[1:18] here on behalf of a couple
[1:21] clients the first of which is on
[1:26] page 5 of your agenda the ok
[1:30] gentry m a-r 26-16 I would like
[1:33] to request a two month
[1:37] postponement to the NOVEMBER
[1:38] 26 --
[1:39] NOVEMBER 19th planning
[1:41] commission meeting.
[1:44] We have met with staff last week
[1:46] and have developed a plan on
[1:48] kind of how to move forward.
[1:51] It's just going to take us time
[1:53] to do the development plan work.
[2:01] >> had all right.
[2:04] >> I move for post pope.
[2:09] Of plan MARCH 2616 and the
[2:12] development plan to NOVEMBER
[2:13] thirteenth as --
[2:15] 19th as requested bay the
[2:15] applicants.
[2:17] >> motion and seconded.
[2:20] All those in favor?
[2:25] Let's go to our voting here.
[2:28] All right.
[2:29] Unanimous.
[2:32] >> the next one is on page 6 of
[2:36] your agenda.
[2:40] It is 26 --
[2:42] I apologize.
[2:45] It is right next door to each
[2:49] other page 8 of your agenda,
[2:54] 26-17 on behalf of ball homes we
[2:56] ask a one-month postponement to
[2:59] the OCTOBER 22 planning
[3:02] commission agenda and the same
[3:04] rational we have met with staff
[3:06] and it will take time to get an
[3:09] updated plan in but we believe
[3:11] we will be able to hit that
[3:11] agenda.
[3:12] >> all right.
[3:16] Do I hear a motion for
[3:17] postponement.
[3:17] MR. Penn.
[3:24] >> I move for postponement of
[3:28] pln-mar 26-17 for the OCTOBER
[3:29] 22nd meeting.
[3:32] >> a second by commissioner
[3:33] worth.
[3:38] all right let's vote.
[3:40] All right unanimous.
[3:43] >> and the last one is page 18
[3:47] of your agenda m a-r 26-21,
[3:49] regency holding 3.
[3:51] We have also met with staff and
[3:54] should be able to hit the next
[3:56] month agenda so we ask for the
[4:00] one month postponement to that
[4:02] OCTOBER 22nd date.
[4:06] This one has kind of grown in
[4:07] waivers and conditional use
[4:10] permits and a lot of fun but
[4:11] we've got everything done and we
[4:13] should be able to hit that
[4:13] agenda.
[4:14] >> all right.
[4:26] Can we hear a motion?
[4:34] >> per the 'kaptd's request I
[4:39] move for postponement of pln-
[4:42] 26-21 to OCTOBER 2.
[4:45] >> motion has been made and
[4:47] seconded in advance by
[4:48] commissioner davis.
[4:50] All those in favor let's vote.
[4:52] All right.
[4:54] >> thank you all so very much.
[5:02] >> thank you.
[5:05] >> nathan billings from billings
[5:07] law firm this is item 7 on page
[5:11] 16 of your agenda pln-mar 26-20.
[5:13] And there is a related
[5:15] development plan and related
[5:19] waiver request we ask for a
[5:19] one-month postponement.
[5:22] >> all right he is asking for a
[5:24] one-month postponement, can I
[5:25] get a motion.
[5:28] >> that for the OCTOBER 22nd
[5:29] meeting.
[5:29] >> correct.
[5:33] >> a motion for approval of
[5:36] pln-mar 26-20, postponement to
[5:39] the OCTOBER 22nd meeting.
[5:41] >> all right.
[5:43] We have a motion made and
[5:43] seconded.
[5:47] All right let's vote.
[5:49] Okay.
[5:49] Postponed.
[5:52] all right.
[5:56] >> I'm dick murphy on page 2
[6:00] item one, south broadway project
[6:05] map amendment that is at 1021,
[6:09] 105 stoin and sen 59, on south
[6:11] broadway I represent the
[6:14] applicant we are requesting an
[6:18] indefinite postponement of this
[6:18] item.
[6:20] >> all right.
[6:23] Further request for an
[6:23] indefinite postponement.
[6:24] Can I get a motion.
[6:29] >> I move for indefinite
[6:33] postponement of pln-mjdp parker
[6:35] tobacco on south broadway.
[6:40] >> m a-r 2 sicts-80.
[6:46] >> pln-mar 26-8.
[6:49] >> okay.
[6:53] And seconded by commissioner
[6:53] forrester.
[6:59] All right, let's vote.
[7:03] Okay.
[7:08] >> and on page 11, item 5,
[7:12] pln-mar 26-18 anderson
[7:13] communities.
[7:15] 4200 todds road and the
[7:16] associated development plan
[7:18] we're continuing to make our
[7:20] changes to the plan we met with
[7:22] the association tuesday.
[7:24] We want to give everybody more
[7:25] time to react.
[7:28] We are asking for a two-week
[7:31] postponement to to the OCTOBER
[7:35] 8th planning commission meeting.
[7:39] >> okay.
[7:41] Heard the request for a two-week
[7:42] postponement to OCTOBER 8th.
[7:45] >> I motion for approval of a
[7:47] two week postponement for
[7:50] pln-mar 26-18.
[7:52] For the OCTOBER 8th meeting.
[7:56] >> second by commissioner worth.
[7:57] >> all right.
[8:04] Let's vote.
[8:05] Okay.
[8:09] >> thank you.
[8:12] >> next?
[8:12] Had.
[8:15] >> good afternoon charlotte
[8:18] Mccoy I'm here for the item on
[8:21] page three item number 2.
[8:25] The edward mcghee property, m
[8:27] a-r 26-9.
[8:30] We'd like to ask for an
[8:31] indefinite postponement on this
[8:31] matter.
[8:32] Thank you.
[8:34] >> postpone until when?
[8:36] >> indefinite, please.
[8:38] >> I'm sorry I was getting
[8:40] papers when you said what case.
[8:45] >> item 3.
[8:46] 26-9.
[8:49] >> page 3, item 2.
[8:53] >> page 3, item 2.
[8:56] >> indefinite postponement.
[8:58] Can I hear a motion?
[9:03] >> I will move for an indefinite
[9:09] postponement for pln-mar 26-9,
[9:16] mcghee [Inaudible].
[9:21] >> commissioner forrester.
[9:26] Let's vote.
[9:32] And that is unanimous.
[9:33] All right.
[9:37] Thank you.
[9:37] Okay.
[9:45] All right.
[9:46] >> good afternoon.
[9:48] Your docket is getting shorter
[9:52] by the minute I do have one post
[9:52] upon.
[9:56] On behalf of brandon gross, page
[10:00] 14, item 6a and b for up campus
[10:02] he is asking a one-month
[10:04] postponement he had the
[10:05] opportunity to go back and meet
[10:07] with staff they are trying to
[10:08] address concerns and
[10:10] modifications to the development
[10:12] plan and they are scheduling
[10:13] neighborhood meetings.
[10:17] >> postponement until OCTOBER
[10:17] 22.
[10:17] >> yes.
[10:21] >> can I get a motion?
[10:29] >> I move for one month post
[10:29] own.
[10:34] For m a-r 26-19 and associated
[10:53] development plan.
[10:55] >> okay.
[10:56] We're unanimous now.
[10:57] >> thank you.
[10:58] >> thank you.
[11:00] >> okay.
[11:03] Any other postponements and
[11:03] withdrawals?
[11:05] I don't know if there's anything
[11:08] left on our pages here?
[11:09] All right.
[11:11] So we covered everything.
[11:13] So we're ready to go to the
[11:14] zotas.
[11:34] Pick up on page 21.
[11:37] >> this will be on page 21 of
[11:43] your agenda.
[11:44] Good afternoon everyone daniel
[11:47] crum planning staff.
[12:14] We need the --
[12:15] daniel crum planning staff.
[12:17] The first item here is a
[12:21] consideration of a zota handling
[12:22] attended donation centers.
[12:25] This was a text amendment
[12:27] initiated by the public goodwill
[12:30] of kentucky is the applicant and
[12:33] the intent behind this text
[12:35] amendment was to create a
[12:37] definition for attended donation
[12:39] centers and allow them in
[12:40] commercial zones.
[12:42] Good will is the applicant.
[12:44] The business model includes a
[12:45] retail component with their
[12:48] stores where they sell donated
[12:50] items of clothing and household
[12:51] goods they have the facilities
[12:54] for on sight donations sorting
[12:55] and storage.
[12:57] The applicant is seeking to
[13:00] create this definition to give
[13:02] them additional flexibility how
[13:03] they operate.
[13:05] They want to operate without
[13:09] resale sales, areas just for
[13:10] donations, drop-off and sorting
[13:13] without the retail component.
[13:15] Here is a picture of one of the
[13:17] existing locations within
[13:18] lexington.
[13:20] Once again, they are prone to
[13:23] kind of reutilizing existing
[13:25] thes but without a retail focus.
[13:28] There is an area for drop-off an
[13:31] area for pick up and area to
[13:33] acomplicate the truck traffic
[13:38] the applicant b-3, b-4, and
[13:39] pud-3 as principle uses and
[13:41] would like the flexibility to
[13:43] use them as a conditional use in
[13:46] the b-1 zone when they are
[13:49] adjacent to an arterial roadway.
[13:51] Staff looked at specifically how
[13:54] this would impact the b-1 zone
[13:57] where the intent is to meet the
[13:58] needs of the communities.
[14:00] Staff felt without a residential
[14:03] component that last piece was
[14:04] not appropriate.
[14:05] But finding that the use would
[14:08] be appropriate in other more
[14:09] intense commercial zones that
[14:12] were not so tailored to
[14:14] accommodate once again your
[14:16] day-to-day shopping uses.
[14:19] The staff largely adopted the
[14:20] applicant's definition, however
[14:22] we found that the conditional
[14:24] use and utilizing this in the
[14:26] b-1 is not appropriate.
[14:28] This would allow goodwill and
[14:30] institutions to have the normal
[14:31] retail locations with the
[14:33] drop-off component but having
[14:36] the facilities where it was only
[14:38] dropping off below indicated
[14:38] elsewhere.
[14:40] Staff is recommending approval
[14:43] of the staff alternative text
[14:44] giving the nonprofit businesses
[14:47] and organizations additional
[14:48] flexibility but retaining that
[14:51] neighborhood zones for active
[14:52] neighborhood business type uses.
[14:56] And with that I will be happy to
[14:57] entertain any questions you have
[14:58] of staff at this time.
[15:01] >> do we have any questions for
[15:04] staff?
[15:05] thank you.
[15:06] Okay.
[15:07] And we'll hear from the
[15:19] applicant next.
[15:21] >> good afternoon, everyone.
[15:35] I believe we have a slide deck.
[15:38] I'm adam haley the director of
[15:40] affairs at goodwill kentucky and
[15:42] I appreciate you taking the time
[15:45] to hear from us today.
[15:46] Background with folks unfamiliar
[15:54] with goodwill kentucky, it is a
[15:54] 103-year-old nonprofit
[15:55] headquartered in kentucky.
[15:57] Our board our C.E.O. All our
[16:00] folks are here and the donations
[16:02] go back into communities to help
[16:03] us achieve our mission getting
[16:06] more folks back to employment.
[16:09] The number is outdated closer to
[16:11] 4,000 kentuckians back into the
[16:13] workforce every year and we do
[16:15] that through our 70 retail
[16:18] stores we operate and 12
[16:20] opportunity centers our career
[16:20] services arm.
[16:23] However in order to fund those
[16:25] programs we rely on the
[16:26] donations of citizens from
[16:28] across the commonwealth and they
[16:30] need as many options as
[16:31] possible.
[16:34] The research shows donation
[16:36] frequency is key to convenience
[16:39] and it's likely why you see in
[16:41] places the bins started to
[16:43] pop-up because folks in their
[16:45] own charity want to find ways to
[16:48] help but it is they have busy
[16:48] lives.
[16:52] We proposed this attended
[16:54] donation center amendment as
[16:56] staff so shared to provide
[16:58] flexibility to us to get the
[16:59] donations.
[17:01] And what do the donations do?
[17:04] They fund 127 million a year in
[17:06] wages in kentucky for our
[17:08] program staff.
[17:12] Of which 81% meet goodwill's
[17:14] mission of being disconnected
[17:17] from the workforce from systemic
[17:19] poverty, incarceration, recovery
[17:22] I broke it out about 19 million
[17:24] per year in central kentucky.
