 of the zoning ordinance, eliminate the vehicular screening of the R2 zone required by Article 18-3A2 of the zoning ordinance, reduction of the vehicle screening buffer from 5 foot to 3 foot, and elimination of the required tree plantings adjacent to the R4 zone, and reduction of internal landscaping areas in the B1 zone from 5% to 4%. This was approved by the Board of Adjustments upon the recommendation of the following conditions. The property must be developed in accordance to the submitted site plan, including internal landscaping as depicted in the site plan, or as amended in the future by the Planning Commission. That is why it is here today for you all to approve the new site plan layout for the development plan as presented. The next condition was any wood fence constructed to provide a screening of the B1 parking area adjacent to the R4 zone must be augmented in climbing vines as recommended by the Landscape Review Committee. All necessary permits must be obtained by the Division of Building Inspection prior to construction, and the action of the Board of Adjustments shall be noted on the final development plan for the subject property. Here is a copy of the revised site plan that matches the development plan. This is showing our open space, because this was of concern. When they came in, they were originally asking for a waiver of the vetted open space, but with this site plan here, we're showing how they meet the required usable open space, which is the blue area right here, and then the vegetated open space, which is located in this area here and here. So, at this time, if there's any other comments or questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Cheryl. Do we have any questions at this time for staff? Yes, sir, Mr. Mickler. So, just with this map up here, just to make sure that I understood you clearly, the variance is where— They withdrew that variance. Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No, they withdrew the waiver. Yes. I'm just—in terms of the variance to the R4, if I'm seeing that correct, the R4 is along that. This is— Were there any variances along where the proposed patio is? That was this area here is the B2. So, in the B2 area— R2. R2. This is R2. I'm sorry. R2. I'm sorry. R2. I apologize. So, in the R2— The elimination of the vehicle use screening. Where the— R2. Okay, there was a vehicle use screening. Is there—I presume there's typically a zone-to-zone buffer between the R2 and the— B1. B1. Yes, sir. And was there a discussion with the applicant about putting that buffer in with the new Since they don't have the dry vial and parking requirements, I assume there would be some flexibility there on putting some of that vegetative along that boundary line. I'm just wondering if that was discussed with staff. I was not in the discussion about that. We talked to the applicant about how they could meet their open space requirement and that one of the possibilities might be to provide some of that open space along that shared property line. But because the Board of Adjustment has already granted that variance, the staff and the Planning Commission can't really require that they—even though some of the circumstances on the property have changed, once a variance is granted, we're not really empowered to revoke a variance, if you will. So they can eliminate any screening required along that R2 property line to zero. So we don't really have any leverage to ask them to provide screening. We did have some ordinance requirements to ask them to provide open space. Does that make sense? I think—I mean, I think I'm understanding you. I'm not sure that in the broad sense it makes sense that if the context and circumstances of the variance change, that the variance remains but the rest of the context doesn't. So that I'm not sure makes sense in the broader sense. But what I'm hearing you say is that even though the circumstances which necessitated the variance are being changed, the variance doesn't change. Correct. So I think I understand. Yes. Okay. Do we have any other questions for staff at this time? Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To follow up with that statement, Tracy, I believe it was shown a moment ago from the Board of Adjustment, the first condition was, you know, the property must be developed according to the submitted site plan, including the internal landscape as depicted on the site plan or as amended in the future by the Planning Commission. What does that give the Planning Commission today the possibility of doing? We can confirm with the Law Department, but my interpretation is we're asking them to still meet the zoning ordinance requirements and move forward in accordance with the approved variances. So I don't believe the Planning Commission can ask the applicant to go above and beyond the zoning ordinance requirements. So if they're meeting open space requirements, if they're meeting the use allowances in the B-1 zone, we're asking the Planning Commission to confirm that this site plan meets the regulations. With the Board of Adjustment making variances, does that give the Commission today the opportunity to change any of those variances? No. No, sir. All right. Okay. One other question. The dumpster on the development plan, is the dumpster still planned for where it's shown? I thought there was some concern about our waste management backing out and stuff like that. They've been in discussion with waste management, and it's understood that they had worked it out, that they could leave it there and be able to back up and back out onto Pine Street. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mickler. One further question. In those original conditions by the Board of Adjustment, we no longer have a landscape review committee. How is that approached then for this case and other cases where there's a requirement that that is supposed to be reviewed by a board that no longer exists? I think the condition here was the requirement that they install a fence and vines as recommended that month by the landscape review committee. That has already, my understanding, was done in 2002 or 2003. What we do today is converse with the Department or Division of Environmental Services to ask for their opinion about the proposed landscaping and if it meets the intent of the ordinance and take their opinions into account in making a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment. But this condition doesn't mandate that we go back to a board that doesn't exist. It's just as was recommended at the time by that group. Understood. Thanks. Okay. Yep. Yes, sir. Mr. Owens. I'm sorry. I've got one more. Cheryl, do we know with the patio as it's built right now how close that is to the property line? I'm not sure. I've not been out there and they didn't mention it. It looks like it goes directly to the property line. It goes to the property line. Okay. Thank you. Okay. It looks like there's a fence along the edge of it right here. They're showing a fence. But it looks like it's right adjacent to the property line. I believe the fence is proposed on top of the patio. Okay. I believe the fence is on top of the patio, more of a railing. Yeah, I've seen that. I'm just wondering where the concrete patio is in accordance with the property line itself. I think it's also right adjacent to the property line. Okay. Thank you. So following on that, the plans or questions talk about drainage along there. I went over there yesterday and that patio is pretty high up. There's no vegetation, I don't think, right along there. What's the plan for managing the drainage to the right of where the dumpster is located right now? That's part of the Division of Engineering's review, not planning. So they'll be talking about that? Yes. Okay. If we have no other questions for staff. And just to clarify, the variance that we are discussing was granted by the Board of Adjustment in 2002. But we are subject to that today. Right. The condition refers it back to the Planning Commission for action. Okay. Can I maybe clarify something you just said? Really what you have in front of you is a development plan. The reason that it is in front of the Planning Commission and not the Technical Review Committee, because there's no waiver with this now, is because of that condition. So we're not looking at a variance. We're actually still looking at the development plan. Because the Planning Commission is the only authority that can amend. Well, because of the language of that condition, I think that the reason this is in front of you is because you're the one that has the authority to amend the development plan, which affects what that site plan originally showed in the Board of Adjustment. Does that make sense? We can amend the development plan, but we cannot revoke a waiver. A variance, correct. A variance, I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. I understand. All right. If we have no other questions for staff at this time, thank you, Cheryl. And now we'll hear from the applicant. Afternoon. Scott Schutte on behalf of the applicant. I'll start talking first broadly about the idea of two keys. Growing up in Lexington, we all know what two keys is. We all know how two keys used to operate when it was on the other corner. This is not that two keys. This is not going to be a bar. It is a restaurant. It's going to be operated by Carlo Vaccarezza that operates Frank and Dino's. It attempted to operate as Polo Azul after Mellow Mushroom. Unfortunately, that didn't work. And so they're looking to rebrand that now with a name that is known in town. But it will not be the same as the old two keys. It will not be designed as a party place or a bar. Strictly, it is a restaurant. There's also been some discussion about some thoughts of an outdoor entertainment or music. That is not the request. That is not the plan. There is no intent to have live music. There's no intent to have speakers outside. What the plan is is to have this patio operate with six to eight picnic tables with umbrellas for people to enjoy sitting outside and eating from the restaurant. There will not be a bar outside. There will be food service outside. If you look at the 2002 approval, one of those conditions was the fence and the vines growing up. We will have installed the fence and will agree to do that. And I think if you look at the historical photos of this property, it's actually pretty interesting in that that 2002 development plan has really never been followed. Part of that plan was multiple landscape islands within the drive aisles. Those were non-existent as of at least 2019. So the patio replaced parking spots only. It didn't take out any vegetated open space. And I have some pictures here that show where those two vegetated landscape islands were supposed to be. That shows... So this is a photo. Yeah. Either way you want to do it. And this is a photo from 2019 that shows that these landscape buffers that are shown on the 2002 plan were really non-existent. So we're actually adding more vegetation. We are adding more open space to this property with this plan and where we show that open space. We have met every technical requirement for approval. If this were not subject to the 2002 development plan and that singular note, we wouldn't be here. We'd be already approved. And so, again, I think this all kind of got off the rails pretty early when people saw the sign two keys go up and they assumed it was going to be the original two keys. I'm hoping that I can reassure people today that that is not the intent. That is not the plan. I understand that there are concerns from neighbors about the location of the patio. There will be a fence there that provides much greater protection than what was in there before this patio was placed. As you can see, there's no fence along that R2 zone. There's hardly any vegetation. There's some ground bushes, but that's about it. We have worked extensively with waste management. They are okay with our location. It will be private service. We will increase the entrance to 24 feet, and we will also have yellow marking on each side of that entrance so that if it ever reverts back to city waste management, they will have ample space to get in and out of that location. As far as drainage, we've seen no drainage issues on this property. We believe that there was some pooling of water in this location before the patio was placed, so that's been rectified. This, again, I think where it also got off the rails a little bit is having this place before this development plan was in front of you all. Unless you are involved in land use planning, I doubt that you go back to 2002 looking for a development plan. And because this patio is below the 2,500 square feet land disturbance permit requirement, it may not have triggered a permit anyways. And so I don't want you all to bless it, but I think it's understandable how we got to this point and why that patio is already there before today's hearing. I don't think that this was somebody ignoring the rules and going about doing things they wanted to do. I think this was a mistake on behalf of a contractor that looked at that land disturbance permit and said we're underneath the required size to get that, so I don't think we need it. If they would have applied for that, that probably would have triggered staff review and them bringing up this 2002 plan. But again, we believe that we're putting this property in a better spot than it was subject to that 2002 development plan. We are adding more green space. We are adding more open space, more shrubbery, trees in the back. As you can see today, there are no trees in that back corner in between the zones. We will be adding that. So again, we believe that this has met all of the technical requirements, and we'd ask for your all's blessing. All right, thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Schulte, I