[17:29] And our opportunity center has
[17:31] placed 247 people into
[17:33] employment outside of our
[17:35] organization at an average wage
[17:38] of $15.07 an hour.
[17:41] The other part is we divert 50
[17:44] million pounds of waste from
[17:46] landfills through the donation
[17:47] centers and our stores.
[17:51] Why are we here what is an adc?
[17:53] We operate retail stores across
[17:55] the community.
[17:57] But sometimes there's
[17:58] opportunities before we're able
[18:00] to open a store, or in a
[18:02] facility that MAY not be a
[18:05] suitable use for a store, too
[18:07] small square-footage we seek to
[18:09] operate attended donation
[18:09] centers.
[18:12] We did start one in lexington
[18:14] working to develop our cardinal
[18:16] valley store and that is how
[18:17] this got started.
[18:19] When we understood that the
[18:21] planning amendment the zoning
[18:23] amendments did not allow for
[18:26] that use we quickly closed that
[18:28] facility and then continued on
[18:30] our process of building out that
[18:32] cardinal valley store to
[18:34] accommodate the community.
[18:36] As staff mentioned these are
[18:39] staffed locations these are not
[18:41] unattended centers but attended
[18:42] by staff, four to five
[18:45] individuals taking donations,
[18:47] sorting, cataloging and we do
[18:49] take those to other stores
[18:52] within the community for resale.
[18:54] They are on top of being
[18:56] attended we also do have staff
[18:58] come in when we get donations
[19:00] afterhours to go ahead and take
[19:03] those donations and prevent
[19:04] clutter from building up.
[19:06] I also mentioned they MAY not
[19:09] fit a retail use because
[19:11] sometimes we seek reuse of
[19:13] facilities perhaps pharmacies,
[19:16] banks, other smaller locations
[19:18] that wouldn't support a retail
[19:20] store but have the existing
[19:22] nfrastructure to support an
[19:24] attended donation facility.
[19:25] Staff included photos but here
[19:28] is a photo of one of our
[19:30] facilities here in lexington.
[19:33] You can see very much look like
[19:35] a retail stores we take pride in
[19:37] providing a place that people
[19:38] want to work and want to
[19:40] support.
[19:43] These are nice facilities.
[19:47] This is a nice facility at
[19:47] night.
[19:50] What it isn't, they are not
[19:52] donation begin bins these are
[19:54] staff sites you MAY have seen
[19:57] some of these in the community
[19:58] operated by other folks.
[20:04] These are not goodwills' bins.
[20:07] But I think people hear donation
[20:09] facility sometimes their minds
[20:11] can go to what is the worst case
[20:13] scenario this is not what we are
[20:17] proposing with this zota; the
[20:17] text amendment.
[20:20] With that I'm happy to take any
[20:21] questions.
[20:24] >> do we have any questions for
[20:25] the applicant.
[20:27] >> laura nickels representing
[20:30] goodwill and to clarify we
[20:34] accept staff revisions we will
[20:35] proceed with the staff changes
[20:37] to our text amendment.
[20:42] >> yes I a quick comment.
[20:44] About the two images we just saw
[20:47] the different between an
[20:50] unattended donation center or
[20:53] box, and an attended building
[20:55] for donations, it couldn't be
[20:58] more clear which is more
[21:00] appealing and conducive to
[21:00] neighborhoods.
[21:02] That was a good slide you
[21:03] showed.
[21:03] Thank you.
[21:04] >> appreciate it.
[21:09] >> an other questions for the
[21:11] applicant?
[21:14] >> if you all wanted to convert
[21:17] one of these donation centers to
[21:19] a retail center, what would you
[21:19] have to do?
[21:22] >> on the front end a feel that
[21:25] would accommodate a full retail
[21:28] store that cardinal valley
[21:30] location was a walgreens we
[21:32] repurposed into a store.
[21:35] If it were to become a retail
[21:36] store it would have to be large
[21:38] enough for us to have the sales
[21:40] floor without getting into
[21:42] specifics because it will depend
[21:43] what is at the site.
[21:45] Most of our retail stores will
[21:48] be at a minimum twice as large
[21:50] as the attended donation
[21:50] centers.
[21:51] At that point we prefer to
[21:53] operate a store but sometimes
[21:57] these locations are more
[22:03] conducive to a retail center.
[22:07] >> so it would have to be
[22:07] larger.
[22:10] >> any further questions?
[22:13] Do we have public comment?
[22:14] Approach the mic and state your
[22:15] name.
[22:18] >> good afternoon.
[22:21] Paula singer, 110 hamilton park
[22:24] directly off the versailles road
[22:25] consider door.
[22:28] I'd like to first of all thank
[22:31] planning staff and goodwill for
[22:35] removing the b-1 zone from this
[22:37] zota request and now I ask you
[22:41] to please remove b-3 from this
[22:43] zota request.
[22:45] The two mile stretch of
[22:47] versailles road corridor from
[22:50] parkers mill to forbes red mile
[22:52] road comprises a good mix of
[22:55] commercial and residential
[22:56] zoning.
[22:58] In that stretch the vast
[23:01] majority are zoned b-1.
[23:03] There are six properties that
[23:06] are zoned b-3.
[23:10] A starbucks, a pawnshop, fifth
[23:13] third bank, the new marks bury
[23:16] library, the save a lot grocery
[23:18] store and within that grocery
[23:22] library parkin lot, a credit
[23:25] union, all of these serve the
[23:28] people of this neighborhood.
[23:31] In addition, we have a new
[23:34] elementary school within that
[23:38] two-mile stretch.
[23:40] And within and directly to the
[23:44] north and directly to the south
[23:46] of this corridor we have
[23:48] housing.
[23:49] Single-family housing,
[23:51] apartments for seniors, low
[23:53] income apartments, apartments
[23:55] for the medically challenged.
[23:58] Housing for those in recovery.
[24:01] And we believe we will soon be
[24:03] getting housing for those
[24:05] currently unhoused.
[24:10] Our corridor is lextran's most
[24:12] used corridor.
[24:14] We need sidewalks for the
[24:17] constant flow of pedestrians and
[24:20] wheelchair users along our
[24:20] corridor.
[24:23] We need protected bike lanes for
[24:26] those whose only means of
[24:29] transportation is a bicycle.
[24:32] We need more retail, eat in
[24:35] restaurants and community
[24:37] services as recommended in the
[24:40] cardinal valley small area plan.
[24:44] We do not need any of our b-3
[24:48] zoning to be used for an
[24:49] automobile centric drop-off
[24:50] center.
[24:53] Again, I ask you to please
[24:55] simply remove b-3 from this zota
[24:56] request.
[24:57] Thank you.
[24:59] >> thank you.
[25:02] any other public comment on this
[26:25] zota?
[26:27] All right.
[26:30] >> thank you I had to rush home
[26:34] and get the letter off the
[26:34] printer.
[26:36] Good afternoon members.
[26:38] Let me begin by saying I support
[26:40] the staff recommendation to
[26:41] strike the provision for
[26:44] attended donation centers,
[26:45] proposed new use from the b-1.
[26:48] I think we can go farther.
[26:49] I think it should be struck as
[26:52] well from the proposed b-3
[26:55] corridor business and be 6p
[26:56] commercial center.
[26:58] These zones are envisioned as
[27:01] locations to foster and protect
[27:05] robust multimodal transportation
[27:06] designed to be welcoming and
[27:07] safe.
[27:09] Not just for vehicles.
[27:12] They've been amended to
[27:13] stimulate the development of
[27:15] closely mixed-uses.
[27:17] Their uses and design should
[27:18] meet the needs of lexington
[27:20] residents while reducing
[27:23] reliance on personal vehicles.
[27:25] Allowing in these zones the
[27:26] drop-off and processing of goods
[27:30] not offered for sale at this
[27:31] site, is scarcely an
[27:33] encouragement to use this
[27:34] valuable land at kilo
[27:36] indications to best meet
[27:38] community needs.
[27:41] These are three zones centrally
[27:44] cited to serve the community's
[27:45] daily needs.
[27:47] The b-1 is a neighborhood
[27:49] business zone and neighborhood
[27:51] turning focused serving.
[27:54] The b-3 corridor runs right
[27:56] along with buses and so forth.
[28:00] So that people can make sure
[28:03] daily errands there and the b-6
[28:05] p commercial center you go to
[28:06] the anchor store and other
[28:07] places at the same time.
[28:09] These are all good places for
[28:12] people who have limited options
[28:13] for transportation.
[28:15] But need the same shopping that
[28:16] eeryone else does.
[28:19] I believe the drive-thru or
[28:20] drive-up should be recognized as
[28:22] a straight use.
[28:25] I've put the definition of it up
[28:27] there maybe changing in council
[28:30] I think you can see that it's a
[28:31] drive-up or a drive-thru and if
[28:34] that is to be a part of it it
[28:37] should be separately allowed and
[28:37] regulated.
[28:41] It is a special completing
[28:43] forteler made use none of the
[28:45] other people who do donation and
[28:47] resale seems to be clamoring for
[28:50] this and I've listed some who
[28:50] are not.
[28:52] I don't know why it should be
[28:54] restricted to nonprofits if it's
[28:58] to be such a use.
[29:00] Others don't want or need it
[29:03] they want people to donate,
[29:05] cosign and buy all in one trip
[29:06] and come by often.
[29:10] It is essentially a store
[29:10] monday.
[29:13] If you approve this you are
[29:14] approving the option to have a
[29:17] place to drop-off goods for
[29:19] donation, where you can't do any
[29:19] shopping.
[29:22] There are no goods or services
[29:26] offered to you beyond relief of
[29:27] unwanted things it is a store
[29:31] without the store.
[29:34] And two employees their filing
[29:37] said it would employ two people
[29:40] during its hours of operation.
[29:42] Not much for these valuable
[29:43] zones.
[29:45] So I would encourage that you
[29:47] deny it in fact you could put
[29:51] the b-4 into the very next zota
[29:53] it's been well reviewed and I
[29:55] think it would be a welcome use
[29:55] in the b-4.
[29:56] Thank you.
[29:58] >> thank you.
[29:58] All right.
[30:00] Do we have any other public
[30:04] comment on this zota?
[30:06] Not hearing any, applicant would
[30:16] you like to respond?
[30:19] >> I'll respond briefly and say
[30:21] we appreciate working with the
[30:22] planning commission staff and
[30:23] their thoughtful consideration
[30:26] of this zota and as my colleague
[30:29] said are amenable to the changes
[30:31] the staff have returned.
[30:33] I believe some of the
[30:35] information in this attached
[30:36] document regarding our
[30:39] intentions for the sites is
[30:42] misunderstanding as I directed
[30:42] earlier.
[30:43] We look for opportunities to
[30:46] locate stores they do help fund
[30:47] fuel the mission but where
[30:49] there's opportunities for
[30:51] adaptive reuse and the market
[30:53] supports it, is the only place
[30:55] we would see these adc's.
[30:56] I appreciate the staff's
[30:58] consideration and urge you all
[31:00] to approve it as recommended.
[31:01] >> thank you.
[31:03] >> I will add that the b-3 zone
[31:06] is specifically for a major
[31:07] connector roadway that serves
[31:09] the need of the broader
[31:10] lexington community and that is
[31:14] what the adc is intended to do.
[31:16] >> okay.
[31:19] >> I have a question for you
[31:20] applicant.
[31:22] Let's just go through the
[31:24] process of your site selection
[31:25] we have not seen you come
[31:27] through with a development plan
[31:31] to build a new construction
[31:31] facility.
[31:34] So that leads me to infer that
[31:37] what you are doing is looking at
[31:39] property that is for lease, for
[31:42] sale, currently vacant that you
[31:44] think you can provide a public
[31:46] good with by running your
[31:46] business.
[31:48] Am I correct in that
[31:49] understanding?
[31:53] Or are you also --
[31:54] let me back up.
[31:56] I appreciate your comment when
[31:59] you use the term adaptive reuse.
[32:01] That has a different term for us
[32:03] in planning and zoning but that
[32:06] is what we're doing you all are
[32:08] taking vacant property and
[32:10] putting together a good use for
[32:12] our community.
[32:12] I commend you for that.
[32:15] >> thank you, sir.