appreciate the information as far as clarification. Getting right to the point, you're saying this is primarily going to be a restaurant? Yes. What will your hours of operation be? Carlo, do you have the typical hours of operation? Eleven to ten. Eleven to ten? Okay. My second question, drainage. I'm sure that patio, the way it's built and sloped, keeps your pooling off your property. What does it do to the neighboring property? That's something we'll work through with engineering, but I think if any impact, it's minimal. I'll ask you the question. With the concrete patio, how close is it to the patio? I haven't personally measured it, but it's certainly close, if not on the line. I'll give you that. All right. Thank you. I think if you wanted to visualize it with that photo, it's probably to the end of the asphalt. The edge of the asphalt. But again, that's where that fence is there as well. That extends above the concrete pad. Okay. Thank you. Mr. McClure. Are you going to meet the original fence and vine requirement? Yes. We're happy. If you have recommendations on the vines, we're open to that. To any recommendations on what would be appropriate there. If I had recommendations, I think it would start with not putting concrete wall-to-wall from property line to your building. I think I'd start there. You're starting to talk about my recommendations, not the ministerial process we're in today. Fair enough. That's my question. I will make a note that I believe there was some press about this fairly early on before you all were completed with the work. And it generally is a hard argument. The argument that you all didn't know that you had to go to the city is a hard argument to make when there's been full press coverage before the work was completed. It's also difficult to say people were misinterpreted what you were trying to do when there's been no public meetings to my knowledge or any outreach at all. So I think there's a couple of areas there that could have been certainly ample opportunities to address. Absolutely. And just in response to that, the neighborhood was invited over to the restaurant and many did come. I apologize for not bringing that up in the beginning. And I believe the early press and the early work stop order was related to interior electrical work. Yeah. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you. Okay. All right. Public comment. At this time, if there's anyone who would like to speak, we will form a line of just maybe three people at a time for fire safety. But if you would, approach the podium, state your name, please. And everyone is entitled to three minutes. And we do have a clock. And there is no borrowing or lending of time at the Planning Commission. Please go ahead. Good. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Mark Matthews. I live at 500 South Mill Street. I'm the past president of the Historic Southville Neighborhood Association and currently a neighbor and currently a board member. We're here on behalf of the Neighborhood Association and our neighbors to oppose the development plan for 503 South Upper Street, Two Keys Tavern. Oops. I'm sorry. I'm not advancing somehow. There we go. Sorry. While we have a good number of neighbors with us today, many were not able to be here on a workday midweek in the midafternoon. But we previously have submitted to you a petition signed by 269 neighbors who also oppose this development. Today we're trying to focus on five key points of our opposition to the development plan as follows. The non-permitted construction prior to an approved development plan denied due process. The proximity of the patio addition to neighbors and residents. The proximity of the patio addition to neighbors and residents eliminates peaceful enjoyment for those homes. The improper quality and safety of construction. Questionable use of the property in a B1 zone. And the fact that meetings with neighbors regarding this plan site did not take place. We requested, in response to the previous comment, we requested a meeting with the owners and they were invited for a meeting in February. At that time they could not describe to us the nature of the restaurants, the food that would be served, the hours that the place would be open, or how the patio would be used. Sorry. I'm doing a terrible job on clicking here. I hope my presentation is better. Anyhow, our first point, failure to secure the approved development plan before construction. Non-permitted construction prior to review of the development plan removed the opportunity for the planning commission and the building permit office comment. Input from neighbors was not solicited prior to construction of the non-permitted patio. Which actually, from our neighbors' perspective, leads to serious concerns about noise from the size and proximity to residents. As you all have discussed, the requirements of the Board of Adjustment case from 2002 were not considered or met. It sounds like those are being considered today, but we have not been privy to that development. Accordingly, we would like the development plan to be denied. We would like the non-permitted illegally constructed patio to be removed and for a new development plan to be filed allowing for proper city agency review and neighborhood input. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Quincy Glass. My wife and I own and live in a home located at 504 Lawrence Street, which shares a property line with 503 South Upper slash Tukey's. We purchased our home when the subject property was simply a restaurant. It was an appropriate use of a B1 zone, which the subject property lies in. The subject property is within 100 feet of over 10 residences that house over 30 residents, which includes myself, my wife, and our unborn child that we are expecting in October. The addition of a patio to be used by a traditional late night establishment would eliminate all of our rights to peace and privacy in our homes. 509 South Upper, which is a residence just south of Tukey's, houses six college students. As you can see from... It's three or four. Keep going. One more. There we go. So this is 509 South Upper. You can see this is the building that houses six college students. As you can see here, the patio that's already been laid is about eight feet from bedroom windows. There is no possible barrier. There is no possible barrier that could be built that would shelter these residents from the noise that would emanate from this facility. My home is also affected. You can see it in the background there, kind of in the back right. There's no barrier between the inappropriately constructed patio and the bedroom windows of our home, particularly the windows of my child's bedroom are no more than 30 feet away from this patio. In the city of Lexington, residents are protected by a noise ordinance that states that sounds that cross over dwelling boundaries and disturb a reasonable person of normal sensitivities are not permissible. There is no feasible way that a patio that could house hundreds of people would not be in direct violation of this ordinance. We live downtown. We understand we're going to have to deal with some noise here and there. We've lived here for over a year now and have absolutely loved our neighborhood. All we're asking here today is for that quality of life to be upheld with a decision on this development plan. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Charlton Clay. I am a resident of 333 South Upper with my husband. I'm here to speak in opposition to this patio as planned. I think this is somewhat redundant because these issues have been covered, but the size of the patio as I measured it is at least 2,100 square feet. On the map it actually says 33 by 65. What I just heard was it's solid concrete and six to eight picnic tables would go in there. It is a very large area to just have six to eight picnic tables. I would sort of think if you wanted picnic tables you might want some trees or some vegetation in there to protect people. We have an issue with this is inordinately large. It goes through the property line. The drop off between the raised patio and the sidewalk looks to be like eight or nine inches. There currently is no permanent fence there. I understand that some kind of fence will go in. We do not know about the drainage. No drainage study has been provided. As you have noted, there is no privacy fencing. This is a temporary fence. There is a post in concrete there, but this fence right now as shown is movable and liftable. It's hard to tell from this picture, but that drop off is pretty significant. At least eight to nine inches. This is just another view of the patio. It is a massive piece of concrete. As neighbors who were not consulted on this, this seems out of comportment with what we who live in the neighborhood want with quality of life. We would support a restaurant, but this as built seems like some other intention was behind this other than just a space for a restaurant. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Hi, my name is David Burton. I'm an adjacent property owner and part of the South Hill Historic Association. I wanted to start by highlighting that this particular single-use business property is surrounded, if you will, or adjacent to R1. That's not unusual. It becomes unusual when this single property is almost entirely surrounded by R1. Below it on the east side there is the Target, so it's not. Above it are four floors of apartments facing it on this property. This unique property becomes totally surrounded by residential folks. I believe with that in mind it needs special consideration as to what actually happens on that property. The people who live there are there 24-7 and it's going to touch them and affect their lives and eventually have a big impact on the entire area. Secondly, I wanted to point out an agreement with my neighbor. My property is located eight feet away from the patio. Basically all those windows you see there are bedroom windows there that surround this. They're like an arena looking down on this patio. These are all sleeping areas for people in the area. I don't need to explain to you how disturbing that would be. Two Keyses represent themselves as just a continuation of a neighborhood restaurant. However, if you start to look at their social media, you'll see kind of a different story. With that, their Instagram accounts video shows a large crowd of people on a patio at night. It doesn't look quite like the continuation of the restaurant was there. It looks like a continuation of Two Keys as it's historically. That's what they make reference to and mention that it could be open as late as 2 a.m. in the morning. That's not my words. That's their Instagram account. That's since been deleted, but that was up. They've also in their Instagram account made the solicitation for security personnel for their restaurant, which seems a bit unusual, but that also is on their Instagram account, an advertisement for security personnel. It seems to me clear that what's being said and what their intentions are are two different things, and that concerns the neighborhood. Finally, I think placing a patio, such a large area there, taking a continuation of the business, which was inside a building and bringing it outside, and in this case, bringing it right to the very edge. Someone placing an order, someone taking an order. That business is now happening on the edge of their property, 10 feet away from where someone is laying their head to try to sleep at night. So I'd encourage you to reject this patio entirety. Thank you. My name is Terry Lenny. I live at 324 South Mill, and I am the president of the Historic South Hill Neighborhood Association. I'm here to give a summary statement of our opposition. At a subdivision meeting on May 7th, in response to concerns expressed by our neighbors about the patio, Mr. Schutte simply stated that 503 South Upper was located in a traditionally bar area with other bars a block away. This statement was indicative of how owners of Two Keys viewed opening a bar in this location. But that is not the case. As all of you know, a neighborhood can change drastically in the span of one block, and that certainly is the case here. We have made it abundantly clear the building is located in a residential neighborhood. From High Street South, Upper Street is primarily residential, with the greatest population density located within a one block radius of this building. Consequently, it's essential that you, as members of the Planning Commission, keep first and foremost in your minds that businesses in this zone, and I'm quoting directly from the ordinance, should be oriented to support and enhance residential neighborhoods. From our perspective, this should be the prime directive in the ordinance that guides your decision. In addition to the concerns you hear here, you received a number of documents from South Hill residents, property owners, and parents of affected students expressing great concern that if the current patio is approved and used as marketed on social media, it will not enhance the neighborhood. Instead, it will very likely decrease property values and, most importantly, lower quality of life. You've heard why we believe the plan doesn't support or enhance the neighborhood, so we encourage you to ask them to justify how their site plan does. As you are also aware, the site plan was submitted after the patio was completed. They were fully aware a building permit was required as early as March 16th, but they chose to complete construction of the patio without the permit being cited several times. From our perspective, this is a case of asking for forgiveness rather than permission. This situation does not merit forgiveness, particularly due to the minimal consideration they have given for how their plan affects the neighbors. Ideally, we