[32:18] >> yes.
[32:20] >> thank you.
[32:22] However, once you have a zone
[32:24] and text amendment it applies
[32:26] not just to you but to every
[32:30] other nonprofit as is stated in
[32:33] the text amendment.
[32:36] So it's a conundrum because you
[32:39] have come before us with your
[32:42] goodwill, all puns intended but
[32:43] we don't have the same
[32:47] reassurance that every other
[32:51] entity might go forth in that
[32:51] manner.
[32:55] That's my concern might stem
[32:57] from.
[32:59] >> if I can address that.
[33:01] That is specifically why the
[33:04] definition is so narrowly
[33:05] tailored why we limited it and
[33:08] worked with staff to limit it to
[33:10] nonprofit organizations with
[33:11] very specific items that are
[33:15] similar to what a goodwill
[33:17] salvation army or habitat in our
[33:18] community do because we think
[33:20] they are all good partners they
[33:23] would be the ones eligible and
[33:26] if they wanted to use an adc
[33:27] model to utilize it.
[33:30] And that is also why it would
[33:32] require attended so it could not
[33:34] become a drop-off point it's
[33:36] required to have attendants and
[33:39] each site we have two employees
[33:42] at any given time they would
[33:45] staff four to six employees
[33:46] total per site.
[33:49] >> commissioner?
[33:51] >> any other questions for the
[33:51] applicant?
[33:54] Thank you.
[33:57] Does staff have any comment?
[33:59] >> no additional comment.
[34:05] >> so back to the commission.
[34:06] Okay.
[34:07] You all can be seated.
[34:10] >> can one of you any of you all
[34:13] of you please address the
[34:15] concern about how this might
[34:18] impact that stretch of
[34:20] versailles road where there are
[34:23] other businesses in a b-3 that
[34:26] are zoned b-3 but which
[34:28] accommodate multiple modes of
[34:29] travel not just vehicles?
[34:32] And what you think about that.
[34:35] Have you considered that
[34:39] removing b-3 from areas where
[34:40] these attended donation centers
[34:42] could occur?
[34:44] >> I guess I would say as sort
[34:46] of a broader blanket statement
[34:49] we have b-3 that it's located on
[34:51] the corridor depending what part
[34:53] of the community they maybe in,
[34:55] it maybe closer to residential,
[34:58] so b-3 looks a variety of ways
[35:00] as you look across the
[35:00] community.
[35:02] And so our comfort with this
[35:04] being in the b-3 stemmed from
[35:06] the other principally permitted
[35:08] uses in the zone the
[35:10] similarities how they could
[35:10] operate.
[35:12] So that was the lens that staff
[35:13] looked at.
[35:15] It doesn't --
[35:17] we are not looking at a
[35:19] particular zone change at a
[35:20] particular location but our
[35:22] hesitancy for the b-1 stemmed
[35:24] from the fact it wasn't meeting
[35:26] the intent of the local shopping
[35:28] but the b-3 you are starting to
[35:31] look at things more specialized
[35:34] a by right permitted use maybe a
[35:36] four wheeler shop not something
[35:39] most of us would use but you are
[35:41] looking at a roadway that can
[35:43] accommodate the larger traffic
[35:45] and more standardized approach
[35:47] to drive-thrus being permitted
[35:52] that is the lens we looked at
[35:54] comparing to what is allowed in
[35:56] the zone and you are correct in
[35:59] stating that brought up this
[36:01] doesn't apply just to goodwill
[36:03] but what we were seeing in
[36:05] general with the guardrails put
[36:07] in plates specifying they did
[36:09] have to be actively employed it
[36:11] wasn't a drop-off led staff to
[36:14] be comfortable with the zoning
[36:15] framework we see here.
[36:17] >> thank you.
[36:19] >> anybody else have any
[36:23] comments, questions?
[36:29] All right.
[36:32] >> first of all to the goodwill
[36:33] people you have been in business
[36:37] for over 100 years and I wish
[36:39] you the best for 100 years you
[36:41] provide a measurable value to
[36:44] our the caos I have one goodwill
[36:46] store and it is a retail
[36:50] function but they do a very good
[36:50] job.
[36:52] With that in mind and to the
[36:53] addressing some of the concerns
[36:55] from the community, I think from
[36:56] my perspective some of the
[36:58] questions have been raised were
[37:00] some that I had but the staff
[37:02] has addressed those.
[37:04] To that end I would like to move
[37:08] for approval of pln-zota 26-7
[37:13] and that is approval to the
[37:13] staff alternative text for the
[37:18] two reasons provided by behalf
[37:21] and pln-26-7.
[37:24] >> and a second by commissioner
[37:24] nicol.
[37:26] All right.
[37:36] Let's vote.
[37:41] All right that motion carries.
[37:42] All right.
[38:22] Next?
[38:36] >> good afternoon planning
[38:39] commission members I'm eve
[38:41] miller and I am a senior planner
[38:42] with the long-range planning
[38:44] team in the division of planning
[38:46] and this afternoon I'm here to
[38:51] present to you pln-zota, 26-9
[38:53] update to industrial zones.%
[38:56] and we'll go ahead and dive in.
[38:59] So as you all are very familiar
[39:01] by this point, the blue sky
[39:03] small area plan was passed
[39:05] unanimously by the planning
[39:07] commission on JUNE 11th this
[39:08] summer and that year long
[39:12] process looked at the blue sky
[39:13] activity center off athens
[39:14] boonesboro road.
[39:16] And allowed the city to take a
[39:17] dive at the physical conditions
[39:20] and needs of the industrial area
[39:23] and how we could help those
[39:25] businesses thrive long-term.
[39:27] Blue sky works as it was
[39:29] otherwise known also recommended
[39:32] updates to our industrial and
[39:33] manufacturing zones.
[39:34] Mainly because we have not
[39:37] touched them or updated them
[39:39] significantly since 1983.
[39:42] When they were created and
[39:42] passed.
[39:44] The proposed regulation updates
[39:47] were in chapter 9 of the small
[39:49] area plan.
[39:52] And our plan staff's plan was to
[39:54] implement them through a zoning
[39:55] ordinance text amendment
[39:57] following the adoption of that
[39:58] small area plan.
[40:00] Staff believed that the
[40:00] recommended changes both
[40:03] implement the vision of blue sky
[40:06] works and also have citywide
[40:07] benefits for our industrial
[40:09] zones throughout lexington
[40:11] fayette county.
[40:12] The proposal seeks to implement
[40:15] changes to three zones the
[40:17] warehouse and wholesale b-4, the
[40:19] light industrial I-1 zone and
[40:24] the heavy industrial I-2 zone.
[40:26] Diving into the zota proposal
[40:28] there are five major updates
[40:30] that staff is proposing.
[40:33] The first is the removal of
[40:35] nested zoning the inclusion of
[40:37] impact based use
[40:39] classifications, the defining of
[40:41] new land use terms, the
[40:43] development of a campus model
[40:46] which we hope to codify into the
[40:47] ordinance and then the inclusion
[40:49] of eating and drinking standards
[40:52] for light industrial zones.
[40:53] So the first change that I men
[40:56] shod the nested zoning are are
[40:58] industrial regulations utilized
[41:02] a classification system where
[41:04] lower intensity land uses are
[41:06] allowed by right by reference
[41:08] and this limits the ability to
[41:10] tailor those zones to the intent
[41:13] of the manufacturing industrial
[41:14] uses but also makes it difficult
[41:16] for the reader or business
[41:20] owners to understand what is
[41:21] permitted and the activity in
[41:23] the zone.
[41:24] So in the proposal we have
[41:27] listed all the principle
[41:28] activities that are allowed in
[41:29] each.
[41:31] Second we're looking to classify
[41:33] industrial and manufacturing
[41:35] land by their impact rather than
[41:37] the activity itself.
[41:40] So this classification system of
[41:42] high versus low will allow for
[41:43] more flexibility for business
[41:45] owners and property owners
[41:48] looking to do business here in
[41:49] lexington and also thank you for
[41:51] passing the exhibit.
[41:52] Staff created that exhibit for
[41:55] you all to see what is currently
[41:56] allowed in the zoning ordinance
[42:00] and how this would transform
[42:03] into high impact should this get
[42:04] passed.
[42:05] The definitions are high impact
[42:08] are located on page one of the
[42:10] draft and low impact is located
[42:12] on page 2.
[42:15] We're proposing to codify the
[42:16] executive campus model system
[42:18] into the zoning order nadges.
[42:21] And what we found during the
[42:22] blue sky small area plan process
[42:24] when we spoke to business owners
[42:27] and property owners is they are
[42:31] facing a parcel by parcel
[42:33] redevelopment issue because each
[42:35] parcel requires development
[42:36] restrictions and needs.
[42:39] We are proposing if a property
[42:41] or business owner has several
[42:43] different properties that are
[42:45] adjacent to each other and
[42:47] operating under the same
[42:49] organization that they be
[42:50] planned for together.
[42:53] And this is a growing sentiment
[42:54] as professional office space
[42:57] used to be separated from
[42:58] manufacturing and industrial
[42:58] uses.
[43:00] But now we're seeing those
[43:02] activities come back together.
[43:05] So this language can be found on
[43:08] page 19 for the I-1 zone.
[43:10] Conditions 27 and 28.
[43:14] Page 28 for the I-2 zone
[43:18] conditions 32 and 33.
[43:19] The proposed language also
[43:22] allows for the incorporation of
[43:23] compatible commercial uses into
[43:25] the industrial zones,
[43:28] particularly for food and
[43:28] beverage producers.
[43:32] While existing regulations do
[43:34] allow for manufacturers to sell
[43:36] limited sales or products
[43:38] produced on-site, it currently
[43:41] limits the eating and drinking
[43:42] of establishments that could
[43:45] support a business output and
[43:48] possibly produce more tourism
[43:49] opportunities.
[43:50] So the text amendment allows
[43:52] eating and drinking
[43:54] establishments when accessory to
[43:57] a maximum of 30% of the parcel's
[43:59] total floor area.
[44:02] And that is located the text is
[44:05] on page 20 for the I-1 zone.
[44:07] And then lastly, the proposed
[44:10] amendment added indoor
[44:11] recreational activities as a
[44:13] conditional use in the
[44:14] industrial zone.
[44:18] These activities include indoor
[44:22] tennis, soccer, athletic club
[44:24] facilities, bowling things like
[44:25] that.
[44:27] And currently, places of
[44:28] religious assembly are
[44:31] conditional uses in these zones
[44:34] so staff has found that we are
[44:36] treating different types of
[44:38] assembly differently this
[44:39] proposal would allow for both
[44:42] religious assembly and indoor
[44:43] recreational activities to be
[44:44] treated the same.
[44:46] And also allow for the board of
[44:48] adjustment to decide if these
[44:50] activities are safe to be next
[44:53] door to a high industrial
[44:56] manufacturing activity.
[44:59] So the text for that is located
[45:01] an page 7 for the b-4 zone and
[45:04] page 23 for the I-1 zone and
[45:08] page 33 for the I-2 zone.
[45:10] So since we last presented this
[45:12] item to the planning commission
[45:15] there are two changeses to the
[45:15] proposal.
[45:18] The first is which we removed
[45:20] any reference to data centers
[45:22] and the like that is part of
[45:25] urban county council text
[45:27] initiated process and I believe
[45:29] their public hearing is OCTOBER
[45:31] 6 at 5:30 here in the council
[45:33] can chambers and more
[45:34] information can be found about
[45:41] that process at engage.Lexington
[45:45] ky.Gov slash data centers and we
[45:47] added indoor recreational
[45:49] activities as a conditional use.
[45:51] And when we were gathering input
[45:53] and talking to the public about
[45:55] this, we received the request to
[45:59] add pickleball next to the word
[46:01] tennis so pickleball has been
[46:03] added to the definition of
[46:04] indoor activities those are the
[46:07] only two changes made since we
[46:10] initiated this process.
[46:12] So my last slide this afternoon
[46:14] is the current timeline and the
[46:16] process that the zoning
[46:17] ordinance text amendment has
[46:18] gone through.
[46:20] You've seen me at several
[46:21] planning commission meetings.
[46:24] And over the course of this
[46:26] process, staff have reached out
[46:27] to engage interested groups
[46:30] about this zoning ordinance text
[46:32] amendment including meeting with
[46:33] businesses, lawyers and commerce
[46:35] lexington.
[46:37] So we are confident that this
[46:40] proposal in front of you all
[46:41] today has great insight and will
[46:44] allow for a lot of flexibility
[46:46] and growth for industrial zones
[46:48] here in lexington.
[46:50] So with that, staff is
[46:53] recommending approval of the
[46:54] proposal.
[46:56] We hope that this will amendment
[46:59] will encourage job and economic
[47:01] opportunities and hopefully will
[47:02] will allow our industrial land
[47:04] to be productive long-term here
[47:06] in lexington fayette county.
[47:08] With that I'm happy to answer
[47:09] any questions.
[47:11] The planning commission might
[47:12] have and thank you for having me
[47:13] here.
[47:14] >> thank you.
[47:15] Commissioner davis?
[47:16] >> thank you, chair.
[47:18] Congratulations, eve I'm sure
[47:21] you are glad to have arrived at
[47:21] this point.
[47:23] It is a lot of work.
[47:27] I have two pa dan particular
[47:28] questions.
[47:29] In our community document it's
[47:33] called the blue sky industrial
[47:36] zota it only applies to the blue
[47:39] sky area but it applies to all
[47:40] industrial areas.
[47:40] >> yes.
[47:41] Thank you.
[47:44] We updated the title of the zota
[47:45] to industrial zones.
[47:49] It does apply to every b-4, I-1
[47:51] and 2 zones throughout lexington
[47:52] fayette county.
[47:55] I was anticipating this question
[47:57] I did add a map so you all could
[47:59] see where the zones are located
[48:00] in lexington.
[48:05] So the I apologize for the light
[48:07] colors about the b-4 is light
[48:12] blue gray, I-1 is pinkish purple
[48:15] and the darker purple is I-2.
[48:17] >> the other question is about
[48:19] the document hal passed out and
[48:22] it shows every possible use that
[48:24] you could have.
[48:28] I'm curious about the ones which
[48:31] is junkyard, machinery wrecking
[48:34] yard, paper scrap, rail house
[48:36] and recycling facility that
[48:38] don't have an impact or a use I
[48:41] was curious what happens to
[48:41] those uses?
[48:44] >> and I apologize I don't have
[48:46] that document in front of me.
[48:48] But they are separately defined
[48:50] in this proposal.
[48:54] And also the landfill use is an
[48:57] exclusive use zone that is
[48:57] separate.
[49:00] But once I take a deeper dive I
[49:01] can provide more detail.
[49:06] >> great I was curious.
[49:09] >> any other questions?
[49:13] Go ahead.
[49:16] >> I have a couple.
[49:21] So the couple questions about
[49:23] the exhibit a.
[49:26] The first question would be this
[49:28] is not part of what we're
[49:30] adopting this is just sort of
[49:32] guidelines is that correct?
[49:36] This will not be referenced or
[49:39] really used for applications, is
[49:40] that correct?
[49:45] >> that's correct.
[49:47] >> because what I see on here
[49:51] are examples like brewery for
[49:52] example, where we have breweries
[49:56] in the I-1 now and I would be
[49:58] concerned about making those
[50:01] nonconforming or other I-1 uses
[50:03] nonconforming where they would
[50:05] have to come to a zone change
[50:10] for an I-2 to do an expansion or
[50:12] modification of their facility.
[50:14] And so I guess could you speak
[50:16] to that a little bit.
[50:16] >> yes.
[50:18] I think the current proposal
[50:21] would handle those as we do
[50:21] currently.
[50:24] I don't see a change in process
[50:25] or consideration.
[50:29] >> and MR. Michler hal
[50:30] baillie, I want to highlight
[50:33] that currently those breweries
[50:36] in I-1's are micro breweries
[50:38] state designated by the amount
[50:39] they are producing,
[50:40] manufacturing that is the
[50:42] difference between a west 6
[50:45] brewing and a coors molson
[50:47] brewing operation and that would
[50:48] be more appropriate in the right
[50:51] 2 zone because of the amount of
[50:53] large-scale distribution.
[50:56] >> so you are all not foreseeing
[50:58] the existing businesses such as
[51:02] your west 6 brewing would be
[51:03] made nonconforming by this?
[51:03] Okay.
[51:06] thank you.
[51:10] >> any other questions?
[51:10] Okay.
[51:11] All right.
[51:11] Thank you.
[51:16] >> thank you.
[51:17] All right.
[51:19] Do we have anyone from the
[51:21] public who would like to speak
[51:35] on this zota?
[51:36] Amy clark 628 castle.
[51:38] I would like to express a
[51:42] concern briefly because I don't
[51:45] recall see to go discussed as
[51:45] yet.
[51:48] Our industrial zones are very
[51:52] valuable zones and when people
[51:53] clamored for expansion of the
[51:56] urban area one of the concerns
[51:58] is we have enough land for
[52:00] industrial uses that offer
[52:01] really good employment and so
[52:02] on.
[52:12] I'm looking at uses now like the
[52:13] indoor recreation and so on.
[52:16] And I wonder if you as a
[52:17] commission have really
[52:20] considered that the uses now
[52:23] proposed and allowed for these
[52:26] zones will leave ample room for
[52:28] the industrial growth that the
[52:30] community as a whole tends to
[52:30] want.
[52:32] Thank you.
[52:36] >> thank you.
[52:49] Any other?
[52:52] >> [Inaudible] I had the same
[52:53] question you had MR. Michler
[52:57] about that, too.
[53:01] And we have the housing
[53:04] requirements for that section.
[53:08] Just curious on why do we put a
[53:15] year on that if --
[53:18] you put 15 years on there.
[53:22] Could you give us a page number?
[53:26] >> page 9.
[53:34] Number d, letter d.
[53:40] I give you 20% housing at least
[53:42] 60% ami for at least 15 years.
[53:45] And then you have affordable
[53:49] housing for residentials 20% for
[53:53] affordable housing, 80% ami for
[53:54] at least 15 years.
[53:57] Affordable housing we need this
[54:00] to be indefinite.
[54:02] I don't understand why there is
[54:03] a year.
[54:05] Because that is usually when at
[54:07] forwardable housing fund if they
[54:09] use the fund money that is when
[54:10] it's over with.
[54:14] And then we get apartments that
[54:16] don't will cause eventually
[54:18] displace the to those in those
[54:20] houses because they will go to
[54:33] market rate.
[54:36] There is in that section, we
[54:41] have several businesses like the
[54:45] [Inaudible] You want to remove
[54:47] these recycling sections and
[54:47] stuff.
[54:50] But part of one of those
[54:51] recycling sections are in that
[54:54] area on newtown pike that
[55:00] usually helps out the community.
[55:03] Where was it?
[55:06] You put so much in this thing so
[55:08] quickly it's like a lot for one
[55:11] area.
[55:12] Then it's like duplicates in
[55:13] this.
[55:15] Some of it says it's not and
[55:17] some of it says it is and it is
[55:23] a duplication of each zone.
[55:25] Take the time and relook at
[55:27] this, because this you are
[55:30] rushing and it is a lot.
[55:31] And even a lot for the community
[55:33] because our business people
[55:35] don't even know that they will
[55:36] be affected by this.
[55:37] You say they are not but they
[55:38] will.
[55:40] And this is the same thing they
[55:42] always say that there's not
[55:45] going to be effects and it is an
[55:47] effect somehow and somebody is
[55:49] going to have to come back if I
[55:51] want to expand on my business
[55:53] how am I going to expand and
[55:55] what is it going to cost me as a
[55:56] small business?
[55:58] >> thank you.
[56:00] All right.
[56:03] Staff can we get a response to
[56:12] any of her concerns.
[56:13] >> yes.
[56:16] For the question regarding
[56:19] indoor recreational activities.
[56:21] Currently they are permitted
[56:23] uses and we're just moving them
[56:24] to conditional.
[56:26] Mainly because the intent of the
[56:30] I-1 and I-2 zones are for job
[56:31] producing activities.
[56:33] And we want to make sure that
[56:35] those activities can be good
[56:38] neighbors should a religious
[56:42] assembly or indoor recreational
[56:43] activity will take place.
[56:45] The second question regarding
[56:48] adaptive reuse projects staff
[56:50] did not touch those special
[56:51] provisions.
[56:54] We only added clarification as
[56:57] you can see on page 9 if there
[57:00] was a number such as 80,000
[57:03] square feet we wrote out 80,000.
[57:07] I was not staff around when the
[57:08] adaptive reuse projects was
[57:09] passed.
[57:11] So I MAY ask for additional
[57:13] context but we did not touch
[57:14] anything regarding that
[57:14] activity.
[57:15] >>.
[57:16] >> just briefly.
[57:20] The adaptive reuse project is to
[57:22] promote the preservation and
[57:23] reuse of buildings in those
[57:24] areas.
[57:25] However about four years ago we
[57:27] had a discussion about how we
[57:29] needed to update that zone so
[57:31] that we got more out of those
[57:31] projects.
[57:33] Included with that was the
[57:34] provision of the inclusion of
[57:37] affordable housing projects.
[57:38] For a period of time that was
[57:39] meant to match some of the
[57:42] funding requests that we're
[57:43] getting for some of the projects
[57:45] to get that included into the
[57:47] project.
[57:48] However as MS. Miller said we
[57:51] are not adjusting that at all.
[57:54] >> and then finally I just
[57:56] wanted to add we are fortunate
[57:58] during the blue sky small area
[58:00] process to speak to hundreds of
[58:01] businesses in blue sky.
[58:04] As well as stakeholders
[58:05] throughout lexington about their
[58:05] business.
[58:09] And staff is confident and
[58:12] hopeful that these proposals
[58:13] will allow people to be more
[58:15] nreksable and open with their
[58:17] business here in lexington to
[58:20] help our industrial zones.
[58:23] The public feedback process was
[58:26] very, I guess, comprehensive,
[58:35] robust, thank you.
[58:39] >> the question about
[58:40] repetition.
[58:41] Refers back to my discussion
[58:43] about nested zoning.
[58:45] And when we spoke with business
[58:47] owners they didn't understand
[58:50] what was allowed in each zone.
[58:53] So our hope is to by removing
[58:54] nested classification that
[58:56] property owners, can clearly
[58:59] understand what is allowed as an
[59:00] activity as they are looking to
[59:02] bring business or industry here
[59:08] in lexington.
[59:09] >> all right.
[59:12] Thank you.
[59:19] Go ahead.
[59:20] >> sorry.
[59:23] Thank you.
[59:35] [Inaudible] Point of
[59:37] clarification, I guess, it is
[59:39] amazing how sometimes we see
[59:42] this and all of a sudden
[59:44] something pops out at you.
[59:46] When the language is mentioned
[59:53] as far as and it's read outdoor
[59:55] recreational facilities it
[59:57] [Inaudible].
[1:00:03] Clarify that as far as buffering
[1:00:06] protections to neighboring
[1:00:08] property and cultural areas et
[1:00:10] cetera, because everybody is
[1:00:12] always heard of the difficulties
[1:00:15] there is there buffering or is
[1:00:21] it truly just incidental and
[1:00:24] subordinate and not any sort of
[1:00:25] a conflict.
[1:00:28] >> are you referring to a
[1:00:28] particular page?
[1:00:31] >> it's listed a couple of times
[1:00:33] this is page 7 under the
[1:00:36] conditional uses.
[1:00:40] Number 8.
[1:00:40] >> yes.
[1:00:42] As a part of this draft we are
[1:00:45] that changing article 18
[1:00:46] required landscaping or
[1:00:48] buffering so the current
[1:00:50] requirements for that will stay
[1:00:52] the same.
[1:00:53] Regarding an industrial use next
[1:00:57] to a residential or business
[1:00:58] zone.
[1:00:59] But the board of adjustment
[1:01:02] during their review should they
[1:01:04] wish to place additional
[1:01:05] buffering with these activities,
[1:01:08] they can do so as part of that
[1:01:08] process.
[1:01:12] >> clarify for everyone, the
[1:01:18] language where it says
[1:01:21] customarily accessory and
[1:01:22] incidental and subordinate.
[1:01:26] Are we talking about the soccer
[1:01:27] complex out on the other side of
[1:01:32] blue sky?