would prefer that no patio be approved. However, if a patio is inevitable, we request that the current site plan not be approved, but instead the Planning Commission require revisions to the plan that mitigate noise disturbance and privacy intrusion with the goal of minimizing the negative impact on the neighborhood. This includes meeting with neighborhood residents to address their concerns. Thank you. It's been a long time coming, but we're glad we finally got to speak in front of you. Thank you. Thank you. I am Micah Poston, and I am the property manager of 509 South Upper, which is directly adjacent to where Two Keys is proposed to be, and also property manager for three other buildings that would definitely be within earshot of the proposed building. Today, really on behalf of my tenants, really my tenants' parents, who have emailed me multiple times and written letters to me, just voicing their concerns to me about what's being proposed, my tenants have signed their leases back in September and October of 25, when this was a chicken restaurant. Their parents believe that that's what it's going to be, and then they roll into town with U-Hauls in July, and they see a patio literally eight feet away from where they're setting up their kids' bedrooms, and obviously they're concerned, and that's when the letters started to roll in. So I told them I would speak on their behalf, and I wanted to point out something that one of the parents said that I thought was a really valid point. She said, the stated intent of the B-1 zone is to accommodate neighborhood shopping facilities and serve the needs of the surrounding residential area, and to support and enhance a residential neighborhood. A high-capacity sports bar restaurant with outdoor entertainment does not appear consistent with this intent. She wraps up the letter by saying, our sole interest is ensuring the safe and suitable living arrangements for our daughter. While she continues and studies her education at the University of Kentucky. So I just say, you've heard from property owners, you've heard from current residents, and now out-of-state concerns about the safety and quality of life that their kids are going to have while they're trying to study and get a degree. So I urge you just to consider what the current proposal is going to do to some of these girls and guys that are trying to study. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Emma, and I am one of the occupants of 509 South Upper Street, which is located directly next to the Two Keys building. My housemates and I would be among the residents most directly affected if this proposed bar is allowed to open. Four of the windows in our home, two on the first floor and two on the upper floor, face directly towards the building's patio area. When we signed our lease last year, we had no knowledge or expectation that the building directly next to our home would be turned into a bar. Had we known that a late-night business and outdoor patio could potentially be located immediately beside a building, that would have been an important factor in our decision about where to live. All seven of us are college students, and our home is where we study, complete assignments, and prepare for classes and exams. We are especially concerned about noise levels and late-night activity, particularly on weekends and other busy nights when people are likely to be out drinking and socializing. Even though these may be nights when many people choose to go out, we still have classes, assignments, and exams to prepare for for the following days. We should be able to study and get adequate sleep in our home without being regularly disrupted by the noise and activity coming from a bar directly next door. All of us are underage, and we have concerns about our safety and the increased activity that could come with a bar located immediately beside our residence. We are worried about increased traffic around our home, as well as the possibility of damage to or break-ins involving our vehicles. Additionally, we are concerned that trash and litter could accumulate in the alley between our home and the 2 Keys building. I understand that we may not be the only residents affected by this decision, but because our home is directly adjacent to the proposed business, the impact on us would be immediate and significant. I respectfully ask that you take into serious consideration the fact that we signed our lease before knowing this building would become a bar, as well as the potential impact on our safety, ability to study, sleep, and live peacefully in our home. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Hi. My name is Elizabeth Hicks, and I'm a resident of 332 South Upper Street. I am a member of our South Hill Neighborhood Association, and I was provided some information from our attorney to speak on today. In 2002, a restaurant with no live music or entertaining or dancing could not have more than 20% of its floor space for the sale of alcohol. It was truly a restaurant with a smaller bar. Think of Mellow Mushroom. A restaurant with more than 20% of floor space was only permitted as a conditional use, but it could still not have the live entertainment or dancing. A restaurant with live entertainment was also a conditional use of permit, but such use was required to be more than 100 feet from a residential zone. When the BOA granted the variances in 2002, it removed many of the buffering guardrails protecting adjacent uses to permit a restaurant like Mellow Mushroom. It is unlikely that the BOA would have removed those guardrails to permit an outdoor bar so close to an adjacent home. The conflation of the restaurant and bar concept is relatively new with the recent ZOTA, not sure which one. Approving this outdoor patio violates the spirit of the 2002 BOA approval since an outdoor bar was not permitted without conditional use permit in 2002. The revisions of the zoning ordinance occurred with the Urban Growth Management ZOTA. Applicant wants the Planning Commission to suspend knowledge of how and why the 2002 BOA felt comfortable granting these variances. There were guardrails in the zoning ordinance to protect the neighbors. Those are gone now. Further, the BOA condition granting Planning Commission's, hold on, let me re-say that. Further, the BOA condition granting Planning Commission the authority to approve revisions to the site plan is based upon its reasonable discretion, not ministerial discretion. This is not KRS 100.275 HB443 issue. The applicant is requesting relief from the BOA condition which moves the request outside of the ministerial requirements of KRS 100.75. The only way applicant could avoid Planning Commission's discretionary review is to use the 2002 site plan or submit a revised site plan that meets the zoning requirements that exist today. Therefore, the Planning Commission should have a discussion on whether the outdoor bar is appropriate use of the requirements under Article 7 for variance. Will it adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare, etc., before it uses a reasonable discretion to permit the revision of the 2002 site plan? Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Chris Mossman. We live at 505 Lawrence Street, so if I were a good golfer, I could easily chip a golf ball up over Quincy's house and right onto the patio. Early in the conversation, our friend from the legal department at Two Keys talked about how this will be a family restaurant. It won't be anything like the old Two Keys. So that sent me scrambling to my social media site of choice, which is Facebook. I understand that the Instagram site was cleaned up quite a bit in preparation for meetings such as this. But if I read the Facebook site for Two Keys Tavern, it's called a college and sports bar with drink specials every night. That's it. Nothing more. If we were to have another Damiano's or another Mellow Mushroom, that would be fantastic. In fact, we probably ate outside at Mellow Mushroom about 30 times with the tables right out in front of Mellow Mushroom on the sidewalk on Upper Street. From my personal perspective, that would be fantastic. But another Two Keys being a college and sports bar with drink specials every night, that doesn't fit in our neighborhood. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. All right. Do we have anyone else from the public who would like to speak on this development plan? All right. If not, applicant. I'll be brief. I understand the concerns. I understand the concerns with the name Two Keys. I don't know what else we can do than have the owner and operator here tell you that their intended hours are 11 to 10 and it will be a restaurant. Six to eight picnic tables with umbrellas out on the patio is the intent and then the plan for this development plan. Outside of that, in regards to the Facebook, if we ruled ourselves on what social media said it would be a very different world. If I had to guess, I would say that that notation on the Facebook has probably been there since the 90s when that was set up or whenever Facebook came around. It hasn't been updated since. But regardless, Mr. Mickler, when we postponed this a couple times, you asked numerous times why postpone it? Why can't we just go ahead? In some of these operational questions and ironing these items out and trying to get away from the idea that this is a bar and that this is truly a restaurant, we're part of the reasons for those postponement. And now we're here today telling you what the plan and the intent for this property is. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any commissioner questions, comments? Yes, sir, Mr. Mickler. And then Mr. Wilson. I've got a couple questions to kind of work through out loud and also maybe with the help of staff here. We have a proposal before us that is making the case that what they're asking to build, which we already know is already built, is a patio for a restaurant. We have the applicant saying they built this patio for six to eight picnic tables and there's going to be food and table service. What we're seeing on the development plan is more than 2,000 square feet of pavement and patio. It's hard for, I think, most rational people to believe that you build a large 2,000 plus square foot concrete pad to put six picnic tables out. It's hard for most rational people to believe that you put a bar service window to that said patio to serve six picnic tables worth of people sitting under umbrellas. What we're being asked to do is to kind of believe what seems to be impossible and check off this plan because we allow bars, we allow restaurants and we allow bars in the B1. I guess I'm talking out loud because I'm trying to think through this because we have a job here to review this ministerially, as the staff has pointed out. I guess I'm also wondering, in reviewing this, we also have a job to protect the health, safety and welfare of the population in Lexington. When we're looking at a patio that likely is going to have hundreds of drunk people and likely is going to have very loud volume because that's what is really being proposed in all appearance. Even though we know that's what's likely going to be there, we're being told it's going to be six picnic tables with some families under umbrellas having a meal. I'm struggling with this because I don't see a problem with a bar necessarily being in the B1, but what it looks like is being proposed does bring into question for me how are we not supposed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the population. I'd like to hear a little bit more from other people and also from staff about that juxtaposition of what we're seeing. This large 2,100 square foot patio with a bar service window outside, the residential surrounding it and lots of room to stand and cram lots of people because very minimal actual tables and seating. I need clarification also from the staff on this. The neighbors have indicated they use the term improper construction of non-permitted illegal patio. How would you respond to that? Did you want to respond to Mr. Wilson's question or an illegal patio? I believe when they were referring to the illegal patio they meant built without a permit. Yes, I think so too. That's what I interpreted that statement to mean. The way I'm reading it, that's why I'm asking for clarification. Improper construction of a non-permitted illegal patio. That's the term that I think was used on the screen. They don't have a permit. There was no permit requested which should have been prior to the patio being built. That's what they were talking about. Secondly, back to Mr. Mickelson's point. It seemed to me just looking at it that this could easily be converted into a concert area as well where people could be standing around and what have you. You could only have six tables but you could have lots of people standing around. Is that still part of the intent to strictly have eating there or is it possible to have both within the confines of the law? I believe for the last part of your question and staff can correct me on this if I'm wrong, I believe if they wanted to have entertainment outdoors in this area, they would have to get a conditional use permit from the Board of Adjustment first which they do not currently have. For live entertainment. That brings up my other question related to music. I don't know how to measure decimal levels and things like that. I do know that in some instances that can get pretty much out of hand. I guess it's another way to put that. I don't know whether we could mitigate that or not as such through our deliberations here. Other than complaints of a noise ordinance, no. The only way that you would be able, this Planning Commission would be able to do something like that would be if it were addressing a conditional use permit which is only in the case of a zone change. So that's not