[1:01:33] Or is it --
[1:01:36] >> in that example that is in
[1:01:38] almost all outdoor recreation
[1:01:42] and it has accessory structures.
[1:01:45] So there is a restroom and
[1:01:47] concession stand or there is a
[1:01:49] fieldhouse associated with the
[1:01:53] football field but they are the
[1:01:55] recreation happening is still
[1:01:56] outdoor recreation.
[1:01:59] i think this use is speaking to
[1:02:01] an indoor recreation facility
[1:02:03] such as the tennis center so
[1:02:06] they have indoor facilities but
[1:02:08] they also have maybe something
[1:02:12] outside that might be associated
[1:02:14] with that use.
[1:02:16] Again pickleball is a good
[1:02:17] example.
[1:02:19] A lot of people play inside but
[1:02:22] there are pickleball courts
[1:02:24] outside this particular use
[1:02:26] would allow the board of
[1:02:28] adjustment to approve a
[1:02:30] pickleball facility and also
[1:02:31] indoor and also allow them to
[1:02:34] have a few outdoor courts on
[1:02:35] that same property.
[1:02:36] Does that make sense?
[1:02:39] >> kind of.
[1:02:39] Okay.
[1:02:40] Thank you.
[1:02:42] >> any other questions for
[1:02:45] staff?
[1:02:47] Doesn't look like there are any.
[1:02:48] Thank you.
[1:02:49] All right.
[1:02:51] We'll bring it back to the
[1:03:02] commission.
[1:03:05] >> I was asked to say something
[1:03:07] about page 9.
[1:03:09] Item d.
[1:03:10] Referencing primary land use
[1:03:11] building form and design.
[1:03:15] The numbers you see in 1 and 2
[1:03:17] with percentage of ami that has
[1:03:20] to do with the funding
[1:03:21] mechanisms made available
[1:03:22] through the federal government
[1:03:23] and the state.
[1:03:25] So that's why that is so
[1:03:25] specific.
[1:03:27] So my understanding is they want
[1:03:29] to continue to make that
[1:03:29] possible.
[1:03:31] And that is a way to score
[1:03:33] points in order to improve your
[1:03:34] project.
[1:03:36] So it lines up with the federal
[1:03:38] and state regulations for
[1:03:41] affordable housing.
[1:03:42] >> thank you for that
[1:03:47] clarification.
[1:03:52] Ready for a motion?
[1:03:57] >> I'd like to move to approve
[1:03:58] pln-zota 26-9 the update to
[1:04:00] industrial zones.
[1:04:04] >> seconded by commissioner
[1:04:04] davis.
[1:04:48] All right let's vote.
[1:05:00] All right.
[1:05:02] Whenever you are ready.
[1:05:05] >> good afternoon commission
[1:05:06] members.
[1:05:08] I'm boyd sewe.
[1:05:09] Principle planner with the
[1:05:12] long-range planning I'm here to
[1:05:14] present to you the downtown area
[1:05:17] master plan zoning text
[1:05:18] amendment.
[1:05:21] This was was a result of the
[1:05:23] downtown area master plan one of
[1:05:25] the recommendations was to
[1:05:26] update our business zones in the
[1:05:30] downtown area the b2, b2a and
[1:05:33] b2b zones and this is a
[1:05:35] regulatory action from that
[1:05:37] downtown area master plan.
[1:05:39] We've met with the community.
[1:05:41] We've met planning commission.
[1:05:43] We've met with the development
[1:05:45] groups and they've reviewed the
[1:05:48] text we have and we've refined
[1:05:50] and thus what we are presenting
[1:05:52] to you today we are moving from
[1:05:58] the master plan to the
[1:06:00] implementation phase of this.
[1:06:06] So as I mentioned this plan was
[1:06:08] adopted, on JULY of this year.
[1:06:12] And after that on AUGUST 3 we
[1:06:14] filed the zota to make these
[1:06:16] changes and from that we've been
[1:06:18] meeting with the public.
[1:06:22] We've shared the text with the
[1:06:22] neighborhood associations.
[1:06:28] We have met with land attorneys,
[1:06:30] we've met with developers and
[1:06:32] made changes with this and today
[1:06:36] we are here before you to
[1:06:38] present this text for you for
[1:06:39] your consideration.
[1:06:44] This is likely moving fast but
[1:06:48] we continued to take comments
[1:06:51] and the document before you is
[1:06:55] to our staff's knowledge the
[1:06:58] best possible text we can
[1:06:59] present to you.
[1:07:01] So what has changed since we
[1:07:04] presented the original text on
[1:07:07] AUGUST the third?
[1:07:09] We've had feedback that resulted
[1:07:12] in changes.
[1:07:14] We can --
[1:07:16] we've clarified the height of
[1:07:17] buildings.
[1:07:19] We added something new that
[1:07:21] wasn't there before which is the
[1:07:26] height minimum for this zones.
[1:07:29] This height changes does not
[1:07:31] affect existing buildings,
[1:07:33] additions or adaptive reuse,
[1:07:36] then we've also looked into
[1:07:40] parking more flexible.
[1:07:43] We've added active depth to our
[1:07:44] parking this helps with the
[1:07:47] activating the street.
[1:07:50] We've refined some of the uses
[1:07:55] in the existing text ordinance.
[1:07:57] And then if you compare the
[1:08:00] first draft and what is before
[1:08:05] you today, we had rideshare,
[1:08:06] loading, delivery areas added to
[1:08:08] new developments but that has
[1:08:10] been taken off after having
[1:08:12] discussions with the development
[1:08:12] community.
[1:08:14] The overall direction of this
[1:08:16] text amendment stays the same.
[1:08:18] There might be changes we we
[1:08:23] still have the same goal.
[1:08:25] In talking with community we
[1:08:27] heard the process was moving
[1:08:30] pretty fast.
[1:08:32] We had the ltses hitds and
[1:08:33] discussed that people were
[1:08:36] concerned why we are making the
[1:08:36] changes.
[1:08:38] And discussion of open space and
[1:08:40] green space in our downtown
[1:08:41] areas and how we could improve
[1:08:42] on those.
[1:08:46] And then also been discussions
[1:08:47] of auto oriented uses in our
[1:08:50] downtown area why we were taking
[1:08:51] out some of those.
[1:08:53] All that has come from talking
[1:08:59] to the public.
[1:09:03] By the end of this I hope I can
[1:09:05] convince you why this changes
[1:09:09] were important the zoning text
[1:09:12] amendment and the building
[1:09:13] minimums.
[1:09:15] We have 48 feet maximum for the
[1:09:18] b2 and b2b.
[1:09:20] And then we have minimum and
[1:09:22] then we have no maximum height
[1:09:23] for those two zones.
[1:09:26] When it came to the b2a,
[1:09:29] considered a transitional zone
[1:09:30] because of the proximity to
[1:09:34] residential areas, we capped the
[1:09:36] height at 144 feet and the
[1:09:40] minimum was capped at 36 feet.
[1:09:42] Once again, this building
[1:09:45] heights are not affect existing
[1:09:45] buildings.
[1:09:48] It doesn't affect adaptive reuse
[1:09:52] and it doesn't affect additions.
[1:09:55] When it came to the b2a, the
[1:09:59] reason for why we went with
[1:10:02] capping the having a minimum
[1:10:04] height of 36 and then having a
[1:10:06] transition whenever you are next
[1:10:11] to a neighborhood was so that we
[1:10:12] don't have super tall buildings
[1:10:14] next to the neighborhood.
[1:10:16] And we wanted to change that in
[1:10:19] a way that reflects future use
[1:10:21] not current use of that area
[1:10:25] between the b2a and the
[1:10:26] residential zones.
[1:10:28] So we capped it at this step
[1:10:31] down would be the maximum height
[1:10:33] of the residential zone next to
[1:10:34] it.
[1:10:36] When that is done, it covers a
[1:10:39] few things according to staff.
[1:10:41] The creditability of future use
[1:10:43] for that maximum height.
[1:10:48] The consistency of having step
[1:10:50] down height depending on the
[1:10:53] zoning we're dealing with and
[1:10:54] that there is duerability over
[1:10:56] time.
[1:10:57] If let's say a developer from
[1:11:00] out of town instead of coming in
[1:11:02] to look at the site and all that
[1:11:06] you know where your step down
[1:11:07] would be you have a rough idea
[1:11:09] where your starting point is.
[1:11:11] We also looked into our parking
[1:11:12] as we know downtown needs
[1:11:15] parking we need parking in our
[1:11:16] downtown area we are not getting
[1:11:19] rid of parking we moved surface
[1:11:21] parking from principle use stand
[1:11:25] alone parking from a principle
[1:11:27] use to accessory use.
[1:11:29] We also moved the location.
[1:11:32] The original text had the
[1:11:36] location of the accessory use
[1:11:38] parking in the area of principle
[1:11:39] use buildings and after
[1:11:41] discussions with the developers,
[1:11:43] it was decided that the best way
[1:11:45] to go about this because of the
[1:11:47] lot types and sizes we have
[1:11:50] within our downtown area was to
[1:11:55] have it in line with the
[1:11:57] principle building primary wall.
[1:11:59] That was also capped and go
[1:12:02] through the text at one space
[1:12:04] per 20,000 square feet.
[1:12:07] And then after that we looked at
[1:12:09] the existing structure parking
[1:12:11] and future structured parking
[1:12:13] that is still a principle use in
[1:12:15] our downtown areas the three
[1:12:20] zones b2, b2a and b2b and we had
[1:12:24] addition after discussions 20
[1:12:28] feet of non-parking for we call
[1:12:29] that active depth.
[1:12:31] The reason we have this is so
[1:12:34] that a building by itself cannot
[1:12:36] activate the street it what goes
[1:12:38] on in the building that
[1:12:39] activates the street.
[1:12:43] If we have the depth we can have
[1:12:45] coffee shops and retail and
[1:12:47] these are things that can
[1:12:48] activate the street.
[1:12:51] When it came to some of the uses
[1:12:53] we updated the ladies and
[1:12:54] gentlemen because some of the
[1:12:58] uses when they ordinance was
[1:13:00] written, they directed most of
[1:13:02] this to specific business uses.
[1:13:04] Since then we know that business
[1:13:05] have changed.
[1:13:07] You can have a retail business
[1:13:09] that also provides entertainment
[1:13:12] that also provides wholesale and
[1:13:13] manufactures some of those
[1:13:14] products that they have within
[1:13:16] that building.
[1:13:18] So all this instead of
[1:13:20] regulating it individual
[1:13:22] business we changed the language
[1:13:24] where we regulate the impact it
[1:13:26] has on land use and not the
[1:13:26] exact business.
[1:13:29] That is some of the changes we
[1:13:29] heard.
[1:13:31] Then when it came to auto
[1:13:35] oriented uses we limited those
[1:13:37] and auto oriented uses as you
[1:13:39] know the downtown area master
[1:13:42] plan calls for having a more
[1:13:44] walkable downtown and to have a
[1:13:46] more walkable downtown we have
[1:13:50] to limit use of some of our land
[1:13:54] when it comes to auto oriented
[1:13:55] spaces.
[1:13:58] And then also working on this we
[1:14:00] looked at the public realm and
[1:14:02] some of the things we did to
[1:14:05] encourage this was we moved our
[1:14:06] buildings closer to the street.
[1:14:09] So we move we have a minimum
[1:14:12] maximum setback of 10 feet.
[1:14:14] But that can be moved to 20 feet
[1:14:17] if you use that space for things
[1:14:21] like plazas, buried utilities
[1:14:23] and offering dining areas
[1:14:24] outside the building, drop-off
[1:14:27] areas you can move the setback
[1:14:28] to 20 feet.
[1:14:31] Once again, active depth helps
[1:14:35] to encourage that public realm.
[1:14:39] And then what this does it
[1:14:40] creates room for people.
[1:14:43] Buildings and the downtown area
[1:14:46] becomes more public realm.
[1:14:48] But is encouraging that
[1:14:50] connection between private
[1:14:53] development and the public
[1:14:54] street.
[1:14:56] So the three zones that we are
[1:15:01] looking at b2, b2a and b2b with
[1:15:04] three different zones and
[1:15:06] different roles and some things
[1:15:08] are allowed but all tailored to
[1:15:10] each specific zone.
[1:15:13] We know that the b2 is more
[1:15:14] about high density.
[1:15:19] We though the b2a which enables
[1:15:21] residential areas that is more
[1:15:22] about the transition in scale
[1:15:25] and the b2b, a lexington
[1:15:27] downtown business that is more
[1:15:30] about culture, entertainment,
[1:15:32] and destination for people
[1:15:35] within lexington and people from
[1:15:36] outside lexington.
[1:15:37] There might be principles that
[1:15:39] run through the three of them,
[1:15:43] but if you go deep into the text
[1:15:45] they are tailored to the context
[1:15:49] of those three zones.
[1:15:53] So with that staff recommends
[1:15:55] approval of this text amendment
[1:15:58] due to the fact that it is an
[1:16:00] implementation from the downtown
[1:16:03] area master plan.
[1:16:05] It creates three zones with each
[1:16:08] with its own unique uses t
[1:16:10] expands opportunity for
[1:16:11] developers and businesses and
[1:16:14] also housing diversity where we
[1:16:15] can have more people move into
[1:16:17] our downtown area.
[1:16:20] It encourages reinvestments and
[1:16:23] it modernizes our zoning
[1:16:23] ordinance.
[1:16:26] It also helps build an urban
[1:16:28] form within our downtown area.
[1:16:32] And then the overall consistency
[1:16:34] in what the proposed language is
[1:16:35] and the downtown area master
[1:16:36] plan.
[1:16:40] so these are the findings for
[1:16:42] approval in it originated from
[1:16:46] our adopted area master plan
[1:16:48] encourages compact developments
[1:16:53] and modernizes the uses in our
[1:16:54] downtown area, it works for our
[1:16:57] street environment where we have
[1:16:58] better street to building
[1:17:00] interface and we encourage a lot
[1:17:04] of walkability and the use of
[1:17:05] our public spaces.
[1:17:09] And then as I said, this
[1:17:11] findings bring together the
[1:17:12] staff's recommendations.
[1:17:15] With that I will take any
[1:17:15] questions.
[1:17:18] >> any questions for staff?
[1:17:18] Commissioner?
[1:17:19] >> yes, thank you for your
[1:17:20] presentation.
[1:17:22] I have a question on some
[1:17:24] highlighted added text on page
[1:17:26] 12 of 20.
[1:17:29] >> MR. Nicol that is not the
[1:17:30] language presented as of yet.
[1:17:31] I believe that is language that
[1:17:33] MR. Michler will be talking
[1:17:35] about here in a little bit we
[1:17:37] are focused on the staff's
[1:17:37] presentation.
[1:17:40] >> okay.
[1:17:40] Good.
[1:17:42] Good, thank you very much.
[1:17:43] >> commissioner davis?
[1:17:46] >> thank you, chair.
[1:17:50] Boyd, is there a reason that the
[1:17:53] words should are used twice to
[1:17:55] define the three downtown zones
[1:17:59] in terms of what they should
[1:18:01] coordinate with dot, dot, dot.
[1:18:03] And they should be in accordance
[1:18:07] with the goals and objectives
[1:18:12] and should that not be a shall.
[1:18:15] >> those are located in the
[1:18:17] intense section are meant to
[1:18:18] guide the zone change process as
[1:18:20] well as the development in those
[1:18:22] areas but are not restricted in
[1:18:24] the same sense as the rest of
[1:18:25] the article it's supposed to
[1:18:28] frame what comes with the
[1:18:28] regulation.
[1:18:30] So starts with a should and we
[1:18:31] move quickly into the body of
[1:18:32] the text with the principle uses
[1:18:35] and that is where the shalls are
[1:18:35] required.
[1:18:36] >> all right.
[1:18:38] Thank you.
[1:18:41] >> any other questions for
[1:18:44] staff?
[1:18:45] >> yes.
[1:18:48] We do have a copy here with
[1:18:54] highlighted text which staff
[1:18:56] wrote after a meeting I had.
[1:19:01] Is that something you're going
[1:19:04] to put up and talk about or is
[1:19:05] that something you are going to
[1:19:08] do at a different point in this
[1:19:10] presentation or is that
[1:19:11] something that.
[1:19:12] >> MR. Michler that is
[1:19:13] something you would present this
[1:19:16] is your proposed language.
[1:19:18] After the public comment and
[1:19:20] some of the rebuttals then it
[1:19:23] would be your opportunity to go
[1:19:24] ahead and bring forth extra
[1:19:26] language and we can put that on
[1:19:29] the screen and you all have
[1:19:30] copies of it as well.
[1:19:30] >> thank you.
[1:19:32] >> all right.
[1:19:33] Do we have any other questions
[1:19:35] for staff at this point?
[1:19:36] All right.
[1:19:37] Thank you.
[1:19:41] We will go ahead with public
[1:19:41] comment.
[1:19:44] Anyone from the public like to
[1:19:47] comment on this zota at it
[1:19:48] stands?
[1:19:56] As it stands?
[1:19:58] >> walt gaffe field the
[1:20:00] PRESIDENT Of the fayette county
[1:20:01] 10th council.
[1:20:04] I will be talking about the
[1:20:07] ambiguities in the 2047
[1:20:10] comprehensive plan and how the
[1:20:12] existing language we don't have
[1:20:14] new language and haven't seen
[1:20:16] it, we don't really want some of
[1:20:19] the language to expand into new
[1:20:20] areas.
[1:20:22] Neighborhoods in the plan for
[1:20:24] possible later expansion to the
[1:20:29] urban frame b2a did not know
[1:20:33] what james comey with b2a, the
[1:20:34] neighborhoods asked not to be
[1:20:36] included in downtown.
[1:20:37] The georgetown street asked not
[1:20:40] to be included and partially
[1:20:41] included anyway.
[1:20:44] People on fourth street thought
[1:20:45] the boundary was third street
[1:20:47] and it changed to fourth street.
[1:20:49] Do you think that neighborhoods
[1:20:52] would be positive about being on
[1:20:55] a map for a downtown area if
[1:20:57] they knew that short-term
[1:20:59] rentals would then become a
[1:20:59] principle use?
[1:21:02] I don't think so.
[1:21:03] When downtown expansion occurs
[1:21:06] it should be in context with the
[1:21:08] surrounding residential areas.
[1:21:10] It does not mean that height and
[1:21:12] mass should not increase.
[1:21:14] Everybody knows it needs to and
[1:21:15] should.
[1:21:16] However, neither should it mean
[1:21:18] that height and mass should be
[1:21:20] unlimited or context does not
[1:21:22] matter if decision makers want
[1:21:24] to create a new context that
[1:21:25] specifically in language and it
[1:21:29] shouldn't be there.
[1:21:30] It's either contextual or it
[1:21:31] isn't.
[1:21:33] The placebuilder needs revision
[1:21:35] and should not include high
[1:21:38] density mixed-use in or near a
[1:21:39] residential area.
[1:21:40] Placebuilder states that
[1:21:42] development should be in context
[1:21:43] unless decision makers want to
[1:21:45] change to a new context but
[1:21:48] there is no explanation for what
[1:21:50] causes that.
[1:21:51] Major corridors will have the
[1:21:53] same problem because of existing
[1:21:56] language in the corridor note
[1:21:57] zone.
[1:21:59] Recent zone change provides an
[1:22:01] example of the corridor node
[1:22:03] zone in practice and that didn't
[1:22:05] work very well.
[1:22:06] Major increases in height and
[1:22:10] mass will lead to gentrification
[1:22:12] and replacement issues.
[1:22:14] Developers will look for less
[1:22:15] expensive land.
[1:22:16] The addition of minimum heights
[1:22:19] in the downtown area will harm
[1:22:21] small businesses and reduce
[1:22:22] services for downtown
[1:22:23] neighborhoods in the long-term,
[1:22:24] I think.
[1:22:28] And number of cities do not have
[1:22:30] minimum heights or have much
[1:22:32] smaller minimums and frame
[1:22:33] areas.
[1:22:34] The reduction in street parking
[1:22:36] in downtown will be a major
[1:22:38] problem if not offset with
[1:22:40] parking in structures.
[1:22:42] Public transit needs to improve
[1:22:45] dramatically if people are to
[1:22:46] actually use it.
[1:22:48] The approval of a zoning
[1:22:50] ordinance text amendment should
[1:22:52] be postponed today to allow the
[1:22:53] public the planning commission
[1:22:56] and the urban county council to
[1:22:58] provide adequate oversight and
[1:23:00] arrive at better solutions.
[1:23:02] Thank you very hutch.
[1:23:03] Much.
[1:23:17] >> any other public comment?
[1:23:21] >> amy clark 628 castle road I
[1:23:24] will begin by apologizing.
[1:23:26] I'm in chaos on this it is very,
[1:23:28] very hard to oversee.
[1:23:31] It was a really great thought to
[1:23:33] stop the nesting of zones so
[1:23:35] that somebody in a zone knew
[1:23:38] what wa in the zone.
[1:23:40] But the way that's going to work
[1:23:41] it's going to come with the
[1:23:44] wonderful tables where you can
[1:23:45] see everything side-by-side you
[1:23:47] can see my zone and the next
[1:23:50] zone and the next zone we don't
[1:23:50] have that what.
[1:23:54] We have is this enormous text
[1:23:59] for all the uses and much of it
[1:24:01] is in common for all three
[1:24:01] zones.
[1:24:05] The rest of it go fish.
[1:24:07] It's very, very hard to get any
[1:24:09] sense of what is distinct or
[1:24:12] different in the uses of the
[1:24:13] different zones.
[1:24:18] I'm going to focus on the
[1:24:18] dimensional standards.
[1:24:20] Because that was a little
[1:24:22] shorter to figure out.
[1:24:25] Turns out b2 and b2b are
[1:24:27] identical in all their
[1:24:28] dimensional standards.
[1:24:33] And it's b2a that has some
[1:24:36] different things.
[1:24:39] In fact, just from the
[1:24:40] dimensional standards and gazing
[1:24:42] at the uses and that the sort of
[1:24:45] summary of the intent which
[1:24:47] comes from the comp plan, I
[1:24:51] don't see how b2 and b2b are
[1:24:51] different.
[1:24:53] They have tourism in them.
[1:24:56] They have high density, high
[1:24:56] intensity.
[1:24:58] I don't see what is different
[1:25:00] about them I wonder why they are
[1:25:01] separate.
[1:25:06] Back to b2a.
[1:25:09] There is a provision that the
[1:25:14] height of the building beyond 70
[1:25:19] feet should match the bordering
[1:25:19] property --
[1:25:23] should match the maximum height
[1:25:27] of the zone for the step back.
[1:25:30] I was shocked to realize we're
[1:25:33] talking about the maximum
[1:25:35] allowed to the zone.
[1:25:39] If you take r-4, which has
[1:25:40] victorian cottages and two
[1:25:41] storey and everything in the
[1:25:44] downtown area, the maximum
[1:25:48] height there is 60 feet.
[1:25:53] and the idea of making the new
[1:25:54] construction compatible is to
[1:25:57] say it can't be but 60 feet
[1:26:00] which is what the r-4 could
[1:26:02] potentially be.
[1:26:05] Because it was zoned a few
[1:26:06] times.
[1:26:08] It absolutely should match the
[1:26:11] height of the existing property.
[1:26:16] And particularly if it's in h-1
[1:26:18] overlay the argument was you
[1:26:20] could tear that property down
[1:26:22] and here is this new fellow and
[1:26:24] he would have been restricted in
[1:26:24] his height.
[1:26:28] You cannot tear down toes h-1
[1:26:30] properties it should match the
[1:26:31] actual building and more than
[1:26:36] that I really would ask that you
[1:26:39] present more usable materials
[1:26:41] for review and continue the
[1:26:41] hearing.
[1:26:42] Thank you.
[1:26:45] >> thank you.
[1:26:56] Any other public comment?
[1:27:00] >> will any of the businesses
[1:27:03] current businesses be
[1:27:04] grandfathered in?
[1:27:06] Also where it says prohibited
[1:27:09] use on page 5.
[1:27:11] Number 7.
[1:27:14] It says 72, but 7.
[1:27:18] Kennels and outdoor runways,
[1:27:20] pens or animals.
[1:27:22] We have pause with a cause in
[1:27:25] that area with that zone.
[1:27:27] Is it getting grandfathered in
[1:27:29] or does it have to apply for
[1:27:29] another one?