in front of you right now. Okay, thank you. Maybe at this point it would be helpful for the Planning Commission to hear the array of options we do have today. Or remind me of the guardrails perhaps that we are working within today. So what you have in front of you is a development plan. As I think I mentioned earlier, the reason that this is in front of you and not the TRC is because the development plan will impact the site plan that was originally reviewed by the BOA when they granted the variance. That's the only reason. But it's still a development plan. So you would look at this in the guardrails of KS 100 section 275, which you here refer to as House Bill 443. That's where it's been codified. And if it meets the ordinances as drafted, then you would apply a ministerial review. There are only two exceptions to that. The first, if there's a waiver, which there originally was, but I believe that was withdrawn according to my sheet. Or if you see substantial evidence of a specific threat to health, safety, or welfare to the affected area. In one of those two cases, you would be able to avoid a ministerial review. Does that make sense? Which would mean we could either recommend approval, disapproval. I mean, we do conditional approval of development plans, but conditions are ones that would be within the, like the ones you see right here. Okay. Ones for. Compliance with the ordinance. Thank you. As you said. Ones that relate to the ordinance or the manuals and regulations that we've adopted pursuant thereto. Does that make sense? Sure. Okay. Does that answer your question? Yes. Mr. Wilson. No, the question is related to that. One of the things about the dumpster, and my colleague here tried to show me a picture of where that dumpster would be located. One of the concerns that the staff had was the access to the dumpster. Is that still a concern? The division of solid waste indicated that if the property owner expanded the access apron, I guess might be the right word, from Pine Street to the dumpster, that would allow them enough room to maneuver onto the site and then back out into the Pine Street right-of-way. The other option the applicant has is to hire private solid waste service. And those two things mitigated the planning staff's concerns. If the applicant has a clarification, you're welcome. You can do both of what Tracy said. Private and expand it to the 24 pursuant to the single drive aisle commercial entrance exit. So it will be expanded to 24. And there will be yellow paint showing no parking about a car length's width on each side of the entrance apron so that there's additional space. And we've worked with waste management. Mr. Burns is fine with that. Republic is fine with that on the private side as well. Commissioner Burton. On the revised staff recommendations, staff is still recommending postponement. Is that correct? The blue sheet we're looking at? I believe if this meets the zoning ordinance, the staff would recommend approval. If you, after hearing from the neighbors, feel there is a public evidence of a public health, safety, and welfare threat, then the planning commission has the discretion to make a different decision. Thank you. But let me just add that that part of the statute requires a specific threat and substantial evidence. So there would need to be a finding associated with that, which I would be happy to draft if we took a recess. But just clarifying. Okay. Mr. McClure. If we were to go down the route of a specific health, safety, and welfare threat, for example, the adjacent patio to the residences and the nature of this business and its own promotions and description, would it be possible to, is it just an outright deny and cite these evidence? Or is it something like no alcohol served on the patio? I'm sorry. I'm not sure I understand your question. I guess that my question is if we have a finding that we think that this does have a specific health, safety, and welfare threat, then are there conditions that we can put on there? Or is it just an outright deny of the development plan? Okay. I see what you're asking. So what House Bill 443 says is that it's referring to if a strict ministerial application of the established objective standard would pose a specific threat. So it wouldn't necessarily be a conditional disapproval. It might be that, I guess it kind of would be, actually. I think we would need to know what's creating the public health, safety, welfare threat. If it's alcohol, I'm not sure the planning commission has the ability to regulate the sale of alcohol. Yes, I would agree with that. But if it's the patio, then that is a physical improvement to the site that the planning commission does have general authority over. I would agree with that, yes. And so you would be disapproving the development plan, which is really, the patio is the primary driver of that. If you found substantial evidence that approving this would pose that threat. Does that make, am I making sense? Yes, you do. Thank you. Let me go back to the conditions for getting the alcohol. Since my part of planning commission is looking at development plans, not zoning, do we have the ability to say, and I'm not suggesting we do this, I'm just trying to understand the territory we're working in. Do we have the ability to say, reduce the size of the patio, add some additional screening for noise and other things, or we don't have the ability to do that? I think that we would have to first determine what, if you're wanting to, are you wanting to conditionally approve it after finding a substantial threat? I guess I'm a little- I'm not wanting to do anything. I'm just trying to figure out what territory we're trying to work in. We're hearing people talk about noise in particular. Okay. Right now there's nothing in this proposal that does anything to buffer noise for these folks and other issues. So I want to know what we can and can't do. You can condition the approval on things that are specifically within the zoning ordinance, but noise is really not. That is something that if it were in front of the Board of Adjustment, for example, and they were seeking conditional use, permanent or variance, then they can add some of those conditions. But that's really beyond the authority of approving a development plan. I think I got the message now. Under 443, the bottom line is this is more and more ministerial than anything else. And the findings that we would have to come up with would have to be related to the patio as more so than anything else. So we're stuck in this case. I would agree. I would. Yes. Okay. So that's what I want to know. Based on what I'm hearing you say, what is going through my mind right now is that the patio as designed is clearly it indicates that it's designed to support a large number of standing people. And it's indicated by the bar service window that those standing people are likely going to be intoxicated. It indicates that those standing people are going to go right up to the property boundary and right up to the front fence, which we have a pretty good-sized drop-off from the patio. It seems to me, and with the neighbors' noise and screening in mind, I think our zoning ordinance never intended to allow something like this. And so I don't think it's a stretch for us to say that this plan causes a specific health, safety, and wellness threat and that we should, because of that, require that they follow the same requirements that any other applicant today filing a new plan in a B-1 would have to follow, which is that they pull that patio back and put screening and buffering between them and their neighbors. That also serves to decrease the size of the patio and reduce the maximum number of people that would be out there. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got two questions. I'm going to go back to our wonderful patio for a moment and ask Cheryl Stormwater their thoughts as to stormwater runoff, considering that it appears that this patio goes right to the property line. And how does that affect neighboring property? Hi, Vaughn Atkins, Engineering. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any significant problems associated with the current drainage situation. I'm sure there are ways to mitigate anything that would come about from this, but I haven't been presented with a proposal. So if the patio goes right up to the property line, how is it going to be mitigated on their own property? It looks like there is some green space, and currently I don't know what the slope of that is and what is actually happening. It's been a driveway for a long time, so there's been some runoff, and they're adding some landscaping, it looks like. So some of that might help with the impervious area, but I don't have actual numbers to say yes or no. All right, thank you. If I may, Mr. Chair, I've got a question for the applicant or applicant's representative. Mr. Shelton, hearing the conversation here, are there anything that you or your applicant can offer to help get to the next point? You had offered the time frame and so forth. You had said a moment ago that there was no outside bar, but I'm hearing the possibility of a bar window. My understanding of that, the bar server's window is not a customer window. That is for the delivery. So instead of carrying out two trays through a swinging door, you can walk out and then you have your bar server's window where you can pull the food out and deliver. I'm sorry, say that again. If you're coming out of the kitchen to go to the outside patio and you're carrying two trays, instead of going through a door carrying those, that's what the bar server's window is for. My understanding is it will not be a... That would be for employees, is what you're saying. What was that? The window would be for employee use. Correct. And I don't mean to put words into your mouth. So we think, I mean, it is changing in that there will be individuals out there. Before it was a patio, it was a parking lot in which cars would drive through. Upper street is frequented by cars nonstop. The hub is directly across the street, which is a student housing development with a target on the first floor. If our addition of this patio and the minimal picnic tables and food out there until 10 p.m. is going to drastically change the noise out there, that would shock me. I don't think, and again, this is maybe a messaging problem on our end from the beginning, in that this is not the two keys that used to be on the other corner. This will not be the 1 to 2 a.m. dollar beer night type location. So we think the noise will be minimal. We think that the addition of the fence is reducing and adding a buffer in that area. The additional plantings right off the edge of the patio, right where the fence ends, and then the additional trees in the back corner are adding to that buffer space. Could you provide assurances as to the hours of operation? Yes. Which would be? That 11 to 10 range. Okay. Thank you. This is just a comment. I don't think this is just a problem of messaging. You know, companies spend a lot of money on establishing their brand, and Two Keys has a brand. And I think the choice to continue that brand is a message that's much more powerful than anything you've put on your social media. Lots of associations go with Two Keys, and the choice to keep that is talking loud and clear. Okay. Mr. Mickler. Just to clarify, are you saying you're willing to put those hours of operations as a note on the development plan? Yes, we're fine with that on the development plan for the patio. Nobody will be on the patio past 10 p.m., which I think is the concern. I think otherwise operating inside the restaurant shouldn't be an issue. Okay. I have a quick clarification question. Earlier, someone asked about live entertainment, Ms. Wade, and you said live entertainment is not permitted. Correct. Are speakers permitted out there? Yes. Just to clarify, the zoning ordinance does define live entertainment, and it's where there's a person actually either performing or even manipulating the entertainment. So a DJ where you could walk up and request a song, right? That is live entertainment. If they just have a playlist that is not changeable, then it's not live anymore. My phone is playing 20 songs. What I'm getting at is you might not be able to have live entertainment, but could you theoretically replay a concert from 2001 on speakers as if the concert was occurring? Yes, or the U.K. band playing, right? Yeah. We're fine with a note. No on speakers? No speakers outside. No outdoor speakers? Yes. Yeah. I would check that. What about could you all, would it be permissible to be showing movies, for example? I haven't given that any thought. I don't know that. Or I guess live streaming a ball game or a movie. A ball game or something like that. What we could put on there is no amplified music or sounds. So nothing artificial. So no TVs, stereos, music players, et cetera. Live music. So that if you have a TV out there, it's silent, but you can still watch the game. Okay. Planning Commission, do we have any more questions, comments? The floor is open for a motion. I think we understand what we can do today. Can we just restate what we're putting on the development plan, hours of operation and no noise? Those most recent items were, yes. Hours clearly stated on the development plan of operation and no electronic speakers. Amplified noise, music. Sorry. The hours just of the patio and the music sound, except maybe just that. I don't want to say that we can't have TVs on inside the restaurant. Oh, I see. Okay. I have a question. I have a question. I wanted to ask the attorneys here. For point of clarification, if he agrees to not have the bar open or have the restaurant open past 11 a.m., let's say you drive by there and it's open at 1 o'clock in the morning, what is the penalty to address that if he does violate what he agrees to here? Or is there any penalty? He can say that we're not going to do it. But if they do it, then what happens? For clarification, please. I believe it would go through zoning enforcement like anything else. So if they weren't complying with the conditions on their development plan, or not conditions on their development plan, then it would have to be referred to zoning inspection. And they would go through the process of issuing notices of violation and potentially citations. Does that address your question? Does that address your question? It does. Let's say that it does go to them and they say that it actually is a violation. Then what happens? Because I don't know. Citations, normally. You could go through that process. I don't know how often they issue citations, but that would be what they would follow. Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this point, does anyone have a motion? Or where would we like to go? Okay. I've got a comment just to confirm. In our discussions here, I think everybody who has been following along has kind of understood that this is different from a zone change in that we don't have as much authority here because it is ministerial. We are checking if this meets in compliance. My understanding is this is a little bit of a unique case because of the Board of Adjustments. The applicant has offered to put two additional notes on there. One is for the patio to be open from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. only. And the other one is for the patio not to have any amplified speakers. And because of that Board of Adjustments, my understanding is also it would come back to us if those notes were to ever be changed. Or come back to this board if those notes were to ever be changed. With that, I move to approve PLN NJDP 26-30 with the conditions of staff and the conditions that the two notes be added that we just discussed. One being the hours of operation of the patio be limited to 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. And that the outdoor patio have no amplified music or television. Okay. So Mr. Mickler made a motion with those revisions. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Wilson? Okay. Thank you. Before we take a vote, the Planning Commission always appreciates hearing from the public. Everything you say we do listen to. It does make a difference. And we welcome your presence on any application like this. The fact that you witnessed as much back and forth between the commissioners and our legal department just shows how unusual this particular situation is. And how technical this process can be. And, again, we listen. We also have to stay within our legal lane. So we have a motion from Mr. Mickler, a second from Mr. Wilson. We will go ahead and put that to a vote. That carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you, everyone. Our next item on the agenda is now on page 7. And I'm sorry. We do have other items on the agenda today. If you wish to leave the hearing, you're welcome to at this time. But just please leave efficiently so that we can move on to the next items of discussion. Okay. Now we're on page 7. And this also is not a typical item on our agenda. This is a continuation from last month. And it is solely for the purposes of Planning Commission discussion. And the floor is essentially open for a motion. We took a vote. Yes, Mr. Forrester? Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, could we ask that the three members who were not here last month, Mr. Forrester, Mr. Jonathan Davis, and Mr. Mickler, if they are going to participate, would they each say that they watched the video and are aware of the proceedings? Yes, Mr. Chair. I have watched the video that was sent. Actually, it was sent to us twice. And I'm ready to participate. All right. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Yes, I saw the video. Mr. Mickler? I also watched the video, and I'm ready to participate. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Okay. Again, the floor is open for Commissioner discussion and a motion, if we have one. Mr. Chair. Mr. Owens. I'm ready for a motion, if everyone else is, considering the fact that several of us sat through it a month ago, and everybody else listened to it after the fact. Okay. All right. Yes, sir, Mr. Owens. Sorry. So I did have a motion last time to not agree with the staff, and that's where I am today. So based on the application exhibits and evidence presented to the Planning Commission on June 23rd, 2026, I move to approve Plan MAR 26-12, RAK Properties, LLC, request for a zone change from a professional office P1 zone to a medium-density R4 zone for a property located at 2501 Sir Barton Way, based on the findings provided by the applicant and presented during the Commission's reconsideration of this request on August 27th, 2026. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Do we have a second to his motion? Okay. Second from Commissioner Nichol. Thank you. Do we have any discussion to that motion? Mr. Wilson. Do we have any discussion to that motion? Well, no. I have a footnote to add to this. Okay. All righty. So motion on the floor. It's been seconded. Do we have any? Mr. Michler. Well, I watched the proceedings last time, and I can see why it ended up split. It's not uncommon, I think, like people did last time since I'm catching up, but I think staff did a good job highlighting some of the problems we've created in the way that we've built out some of these spaces in our city with zero road access and having to walk three quarters of a mile to cross the street, basically, or to walk, you know, a half a mile or more to go to the property behind you. And I think the lessons of this property, regardless of how it goes today, hopefully as we are doing the new areas of the town, we have a plan that will not set us up for this type of conundrum in the future, and that's kind of my comment on that. I have one other comment, which is that after the hearing, I went over there and looked. I went from the side where the church is, and I went from the side where the YMCA is, and I would say that if I were going to try and walk from where the apartments are being built over to the YMCA, I'd need two walking sticks or a hoist. The slope of that area is pretty daggone steep, so it looks very different from on the ground than it does from a picture. Okay. Do we have any other comments on the motion that's currently on the floor with a second? If not, we can go ahead and put Mr. Owens' motion to approve to a vote. That carries 7-2. Thank you, applicant. Thank you for everyone who was here. Yes, sir, Mr. Welch, your footnote. What's the official vote count? Is it 7-2? I knew you were going to do that. Or is it going to be 7-4? What difference does it make? Well, it sends a signal as it relates to possible appeal, because the bottom line is the people who voted no are not here today, and yet the same people who were not here and who were partially here, they get a second chance to vote, and the people who were here did not get that same opportunity. And I'm saying that for the record, because quite frankly, I understand what the law says, but I think that this issue of reconsideration is a thing that I'd like to kind of review somewhere down the line, but not now. I understand the law, and we're certainly going to abide by the law, but I think the spirit of what we've done here is a little awkward for me. That's all I wanted to put in my footnote. Okay. All righty. Thank you, Mr. Wilson. Moving on, or I'm sorry, did that include the development plan, Mr. Owens? Oh, there's more. To move on with that, this would be for the development plan. I move to approve plan MJDP26S32, Hamburg Place Farm, Sir Burton Way, Office Park, Phase 2, Lot 9, a preliminary development plan subject to the seven conditions provided by staff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Owens. That's a motion to approve the development plan. Do we have a second? Do we have a second? Mr. Nickel? Any discussion? And does this include waiver, or do we do that separately? Excuse me? Does this include the waiver? No. That's to follow. Yes. Okay. All righty. And if there's no discussion, we'll take a vote on the development plan, please. Okay. That also carries 7-2. Mr. Owens? Now for the access easement. With respect to plan MJDP26S32, I move to accept the existing access easement pursuant to Article 6-9M of the land subdivision regulations. Based on the following findings, the existing access easement provides safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access. Both sides of the access easement have curb and gutter, and the north side has a full sidewalk to the subject property, and there is no other means of access to the property other than the existing access easement. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Owens. Do we have a second? Mr. Nickel? Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. All right. Again, 7-2. One more. Yes, sir. With respect to plan, this is for the waiver. With respect to plan WAV26-14, I move to approve a waiver of the requirement in Article 6-4C of the land subdivision regulations that all lots abut an approved street for at least a minimum frontage based on the following findings. A, the waiver will not compromise public health, safety, and welfare because the existing access easement provides vehicular and pedestrian access. B, the applicant has sought the minimum waiver necessary to afford relief because the subject property is only accessible by the access easement between 2489 and 2509 Sir Barton Way. The property does not abut a public right-of-way and the rear of the property is adjacent to the greenway along an unnamed tributary of North Elkhorn Creek. And C, it would be an exceptional hardship under the zoning ordinance to require an already built access easement to be converted into a public street in order to obtain the minimum road frontage. D, the approval is subject to the following conditions that the Auburn County Council approves the requested zone change from P1 to R4. Thank you, Mr. Owens. We have a second. Mr. Forrester, thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll take that to a vote, please. Thank you. The second was Mr. Forrester. Okay. Again, 7-2. All right. Our last item on the agenda today is on page 9. This is PLN MAR 2615. There we go. All right. Thank you, Dalton. All right. So Dalton Belcher on behalf of planning staff. This zone change is a request to go from a professional office P1 zone to a downtown frame B2A zone. It is .509 net, .595 gross acres. The addresses are 512 and 518 East Main Street. Proposed place type is second tier urban. Development type is medium density nonresidential slash mixed use. And as mentioned, the applicant is doing this zone change from P1 to B2A to allow for an existing office structure to remain and construction of a multifamily structure with 16 dwelling units. The multifamily residential building will include ground floor interior parking for owners with surface parking for guests and deliveries. Each unit will have its own exterior terrace patio or balcony along with access to the building common area, which is a rooftop terrace. And the multifamily residential building will have a vehicular entrance across, or excuse me, along Kentucky Avenue and two pedestrian entrances along East Main Street. And while they're not included as part of the zone change, 522 East Main and 109 Kentucky Avenue are part of the development plan and they have access to Kentucky Avenue. The applicant had a neighborhood meeting on May 26, 2026. It was attended by planning staff and neighbors. The developer presented the project and answered questions about the project. Citizens expressed interest in activating Main Street and the proposed density. And then the applicant indicated at the committee meetings that they intended to have another neighborhood meeting. And I'll let them speak to that when they present a little bit later more specifically. So on screen here you can see the subject property in white. It is the two properties. And in the surrounding to the east you have some Camel Club and Good Shepherd Episcopal Church as well as residential properties. To the south there are some office uses and residential. To the west you have more residential properties. To the north you have B2A zone properties, which is the zone the applicant is requesting here. And directly northwest is the Wellington Arms development. And it's dark red right around where my mouse is hovering right now on screen. And I've got a zoomed in version that may make it easier to see all this. So in the surrounding area you have 522 East Main and 109 Kentucky Avenue as I mentioned. that a pink. It's an off-red color, and then 109, Kentucky Avenue, is here as well. They were previously rezoned in 2008 for residential condominium development, and the rezoning included conditional zoning restrictions, which I'll discuss a little bit later in the presentation. Just in the nearby area, if you see the light bluish color on screen in a couple different spots, that's the P1 professional office zone, which also is what these properties are zoned as, and then orange and brown that you see kind of all throughout here are residential zones, and then red, and like I said, that off lighter red is business zoning in the area. So, while these properties, they're highlighted, are not within the historic preservation overlay, there are historic overlays on both sides of the property along Main Street, and I'm going down a little further to the southwest, and in your packet, it was sent out, I believe maybe yesterday, and as well, and it should be in granite, because Historic Preservation has written a memo about just kind of the area, and that should be there for your review if you need to look at that. So