[1:27:32] You have the storage unit for
[1:27:33] the warehouses you are saying
[1:27:34] they can't be there.
[1:27:37] Do they have to reapply.
[1:27:39] We got a lot of businesses that
[1:27:40] don't know much of nothing and
[1:27:48] we are confused.
[1:27:49] This you are all going to vote
[1:27:52] for it anyway it is a lot of
[1:27:53] questions.
[1:27:54] And a lot of businesses don't
[1:27:58] know this is coming.
[1:27:59] To them.
[1:28:00] They say they do.
[1:28:02] But they don't.
[1:28:04] We already talked to them.
[1:28:06] They are clueless and what does
[1:28:11] it mean for us?
[1:28:13] You mark here you have arcade
[1:28:16] and massage parlors but the same
[1:28:18] census the structure on the
[1:28:20] other one has the same thing
[1:28:24] what the heck a ma sage parlor
[1:28:27] but nor was it added as a
[1:28:30] [Inaudible] This ain't clear.
[1:28:32] It is a lot.
[1:28:34] And these people are confused,
[1:28:36] so am I.
[1:28:38] Because number 4 as I said with
[1:28:42] the massage parlor and but it
[1:28:46] has it right here.
[1:28:48] And number I don't know if this
[1:28:52] is 16 or 26.
[1:29:00] Or 17 and 26 on page 3.
[1:29:02] How are they different?
[1:29:05] How did you mess that up.
[1:29:08] But this is what all vote for,
[1:29:09] okay.
[1:29:12] >> thank you.
[1:29:32] Any other public comment?
[1:29:33] Do you have something that he
[1:29:34] needs to respond to?
[1:29:47] I will give you one minute.
[1:29:49] >> I appreciate it.
[1:29:53] I hope you're thinking about
[1:29:55] whether these regulations will
[1:29:57] be realistic whether they will
[1:30:00] produce the sort of growth
[1:30:02] that's intended.
[1:30:03] Aspired to.
[1:30:06] And in particular the build to
[1:30:10] limit you cannot build less than
[1:30:11] x.
[1:30:16] In the zones.
[1:30:19] And the no surface parking.
[1:30:22] When would why would I ever say
[1:30:24] that I want to see surface
[1:30:25] parking?
[1:30:28] But if it isn't realistic the
[1:30:29] standards you set to for this
[1:30:32] downtown it will push it out
[1:30:33] elsewhere.
[1:30:37] Where it's still less welcome.
[1:30:40] The surface parking and the
[1:30:41] smaller buildings.
[1:30:44] So really think about whether
[1:30:46] these minimums and maximums are
[1:30:47] realistic.
[1:30:49] >> thank you.
[1:30:57] We'll hear from staff.
[1:30:58] >> thank you very much for the
[1:30:59] comments and questions.
[1:31:01] As I said the comments and
[1:31:03] questions are what makes this
[1:31:04] plan stronger.
[1:31:07] I will start by making it clear,
[1:31:08] whatever is existing right now
[1:31:12] before this is adopted is
[1:31:13] grandfathered in.
[1:31:16] Existing parking lots, existing
[1:31:18] structures, you don't have to
[1:31:21] change and update it to meet the
[1:31:23] standards the only time is when
[1:31:25] something new comes in or if you
[1:31:29] do extensive renovations.
[1:31:32] A certain percentage for some
[1:31:34] things trigger this you have
[1:31:37] update it to match this.
[1:31:38] Let's see.
[1:31:40] Surface parking lots surface
[1:31:42] parking lots has been moved from
[1:31:45] being a principle use stand
[1:31:47] alone use into these zones to
[1:31:48] accessory use.
[1:31:50] Instead of having piece of land
[1:31:52] and just building a parking lot
[1:31:54] there and that is the principle
[1:31:55] use on that lot you can no
[1:31:56] longer do that.
[1:31:58] But if you have a building you
[1:32:01] can build parking lot that is an
[1:32:03] accessory use to that building.
[1:32:09] That is in the text amendment.
[1:32:13] Massage parlors, virtually is in
[1:32:15] here medical and dental offices
[1:32:17] clinics, laboratories and
[1:32:19] licensed therapeutics.
[1:32:22] Massage parlors masseuse fall
[1:32:24] under the license of
[1:32:24] therapeutics.
[1:32:26] And that is one of the comments
[1:32:28] that I say some of these
[1:32:30] businesses were originally
[1:32:32] written when we listed
[1:32:33] individual businesses.
[1:32:35] But they could all fall under
[1:32:37] one umbrella that is a good
[1:32:40] example of where that comes into
[1:32:40] use.
[1:32:42] And the building height,
[1:32:48] building height has been --
[1:32:51] building heights if you read the
[1:32:54] downtown area master plan which
[1:32:56] was took over to do that the
[1:32:58] recommendations for the minimum
[1:32:59] height in the downtown area is
[1:33:01] six storeys.
[1:33:02] After discussions with the
[1:33:04] public and discussion with staff
[1:33:06] and discussion with the planning
[1:33:09] commission, we realize that six
[1:33:11] storeys is ambitious for this
[1:33:12] moment.
[1:33:14] Hopefully one day we get there
[1:33:16] but currently, the six storeys
[1:33:18] was too much that is why we
[1:33:21] reduce to do to 48 for the b2
[1:33:23] and b2b.
[1:33:26] And 36 for the b2a because of
[1:33:29] the transition and the proximity
[1:33:31] to residential areas.
[1:33:34] And I think that covers all the
[1:33:35] comments.
[1:33:41] Thank you very much.
[1:33:42] Any questions?
[1:33:44] >> commissioner davis.
[1:33:51] >> boyd --
[1:33:53] I know we've talked about this
[1:33:55] before and I still I think I
[1:33:57] have a different question this
[1:33:57] time.
[1:34:02] It has to do with the places
[1:34:04] where DoorDash drivers and
[1:34:05] delivery vans and things like
[1:34:06] that are to occur.
[1:34:09] I understand that some sites do
[1:34:12] not have a place to have a
[1:34:15] dedicated place for that.
[1:34:18] But how are developers expected
[1:34:20] to respond in a plan or any
[1:34:22] other way to say we thought
[1:34:25] about this at least and we can
[1:34:27] use the parking space and not
[1:34:30] park in the street if we have a
[1:34:36] delivery?
[1:34:39] >> let me take that one.
[1:34:40] >> is there anything that
[1:34:42] compels a developer to think
[1:34:44] about how the building might be
[1:34:46] used when it's occupied to take
[1:34:49] care of deliveries rather than
[1:34:52] having it occur ad hoc?
[1:34:54] >> so one.
[1:34:56] Things we heard during our
[1:34:57] public comment and working with
[1:34:58] the commission and the
[1:35:00] development group was there is a
[1:35:02] concern with the existing
[1:35:03] developers the existing land
[1:35:07] that are zoned b2, b2a or b2b
[1:35:09] which they said look we have not
[1:35:12] thought of this this was not in
[1:35:13] the plan before.
[1:35:15] And we have an issue with trying
[1:35:20] to do that within the site's
[1:35:21] context.
[1:35:23] Within placebuilder there is a
[1:35:24] development criteria for all
[1:35:25] downtown development to look at
[1:35:26] those drop-off zones.
[1:35:29] So as we get new development and
[1:35:31] we are seeing rezonings that
[1:35:33] gives us the opportunity to
[1:35:35] bring up to you with the
[1:35:36] applicant the changes that might
[1:35:38] need to be made on-site or
[1:35:39] offsite.
[1:35:41] So we found that there is
[1:35:42] sufficient language currently
[1:35:43] within the comprehensive plan
[1:35:45] that covers this for new sites
[1:35:47] that are coming in.
[1:35:48] >> okay.
[1:35:51] Thank you.
[1:35:56] >> commissioner wilson did you
[1:35:56] have?
[1:35:59] >> I'm afraid you have to
[1:36:00] explainties parking thing to me
[1:36:02] like I am a 10-year-old.
[1:36:04] I don't understand the biggest
[1:36:06] expansion of parking that we
[1:36:08] have downtown right now is the
[1:36:11] rep arena.
[1:36:12] If anybody decides to develop
[1:36:15] that property could the rep
[1:36:17] arena people build a parking
[1:36:20] structure to compensate for the
[1:36:23] loss of the parking on the
[1:36:25] surface?
[1:36:27] >> absolutely, sir.
[1:36:29] >> they could do that?
[1:36:33] >> they just have to meet the
[1:36:34] active depth requirements they
[1:36:35] can have it.
[1:36:37] >> am I recalling correctly that
[1:36:40] is a mixed-use plan that
[1:36:42] includes apartments, it includes
[1:36:44] a grocery store and includes a
[1:36:46] parking structure and we have
[1:36:47] already approved that, correct
[1:36:49] or some phase of it?
[1:36:51] >> we've seen it.
[1:36:54] >> correct.
[1:36:58] >> the renderings are out in the
[1:36:58] public.
[1:36:59] But I have not seen it.
[1:37:01] >> you have approved a
[1:37:03] preliminary subdivision plan and
[1:37:06] when they presented that they
[1:37:08] did pass out the uses proposed
[1:37:11] and did give an idea of what the
[1:37:17] arrangements would be.
[1:37:19] >> any other questions?
[1:37:21] >> I have a quick question I
[1:37:22] don't know if you have the
[1:37:24] answer to this or not I'm
[1:37:26] curious to know how many parking
[1:37:29] spaces are provided by the
[1:37:30] lexington parking authority in
[1:37:32] these two zones?
[1:37:34] >> I will try finding you the
[1:37:36] answer but I don't have it.
[1:37:37] >> understood.
[1:37:39] But we need to put pressure and
[1:37:41] that is a good way for us to
[1:37:44] achieve more parking is utilize
[1:37:48] the parking authority to develop
[1:37:50] and build subterrainian or
[1:37:51] structured parking that is
[1:37:53] something we need to consider we
[1:37:56] need to put some of the burden
[1:37:57] on ourselves our own authority
[1:38:00] to make sure that we do have
[1:38:01] parking available.
[1:38:03] Because as my understanding is
[1:38:06] from being here for quite a few
[1:38:07] years, the decision has been
[1:38:09] made to grow up and not out.
[1:38:11] And we want to make sure that as
[1:38:14] we grow up we can share some of
[1:38:15] the burden of the parking
[1:38:17] through our lexington parking
[1:38:18] authority.
[1:38:20] >> MR. Nicol we have currently
[1:38:23] four public structured parking
[1:38:24] garages operated by lex park
[1:38:29] with 2,000 parking spaces.
[1:38:31] >> 4,000.
[1:38:32] >> good.
[1:38:34] That is a good place for us to
[1:38:35] continue to look for more
[1:38:36] parking.
[1:38:38] >> if I can add to that during
[1:38:39] the master plan lex park was
[1:38:41] part of the discussions and they
[1:38:43] were very helpful and
[1:38:46] contributed a lot to the
[1:38:47] discussions.
[1:38:47] >> all right.
[1:38:50] Any other questions for staff at
[1:38:51] this moment?
[1:38:53] Thank you.
[1:38:56] All right.
[1:38:59] We'll bring back to the
[1:38:59] commission.
[1:39:02] >> yeah.
[1:39:05] I want to just say that some of
[1:39:07] you all who were at the zoning
[1:39:10] committee and then at the work
[1:39:12] session, heard some of my
[1:39:15] concerns, I think a few of them
[1:39:18] have been spoken about by the
[1:39:21] public.
[1:39:30] I was asking at the work session
[1:39:34] that we look to either postpone
[1:39:35] or continue the discussion so
[1:39:38] that there would be time to
[1:39:42] address some of these concerns.
[1:39:51] I met with hal who with staff
[1:39:54] drafted some items to address
[1:39:56] these concerns.
[1:40:00] so I'll present them here today.
[1:40:03] If people feel comfortable by
[1:40:06] and large they addressed my bulk
[1:40:08] concerns I'm comfortable going
[1:40:09] forward.
[1:40:12] If people aren't comfortable I'm
[1:40:13] also still comfortable with
[1:40:15] asking for a continuance so
[1:40:20] other people can have more time
[1:40:21] for input.
[1:40:23] There's only one addition that
[1:40:25] applied to all three zones.