on screen here is a view of the properties from Main Street, so you can see this is, I'm going to pronounce this as Schnabel Interiors, I believe that's the correct, I'm hearing a yes from the crowd, so this is Schnabel Interiors, this structure is going to stay, but is part of why this is more of a mixed use development, because it is an office use, and then this is Justice Real Estate, Justice Realty over here, this multi-story, it's kind of, it's hard to see in this picture, but it's almost a bluish color, that will be removed as part of this residential development, and then you have the Wellington Arms development over here on the right of the screen. This is just another view of the properties, but this is from Kentucky Avenue, and you can see here in the distance, a little easier to see the Justice Real Estate building here, as well as an existing vehicular access here off of Kentucky Avenue. So I've got a few pictures of the surrounding property, as I mentioned, 512 East Main is part of this request, but there is not, at this time, any intention to change the structure, that's just at the very front of the property here on the left. On the right of the screen, I've got some pictures from 512 East Main's rear parking area, and initially staff had recommended postponement, we had two reasons, one was we had some concerns about place type, which I'll discuss in a few slides, but we also had concerns about connectivity between the two sites, so at 512 East Main has got this kind of fence that's shared along the property line, on the other side is 518 East Main, and here you can see this fence again as well. So at the time when we first reviewed this, the applicant was not showing a connection between the two sites, they had initially requested a waiver, but after some discussion with staff, they've withdrawn that waiver request, and they are planning to show a stub connection that if the 512 East Main Street property ever redevelops in the future, that that connection could easily be made. Cheryl will probably get into that in a little more detail when she reviews the development plan, but just wanted to highlight that as that was one of our reasons for postponement originally. So and then getting into the place type here, the applicant had selected second tier urban as their place type originally, and they had chosen the medium density, non-residential mixed use development type, and then also they're choosing the B2A zone, which is not one of the recommended zones within the area, so staff felt that the downtown place type was more appropriate. The applicant, upon, you know, after having our meeting at the committees and having some discussion with staff, they were willing to, they were okay with the downtown place type, they provided amended justification that addressed, I think there's only really two criteria that don't really overlap, and they've addressed those, and how their plan meets those criteria. So staff knows that downtown place type is more appropriate as this is along a significant downtown corridor, Main Street, it's adjacent to existing downtown zoning, and the area was located within the bounds of the newly identified Midtown area within the downtown area master plan, and then also we would say that this is a high density, non-residential mixed use development, so we've got the office, which is bringing the mixed use, and then the density with the 16 units they're proposing, and then we also note that in B2A, which is the applicant's chosen zone, is a recommended zone within this place type. So on screen here, you can see some elevations that they provided, just addressing how they meet the multifamily design standards, a few things that came up, committees that I want to highlight just so it's clear for everybody, there are, this is off of Main Street, there's a pedestrian entrance here, and a pedestrian entrance here, and this is the Kentucky Avenue entrance as well. So as I mentioned, two of the properties that are in the development plan but are not part of this zone change request previously went through a zone change and they had conditional zoning restrictions, not super easy to see on the screen, but there was a few restrictions including that there would be a maximum building height of six stories, that there would be a minimum of six residential units provided on property, any commercial use of the property shall be contained within a mixed use residential building, and then there was a number of uses that were prohibited, including sale of automobiles and trucks, minor automobile, truck repair, establishments for retail sale of merchandise, lawn care products, pawn shops, wholesale establishments, adult entertainment type uses, passenger transportation terminals, not including bus stops, and a few more, gasoline pumps, amusement enterprises such as billboard and pool halls, banks, upholstery shops, and drive-thru facilities. All that to say, staff has not found any conflict with the plan that the applicant is proposing with any of the previous conditional zoning restrictions. So that's the top part of the, and this is in your packet as well as part of the staff report, that's the top part of the screen here. The second portion here are additional conditional zoning restrictions as the applicant has proposed. This would include establishments for the display, sale, rental of automobiles, motorcycles, trucks or boats, wholesale establishments, minor automobile and truck repair, establishments primarily engaged in the sale of supplies and parts for vehicles and farm equipment, drive-thru facilities, automobile and vehicle refueling stations, adult entertainment establishments, stadium and exhibition halls. So some overlap there which kind of shows that they're meshing with what was on the previous conditional zoning restrictions. So staff is recommending approval for the following reasons. First that the staff finds that the B2A zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan's goals and objectives for the following reasons. The request will help meet an increase in the need for housing and provide a variety of housing options. The request incorporates architectural elements, varying materials, massing and street activation to transition to the scale of development present in the area. And the proposed pedestrian connections, new street trees and a transit shelter, which some of this will be discussed in the development plan, prioritize multimodal options to deemphasize single occupancy vehicular dependence. And then second, staff finds that the B2A zone is in agreement with the policies of the comprehensive plan, finding that the request will increase density while being sensitive to the surrounding context, provide additional housing options for the area and as an infill and redevelopment opportunity in a downtown area that adequately addresses the context along the nearby historic overlays. And moving on to our third reasoning here. Staff finds that the justification and development plan are in agreement with the development criteria of the comprehensive plan as the land use criteria is met by increasing residential density with 16 multifamily units. The transportation connectivity and walkability criteria is met by providing a new transit shelter and bicycle parking along with the opportunity for connection between the two sites as we discussed with that stub connection should 512 East Main ever redevelop. The environmental sustainability and resiliency criteria is met by proposed new tree plantings on site and at Woodland Park as well as street trees that should result in a net zero loss or increase in tree canopy. The site design criteria is met as the development is providing pedestrian-oriented and activated streetscape that will feature wide sidewalks, landscaping, street trees and a transit shelter along with two pedestrian entrances along East Main Street. And the building form criteria is being met as the plan meets the multifamily design standards, is skilled to respect the context of the neighboring structures and creates a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere. Fourth, so I've already really addressed these, but staff does not have an issue with the conditional zoning restrictions that the applicant is proposing. We find they're appropriate due to the established residential neighborhoods nearby and location on a significant downtown corridor. And then fifth is our typical recommendation that this is subject to the approval of the development plan, which as I mentioned Cheryl will give a little bit more information on. And I'll also note after Cheryl presents on the development plan there are two variance requests associated with this that I can address at that time. But do you have any questions for me right now? Okay. Thank you, Dalton. And okay. All righty. Do we have any questions for staff? Mr. Mickler on the zone change. Yeah, first question. This is just a logistical question. I'm looking in Granicus here and I'm not seeing if there's any citizen comments on this. Yes. I'm not aware of us receiving any. I don't think we received any citizen comments. I just wanted to confirm that there were none and not that I was missing them. Okay. Good clarification. When you talk about it meets the goals and objectives for street activation and when I think of downtown street activation I'm thinking typically more along the lines of those condo buildings that neighbor it on either side. One with the sort of salon downstairs and one with the restaurant sort of downstairs. That's sort of typically what comes to mind with street activation. It looks like here we have our street activation, if I'm not mistaken, is two sort of metal gray doors that enter into a parking lot or parking area. Is that our street activation? You're talking about the pedestrian entrances? Yeah. Yeah. I can jump back to that slot. Oop. Too far. So we've got, yeah, that's what we're seeing here and the applicant may be able to explain in a little more detail how they're activating and what they're planning for, but you do have streets here, excuse me, you have trees here, but then you are correct that there are the two entrances here as well. So in terms of activity, we probably have a sort of a faux stone door and we have two metal grate doors that would open into a garage that would probably be locked. That's the amount of street activation we have. I would say, in addition, we also, if I'm not mistaken, and it may be covered in the development plan, improvements to the transit facility along that frontage, along with some pedestrian improvements. So what we're looking at here is we have a development that does, you know, engage with the street. They're not mandated, although it could in the future incorporate a mixture of commercial ground floor, et cetera, if it was to redevelop, but really we're looking at a strictly residential use, which based on the number of uses and the way that this is laid out with my understanding that each floor having kind of a limited number of units. So in a way that, say, under a normal multifamily residential development where you have a larger number of units, there may be the opportunity to have a dozen or so units on the first floor. If there's only one or two, you lose the utility of having individualized entries into each of the units like we see in some of the other developments. So what they're proposing kind of addresses the main street frontage as well as the improvements to the pedestrian and the multifamily, not the multifamily, the multimodal realm were kind of the direction that staff was looking at with that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To clarify for me, we've got two street addresses here, 512, which is Schnabel's, correct? Yes. And then 518. Does 518 encompass the house, which is now an office, as well as the empty space on the corner? No. So let me jump back a few slides here to show you. Probably easiest to see it here. So 518, as we mentioned, is Schnabel—or 512, sorry, is Schnabel, and it's this where I'm hovering with the mouse right here. 518 is the Justice Realty, which I think—which you're mentioning to the house, the light blue colored structure. And then there are these other two properties that are part of the development plan, and a large portion of this development will be occurring on especially 522 East Main, but they are not part of the zone change request, because they are already B2A zoned. They're not part of the zone change request, but they're part of the development plan? Correct. Okay. Yes. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions on the zone change? Seeing none, thank you, Dalton. Good afternoon. We're looking at PLNMJDP 2600055. This is John and Colin's property and Bennett on development, the Lexingtonian. Here is the property located at the corner of East Main Street and Kentucky, and as you were asking about the property itself, this is where the existing structure is. It's going to stay, and then we have the structure on this property here, leaving this open area here for the parking. You can see on here, by taking out the one structure, the whole new proposed development passes over the remaining portion of the property. We'll have the driveway access back here off of Kentucky to get into the parking garage, and also to extend over to the property boundary to the other portion of the property that's right now within the zone change. They are not doing any development, but we wanted to make sure that it connected to it so in the future when it does develop, they'll be able to have a connection to have access to Kentucky. The purpose of this is to depict a five-story multifamily residential building from the P1 to the B2A. With that, our requirements not met, we have revised conditions, I apologize, we have revised conditions because they brought that in from the previous meeting. So requirements not met, provide an eight-foot landscape buffer along the adjacent R3 property boundaries to be used in conjunction with a six-foot fence. Remove the usable open space from balconies unless they are available to everyone. Clarify the number of bicycle parking provided. Addition of the note for the access easement for the parking connection at the time of the redevelopment of the property. It goes right here underneath to where the property boundaries is. Just thought this might give us a better picture. Design considerations. See all the solid comments from the Division of Engineering. Address the sanitary sewer capacity and confirm existing system has capacity. Plan questions or concerns. Discuss the mitigation of three significant trees, Burr Oak, Magnolia and Ginkgo. There are three trees that were located within this area here. They have one Burr Oak left in the back that are going to be removed because of the new structure and so therefore we want to talk about where we're going to mitigate those trees to. Clarify note number five and ensure that the entrance complies with the standard drawing 307-2. That's the commercial entrance to the rear off of Kentucky in here. What is the proposal for the stormwater management? And then discuss place builder criteria which Dalton has gone over. The staff recommends approval with the following. The Urban County Council approves the zone change that we have the Division of Engineering, Traffic, Urban Forester, Open Space and Planning Commission grants the requested waiver and variances and then correct all note deficiencies listed as requirements not hereon. As Don was talking about the access point, we do have that note under requirements not met. That's why I want to make sure that that note is added here so that should there be any additional redevelopment of this property, we have a connection to this property for that redevelopment. And with that I'll open it to you all to see if there's any other comments or questions. Thank you Cheryl. Do we have any comments or questions on the development plan for Cheryl? Mr. Mickler. Just a couple here. The development plan is showing the dumpster on here but the one I'm looking at says temporary. Maybe I'm not looking at the right one. It does appear to be right up on that residential property boundary. Is there a certain setback from a residential property line that's required for a dumpster? There isn't a setback requirement. We typically have a fence that goes around it and a gate to meet the dumpster requirements. Okay. I guess maybe I thought in the requirements from LFUCG it said 10 feet from a residential property boundary. Do they have a variance application? You're saying specifically for a dumpster that there is a 10 foot setback from the property line? Just a clarification. That was information that I read not that long ago from waste management. So I thought I was just bringing it up. But it wasn't regarding this application so I thought I'd just ask. He didn't say anything to us about it during the tech review. This is a pretty large building relative to the footprint of the property. I see that there's a substantial size generator located in the back. Are there guidelines that we have in regards to noise? I know I've seen us list hours of operation. That sort of came up in some other instances. Is there any guidelines on that? I'm just ballparking and I don't see it but it looks like maybe it's 26 feet long, the generator. No sir, I don't believe there's any guidelines on that. I know that that was a concern as far as the location of it because it's within the tree canopy for the burrow that they are trying to keep. So we had some concerns and issues about the location of that and being within that canopy. And I guess the power to it would be also probably trenched to it. Yeah, they're talking about taking care of it and protecting that tree for us. One of the other projects that this applicant has done in another part of town, I asked the immediate adjacent neighbor to what the impacts were, positive or negative, or what they noticed. And they said the main impact was that there had been put an entire line, sort of a fleet of HVAC units along the property boundary. Do you know where those HVAC units are going? No, but typically I would think that something like an apartment complex, that those are typically up on top. I don't know. I'm not sure, I haven't seen construction drawings so I don't know where those are going to be located. Okay, thank you. One other item I forgot to mention here is down here in the corner is the bus stop that's located. They've moved it off the sidewalk so that it's right here located at the corner for a new bus stop for any type of pickup. Thank you. Okay, do we have any other questions on the development plan? Seeing none, thank you Cheryl. All right, I'm back. So there are two variance requests here. The first is to reduce the vehicular use area perimeter buffer from 8 feet to 0 feet, and the second is to reduce the property perimeter buffer zone-to-zone screening from 15 feet to 1.5 feet adjacent to 113 Kentucky Avenue units A and B. So I've zoomed in on the development plan here to show just really the area that we're focused in on. So it's along, we've got 113 Kentucky Avenue here, and basically kind of a pinch point here of the buffer area. So as staff was reviewing this, staff found that there's really no area where either buffer would get below 1.5 feet. So we are in support of these variances, but we would recommend that both of them be to 1.5 feet instead of going to 0 feet and to 1.5 feet for the other one. So if you have any questions on that, staff, you know, they can run, they can cluster some of their required plantings elsewhere within the buffer to maybe make that work with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, but staff does not have an issue with these variances at the time. Do you have any questions? Thank you, Dalton. Do we have any questions on the variances? Seeing none, thank you very much. Mr. Gross? Good afternoon, everybody. So if I can do this without going the wrong way. Here we go. Here we go. I'm going to explain a little bit about the building itself and then we can go into some of the design and then as I'm talking through, I will answer some of the questions that were raised and to the extent I don't, obviously, you guys can ask me more questions. So the first item is, here we go. So the building is technically six stories. This is at the latest, if you look at our supplemental plan, you'll see our latest design. We made a slight tweak and I'll get to why it's technically six. But it is essentially four over one. The first level is going to be primarily our interior parking. We're parking the entire site inside the building. Those garages will likely also serve as storage for bikes and other things. For the families that will be moving in here, this is only a 16 unit project, but we wanted to park it interior, increase the size of the building and then have less surface parking. So that's the first floor and yes, currently, there will be an entrance here and an entrance here. We believe they will be used by the families that live here and their guests. But once again, it's a 16 unit building, so we don't see a lot of foot traffic. If you think about your own houses, how often do you go out the front door every single day? Maybe a few times. Maybe never. Maybe you park in the back and you come in the rear. So this will be very similar. Now right now, we've got it set as kind of a gray. We do not have a final decision on whether that will be wrought iron design, whether it will be a glass design. We will do that between now and the time that it's constructed. But the point is, we will have those access points. This here is a focal point. The Cowgills are kicking around whether or not we put a fountain there or something else there. But once again, we haven't got to that level of design yet. But that's the idea for that spot. Then once you leave the first level, which is the parking, the second level, it actually steps back. It's hard to see here, but there is, is it 10 feet, Tony? 20 foot step back. So after you leave the first level of the parking garage, there's going to be 20 feet of patio that surrounds for the first level. And those first level units will each have their own essentially terrace, which will be 20 feet by whatever the width is. And we anticipate that that will be an activated area. While not on the ground floor, we do anticipate people will have plants. They'll have their furniture out there and other outdoor amenities will be on there. Then after you leave the first floor, then we just go to basic balconies. So each floor will have a balcony. Each unit will have a balcony going up the three floors. So we do think there's going to be outdoor activities. While not a retail use, this is not going to be a cinder block building with no outdoor activities. And then on the top floor, and the reason this isn't the, why it's technically six feet, we are planning a rooftop terrace on the top floor. It will likely have a structure of some sort up there. And technically by building that structure, that's what makes it the six stories. Because even if we were to put a wood pergola up there, it becomes a floor. And so this is technically six, even though it's four stories of residential and one story of parking. So that's kind of the overall design of the building itself. Our plan is to, we're using a combination of brick and glass as the plan. And it's really to kind of, some of the old to blend into a lot of the brick buildings in the area, but also some of the new with a little bit more modern flair with the glass. Graves is doing it, local architect, he's the one that's designed it for us. And then this will be tweaked as we go through the process. Let's see if I want to go this way. Okay. Now I'll talk a little bit about the plan itself. It's always hard on a 2D portion, I'm going to go a little bit through Cheryl's comments on it, on here, and then also respond to some of Mr. Michler's comments. So you'll see if you have the supplemental justification letter in front of you. Currently right now, this area here has a large parking garage. It's a two car parking garage. That will be removed as part of this project. And as part of removing that parking garage, it will open up this area. We will have that generator there. That's not a generator that runs on a regular basis. It's an emergency generator. So if the power goes out, elevators will work, emergency lights will work. I believe, my understanding is, these generators test themselves once a month. But it's a short test and it kind of goes through that cycle. It's just part of having dense housing. Sometimes there is extra noise, but that is not something that will be running on a regular basis. Then the AC units themselves, the intent is to have those on the roof. They will be rooftop. I'm not 100% certain if there will be a larger chiller system or individualized AC units. That will be handled during the construction design phase, but the intent is there will not be any ground surface AC units. The Schnabel family owns this. How this came about was when we were doing our stakeholder outreach, the Cowgills reached out to the Schnabels, actually asked the Schnabels if they'd be interested in selling their property along with Billy Justice. They were not interested, but they said they were interested in maybe joining us on our rezoning, because currently the mother and the daughter work together. The mother is closer to retirement age and eventually they would like to convert this to have an apartment as part of the overall project. Now with the P1 zone, you cannot have a principal use and a residential use on the same floor unless the employee or the owner lives in the back apartment and works in the front. So that would limit if they were to convert this to essentially them living in the apartment or finding someone who wants to do that. So as part of the discussions, we told them that we would bring them along. They are not planning on, I know Cheryl said when, but it's really if. We've been told they have no plans on changing anything on that lot. That lot will stay the same for many, many years. And so that's what the Schnabel family wants to do. So they're part of this project with us. On the tree mitigation, Cheryl listed three trees on their list for significant trees. The bur oak. The bur oak is currently here at this location. If you look at the photos on the supplemental plan, you'll see that on one side of the fence is asphalt paving and on the other side of the fence is asphalt paving. I think this is a great example of where there is a will to live, there is life. And this bur oak has survived within essentially growing in this parking lot for a number of years. So with this plan, the bur oak is going to stay and then we will be opening up this area where currently the garage is so the bur oak will have, in addition to the existing space here, it will have more growth room in that area. We have talked with the urban forester. We're going to try to save that bur oak. That's our plan. The second item is this elm tree in this location that's currently on the property line. The fence, the roots are essentially in the area of the garage. With removing that garage, we'll also be adding more open space in that area. The ginkgo and the southern magnolia, those two trees will be removed. But we are preserving 18-inch elm, 28-inch bur oak, 24-inch willow oak, a 10 and 11-inch magnolias, 28-inch hackberry, 15-inch holly, 12 other trees that are between 5 and 9 diameter. So this is not a project in which we are clear-cutting the site. We will be moving these two trees that are located in this area that you don't see on here. And then we'll be removing some of the smaller trees going down the property lines that are mostly dogwoods, crabapple and some other trees. But we will be adding 19 new trees along the street. Currently there are no street—I believe there are no street trees. To the extent—I think there may be one on Kentucky or two that are small street trees. So we'll be adding additional 19 trees. In addition to that, the Galkiels have agreed that as to the significant trees they are removing, they have committed to the urban forester that we will donate 2 to 1 so that the urban forester and the parks department can plant those trees at a different location. We've been talking about Woodland Park being that location. But once again, there's a number of significant trees. We're taking down two of them for this project which, as you guys know, is a lot less being removed than most projects that we see in Lexington and the Galkiels want to keep as many trees on site and we've tried to design the site to do that. The bicycle parking, we will handle that. The access easement, we've already changed the development plan. And I think—let me see here—so I think that—oh, the dumpster. So the reason the dumpster is a little confusing and sounds like a little wonky is that it says temporary because it is not going to be a permanently outdoor dumpster. The dumpster will be, I believe, at six—how many cubic feet? Four cubic feet. It will be inside the building and sort of like your Herbie's, except this will be inside and then on garbage day it will be wheeled out, picked up by private garbage. So most of the week there will not be any dumpster on the exterior or in the parking lot for this. We'll wheel it out every single day. And so that was on the dumpster question. And with that, I'll—if you have any questions, I am here to answer them. I see there are a few people in the audience who may want to speak. I'll come back up and address any items that they may have. So I'm here at your discretion. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Groves. Mr. McClure. Well, I'll just comment two quick things. One, thank you for clarifying that on the dumpster. I think that that's a better practice in general than—and it would be nice if our city allowed that for more projects. And so I appreciate you doing it on this one. Can I interject? me and my clients is, well, tell me where you want your dumpster, then we'll design the site. Because the dumpster gives everyone so much trouble with our regulations. So I will make that note. Coming back from that conversation with Cheryl on the generator, I would say that, as you know, that tree is partially surviving because it has roots that sort of spread pretty wide and are tapping in. Trenching is obviously a lot more impactful than boring when you all are doing that service. If you all are building that and doing that service work, you trench, you basically sever everything in half all the way down. Okay. And that's something we can look at between now and the time we're back for a final, if we get approval, and we can discuss that at that time. Okay. Do we have any other questions for the applicant at this time? Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you, Brandon. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application today? All right. Hello, everybody. Good to see you again. I'm Zach Leonard, the Historic Preservation Manager at the Blue Grass Trust for Historic Preservation. First of all, I would like to thank the property owners and CalGIL for taking the time to speak with me prior to this meeting. Probably nothing I am going to say will come as a surprise to them, and I've been trying hard to find a compromise that will satisfy all parties. I think it's pretty clear that 518 East Main, which is a unique and significant historic property, will be redeveloped so long as it remains under its current ownership, and that is a real shame, but I won't belabor that point today. What I really want to talk about is the neighboring building at 512 East Main, which dates to 1886 and is also designated on the National Register. As we've already heard, the current owners do not intend to sell to CalGIL at this time and simply want the rezoning in order to accommodate a future change of use, which is fine. CalGIL has also said repeatedly in their justification letter that this building will be preserved while the other parcels are developed, and I do believe them, but in recent years there has been a troubling trend of developers making similar promises and then backtracking as soon as they get Planning Commission approval. So in other words, a developer may depict a historic building on their plan as remaining intact, but they can legally demolish it after certification without any further consideration by the Commission. Their plan would only require reapproval by the Commission if they intended to build a larger structure in that same location. So earlier this summer, Ball Homes attempted this maneuver at the former Spring Valley Golf Club and is now seeking to demolish a wonderful Robert McMeekin-designed building that they were supposedly going to repurpose as a clubhouse. Which is all to say, I imagine that many preservationists in our community would be heartened to see a note on this development plan that just indicates that 512 East Main will remain intact during the construction of the Lexingtonian. And that is only formalizing what CalGIL has already pledged to do in writing, so I can't imagine it would be that controversial. That's all I have for today. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak on this application today? Yes. Just one second, we have a question from Commissioner Wirth. I would like to ask you a question about what you just said. You said the note on the development plan would preserve it during the development? What happens after if the note is written that way? Well then hopefully we would be able to put some alternative protections on the building. I've already reached out to the property owners, but that's a question for another day. I'm just kind of more concerned. You're taking it as far as you can take it today, is that what you're saying? Yeah. Got it. Okay. Thank you. I'm Amy Clark at 628 Castle Road. I'd like to thank Mr. Mickler on the commission for asking whether there was public comment received and for speaking to the landscaping, the trees, the building. I simply want to say that I regard myself as quite possibly very representative of most of the people in the larger area who cherish historic buildings, particularly ones that are recognized on the National Register, particularly ones that adjoin an H1 or National Register district, and we're at a point of extreme discouragement. We're also very overtaxed. There are currently, I believe, 12 student towers under development or in the planning under review stages, and that's a lot of things to be thinking about and juggling. And it's a great disappointment that there is not greater regard for historic preservation, and particularly for bodies that recognize historic fabric at the state, local, and national level and not to see that heeded by this CLG community, this preservation community. It's in your hands to do the best you can with planning and development to preserve the precious parts of our community, the actual historic fabric and the trees. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have anyone else today who would like to speak to this application? If not, we will close public comment. Do we have any final Planning Commission comments or questions? As always, the floor is open for a motion. And we have... Mr. Chair. Mr. Forrester. Mr. Forrester. Three action items. Yes. I was just counting that. I'll try the first one, then. All right. If there's not any further questions, a motion for the approval of PLN MAR 26-15 based on the staff's supplemental report. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Second from Commissioner Nichol. We have a question from Commissioner Worker. Yeah. Three. Yeah. I think maybe... Did I skip one? No. That's the revised staff recommendation. We've got a supplemental report in there, too. So the variance is going to be a separate motion? Yes. So, Mr. Forrester, that was a motion on the zone map amendment, correct? At the bottom of page nine. Yeah. But we've got a supplemental report. Yes. That's what I meant. Correct. Okay. All right. We're good. Okay. So we had a motion from Mr. Forrester, a second from Commissioner Nichol. Any discussion to that motion? Yes, sir. Mr. McClure. Well, I was looking at this plan and in the context of our comprehensive plan and in the context of those discussions on what is downtown, we've had a broader discussion on downtown and we're having one now with the downtown ZOTA. I... The biggest... I mean, I also... It just always hurts to see beautiful historic architecture demolished. It just always does, no matter what new thing is proposed. No matter how many check boxes the new item hits, it still hurts to see historic architecture that was well done with beautiful materials and long-lasting torn down. I just have to say that because sometimes I vote for it, sometimes I vote against it, but I never leave feeling good about seeing, you know, slate roofs demolished so that we can put rubber membrane up on the next building. It just doesn't seem right the way that we do that. In terms of this design and in terms of the zone, I mean, I think... I don't... I mean, over and over we see people ask for P1 to be changed. That's not surprising. I understand the staff's argument for the place type of downtown. I just... When I think of downtown and when I think of what we want of downtown and when I think of what describes the place of downtown, I don't really envision a downtown of first floor parking lots with activity above them with entrances in the rear... The real entrance and lobbies in the rear of our buildings. That's just not what I see. And so, I mean, I can respect every vote here today and the decisions because there's a lot of good things on this plan. But when it comes to downtown for me, I think the future is the front of the building. The future is the street. The future is real activity on the street, not a debate whether we have sort of this sheet of glass or wrought iron or whatever we're going to do. That's kind of my two cents. Thank you, Mr. Mickler. Do we have any other comments on the zone change motion? If not, we can put that to a vote. Okay. That carries 7-1. Mr. Forrester. And Mr. Chair, I move for approval for PLN MJDP 26-55 based on the staff revised recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. I have a... Well, let's get a second on the floor. Mr. Nickel. Thank you. Second from Mr. Nickel. Speaking personally, I am sympathetic to what was mentioned regarding a note on the development plan for the one-story structure. If nobody else has any interest in that, I will respect it. Okay. Commissioner Worth. That's all. I would be a yes on adding that note. Say that again. It's just that Dr. Leonard mentioned about a note on the development plan regarding the one-story structure, just that it would remain at least through construction. I need to ask. I can't be okay with something. The applicant is not. I think we could be possibly in agreement on that, but it would be nice if we could see it or for it to be a little bit more articulated. If the question is, is that, is it 512? I'm blanking out here. Yes, I think it's 512. If the condition is 512 will not be removed during construction of 518? 518? I think we're comfortable with that. And just, was that the intent? Okay. I just wanted to make sure I got that right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gross. So, yeah. On the development plan, I would like to revise my motion to include to keep 518. 512. 512 while the applicant is in construction of 518. Is that correct? Is that what? That's what I believe is the intent. So. I'm fine with it. Okay. Mr. Nickel, are you okay with that revision? No, he's okay with it. He said he was. Mr. Nickel, you're the seconder. Are you okay with it? Okay. He said he was. Yes. Okay. I just want it to be on the record. Okay. So, we have a revised motion from Mr. Forrester. Mr. Nickel is consenting to that revision. Do we have any discussion on the development plan as with the additional note? If not, we can put that to a vote. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Forrester. Mr. Chair, I move for the approval of the variances as presented by staff for both variances. Okay. For approval. For approval. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Second from Commissioner Nickel. Any discussion on the variances? Yes. Yes, sir. Mr. Wilson. I think did they make a decision it was a change of one and a half or something to one and a half feet? Oh. Staff recommended one and a half feet on both setbacks. Does that have to go in the motion? That don't have to be in the motion. I thought that was already part of their presentation. There's a staff. The report in front of you recommends approval of a staff alternative based on those dimensions. So, supporting the staff's recommendation would be supporting the one and a half on both. Okay. Thank you. Just want to clarify. Thanks for moving. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will go ahead and put that to a vote as well. That carries unanimously. Okay. Thank you, applicant. Thank you, everyone who spoke on that particular item. Now, do we have any commission items before we go to Mr. Duncan? Seeing none, Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A reminder that the next meeting of the Planning Commission is on Thursday, September 3rd for committees in the Phoenix building, 830 and 130. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. If we have nothing else without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you.