[1:40:31] And that was to create a pathway
[1:40:32] for building for projects that
[1:40:36] have a building or buildings
[1:40:39] that do not meet the minimum
[1:40:41] height and my questions to staff
[1:40:44] that came up because there are
[1:40:47] types of businesses and projects
[1:40:50] that are called for in the
[1:40:53] downtown master plan that don't
[1:40:54] tip --
[1:40:56] that are nonresidential that
[1:40:58] don't typically come associated
[1:41:00] with a taller building like an
[1:41:03] apartment building.
[1:41:05] They also there was also not a
[1:41:07] provision if somebody was
[1:41:09] proposing a larger scale project
[1:41:12] that had accessory buildings or
[1:41:15] a food kiosk in the courtyard or
[1:41:17] something like that, that would
[1:41:19] be below height minimum.
[1:41:21] This would create a pathway
[1:41:24] where someone who had an
[1:41:25] accessory building or a
[1:41:27] principle building for a use
[1:41:29] called for in the downtown
[1:41:30] master plan didn't meet the 48
[1:41:33] feet or 36 feet.
[1:41:36] Could come before the planning
[1:41:37] commission and show their plans
[1:41:39] and give their reasoning and ask
[1:41:41] for that without it necessarily
[1:41:45] being a variance they couldn't
[1:41:47] build an apartment but why they
[1:41:48] want to build what they want to
[1:41:49] build.
[1:41:52] >> would you like us to show it
[1:41:53] on the screen?
[1:41:55] >> if you could put that up
[1:41:56] there.
[1:42:00] The other amendments all applied
[1:42:05] additions all applied to the b2a
[1:42:06] zone.
[1:42:08] And that really stems from what
[1:42:10] we heard from a couple of the
[1:42:13] public comments which is that
[1:42:16] this zone if we approve this
[1:42:18] zota is changing the intent of
[1:42:21] this zone from being really
[1:42:26] tightly bound around two zone
[1:42:28] downtown, to extending into the
[1:42:45] second tier urban neighborhoods.
[1:42:48] Here is an example of that text
[1:42:53] that aplayed to all three zones.
[1:42:57] Stating that this commission
[1:42:59] could approve a project with a
[1:43:01] building that did not meet the
[1:43:03] minimums, if someone came here
[1:43:07] and showed that it complied with
[1:43:09] the downtown master plan.
[1:43:10] That would be basically a
[1:43:16] similar process as somebody who
[1:43:17] today comes here because they
[1:43:19] want to build a building taller
[1:43:24] than the b-1 zone typically
[1:43:26] allows and the build showed the
[1:43:29] context and get permission to do
[1:43:32] so.
[1:43:34] Jumping to the ones that are
[1:43:49] specific only to the b2a, the
[1:43:52] b2a as we're extending into the
[1:43:54] second tier urban neighborhoods
[1:43:58] that have traditionally had that
[1:44:05] have not just green space our
[1:44:08] downtown zone has no required
[1:44:09] vegetative open space looking at
[1:44:12] some of the plans it seems like
[1:44:16] a lot of the plans are coming in
[1:44:19] around 5% just around the
[1:44:20] building.
[1:44:23] I think if we are changing the
[1:44:26] intent to extend into the
[1:44:28] neighborhoods, that more
[1:44:30] vegetative open space meaning
[1:44:34] plants and green space is
[1:44:35] important.
[1:44:38] This edit is pretty minimal
[1:44:39] because looking at the other
[1:44:42] zones we allow pretty low amount
[1:44:44] in the b-1.
[1:44:45] So that's where that percentage
[1:44:48] came from.
[1:44:51] Green roots have a multiplier.
[1:44:54] Somebody putting a 5% around the
[1:44:56] building like we've been seeing,
[1:44:58] could have just like
[1:44:59] two-and-a-half percent of their
[1:45:01] property as a green roof and
[1:45:04] meet that requirement.
[1:45:05] So that is a small one.
[1:45:08] And it only applies to the
[1:45:10] larger lots so that if somebody
[1:45:12] does want to do a small lot
[1:45:15] redevelopment in that typical
[1:45:17] traditional downtown style or
[1:45:18] neighborhood commercial style
[1:45:20] like you might see in the
[1:45:22] woodland triangle or main
[1:45:25] street, this provision wouldn't
[1:45:30] apply.
[1:45:35] The next one there is speaking
[1:45:37] to what we heard from a couple
[1:45:42] other people is basically, it is
[1:45:47] saying that the step down if we
[1:45:49] were to accept this
[1:45:50] modification, it's saying the
[1:45:53] step down if it is adjacent to a
[1:45:57] residentially zoned property, is
[1:45:59] responding to what is actually
[1:45:59] there.
[1:46:02] And this is really just as I
[1:46:04] mentioned in regards to some of
[1:46:07] the concern that, you know, a
[1:46:10] house that we might have in the
[1:46:14] east end that is one or two
[1:46:16] storeys, is very different from
[1:46:20] maybe a four storey apartment
[1:46:21] that we have on martin luther
[1:46:23] king, JR.
[1:46:25] And this would as this text is
[1:46:27] drafted and I sent it out allow
[1:46:30] for that step down to be taller
[1:46:31] than the existing structure in
[1:46:33] the current context.
[1:46:37] As written this says 10 feet
[1:46:38] taller.
[1:46:46] And it's the same basic
[1:46:48] dimensions so that step down is
[1:46:50] still 50 feet from the property
[1:46:50] line.
[1:46:56] And it's the same relevance it
[1:46:58] is a residential zone and on the
[1:47:00] same side of the street.
[1:47:06] And the final one in the b2a
[1:47:10] specifically, again, looking at
[1:47:14] where these downtown frame zones
[1:47:15] are adjacent to the existing
[1:47:17] residential and the second tier
[1:47:21] urban neighborhoods, primarily
[1:47:23] that is this zota already calls
[1:47:26] for a 12-foot setback on the
[1:47:30] side yard and rear yard.
[1:47:34] And this is we already in
[1:47:36] discussions on zone change
[1:47:38] frequently are asking for this
[1:47:40] type of mechanical stuff to be
[1:47:42] put on the roof.
[1:47:43] This is sort of going ahead and
[1:47:47] putting that in writing and
[1:47:48] saying that this isn't require
[1:47:53] to go be on the roof but saying
[1:47:54] those mechanical systems such as
[1:47:59] the hvac, trash compacttors
[1:48:02] can't be in that 12-foot setback
[1:48:05] on the side and rear yard
[1:48:08] adjacent to residential.
[1:48:10] So with that I will turn things
[1:48:12] back over to the commission.
[1:48:18] But those are this language was
[1:48:22] provided by staff after the last
[1:48:25] work session in response to some
[1:48:29] of the concerns I brought up.
[1:48:31] >> thank you commissioner
[1:48:32] michler.
[1:48:32] Commissioner nicol.
[1:48:33] >> yes.
[1:48:34] Thank you for that.
[1:48:40] I'm responding to the staff's
[1:48:41] recommendation.
[1:48:41] I understand we have new
[1:48:44] language that is being proposed
[1:48:48] by robin but I wanted to make
[1:48:50] known that even though the
[1:48:51] language was written by staff,
[1:48:54] it is not what we're voting on
[1:48:55] unless we make the changes to
[1:48:57] the staff's requirements.
[1:49:02] In my opinion, I'm interested in
[1:49:05] approving the staff's language.
[1:49:08] And less interested in
[1:49:10] restricting this zone, which is
[1:49:13] the intent of the zone is
[1:49:15] specialized district for high
[1:49:17] density residential and high
[1:49:18] intensity commercial and
[1:49:19] mixed-use developments.
[1:49:21] We only have two zones and we
[1:49:23] have one downtown and we have
[1:49:25] one downtown frame.
[1:49:26] We've been told we have heard
[1:49:28] here from our community that we
[1:49:30] are to grow up and not grow out.
[1:49:34] So in my opinion, I am in favor
[1:49:36] of the staff's recommendations
[1:49:38] rather than continuing to
[1:49:40] restrict the overall height
[1:49:42] requirements in our b2a zone as
[1:49:45] it is touching up to existing
[1:49:46] zones.
[1:49:48] As we're looking in the text
[1:49:51] that robin has provided us on
[1:49:53] page 12 there was a minimum open
[1:49:54] space that has been added
[1:49:56] however when a project area is
[1:49:59] greater than one acre in size
[1:50:01] vegetative open space shall be
[1:50:02] 10%.
[1:50:04] I am opposed to that
[1:50:05] recommendation because we have
[1:50:09] continued to hear in work groups
[1:50:11] that vibrant downtown
[1:50:13] communities have parks, public
[1:50:16] parks, private parks, and pocket
[1:50:17] parks and I think that is a
[1:50:20] better way to address the
[1:50:23] overall vegetative requirement
[1:50:24] in our community.
[1:50:27] To have intentional spaces that
[1:50:28] are being built to be utilized
[1:50:30] rather than to meet a
[1:50:30] requirement.
[1:50:33] In my opinion, I believe that we
[1:50:35] should allow for the staff's
[1:50:41] recommendation of not having a
[1:50:42] open space regulations.
[1:50:44] And that would further promote
[1:50:47] the development and use of
[1:50:48] pocket parks.
[1:50:50] and the parks that we're putting
[1:50:52] in place right now through our
[1:50:52] government.
[1:50:54] I think it's important for us to
[1:50:55] continue to maximize density
[1:50:56] especially in the downtown area
[1:51:00] and especially in the b2a zones
[1:51:01] as well.
[1:51:04] So those are my thoughts what we
[1:51:05] heard so far.
[1:51:07] >> thank you.
[1:51:07] Commissioner penn?
[1:51:12] >> let me follow-up on what
[1:51:14] MR. Nicol is talking about.
[1:51:16] Who do you propose are you
[1:51:18] saying that the city ought to
[1:51:20] build the pocket parks or the
[1:51:21] developer?
[1:51:24] >> I'm saying is we should not
[1:51:26] put additional requirements to
[1:51:27] provide vegetated open space
[1:51:29] that should not be an added
[1:51:32] requirement for our downtown
[1:51:33] zones we are addressing right
[1:51:33] now.
[1:51:34] What I'm say something that we
[1:51:38] have seen an effort being made
[1:51:39] to have either private
[1:51:43] developers or the public to
[1:51:44] create pocket parks.
[1:51:47] So it would not be required for
[1:51:48] the downtown zones.
[1:51:51] But it is encouraged for those
[1:51:54] in the community whether it is a
[1:51:57] developer or the city to build
[1:51:58] usable pocket parks.
[1:52:01] And we've seen examples what a
[1:52:05] usable pocket park looks like
[1:52:07] and unusable park, the solution
[1:52:10] is should not be required by the
[1:52:11] property owners themselves as
[1:52:14] we're trying to increase maximum
[1:52:18] density and by removing 10% of
[1:52:21] the buildable lots which are
[1:52:22] normally small and promoting
[1:52:23] growing up.
[1:52:28] It will cause it will limit the
[1:52:29] density we would like to
[1:52:30] achieve.
[1:52:33] >> but the history of our
[1:52:41] community has been private
[1:52:43] citizens built gatton park, and
[1:52:45] private citizens built the most
[1:52:48] of our parks have been done by
[1:52:50] private developers, by private
[1:52:51] citizens.
[1:52:53] So the developers haven't been
[1:52:55] on the hook to get that at all.
[1:52:59] >> that is a positive way to
[1:53:00] effect change private citizens
[1:53:02] building wonderful things for
[1:53:02] the community.
[1:53:04] >> I'm that against that.
[1:53:07] I hate to say that that will
[1:53:08] continue.
[1:53:09] There is one generation that
[1:53:10] built most of those.
[1:53:12] I don't know what the new
[1:53:14] generations will do it and you
[1:53:17] MAY windup with density and no
[1:53:17] parks.
[1:53:20] >> we have done thankful to the
[1:53:22] generations that came before us
[1:53:25] that did develop phoenix park,
[1:53:28] thorough good park and that was
[1:53:29] an impressive feat it involved
[1:53:33] people from the development and
[1:53:35] banking community and high
[1:53:36] network individuals.
[1:53:38] We have done a dude job building
[1:53:40] parks I just don't want to end
[1:53:43] up in a situation where we're
[1:53:44] requiring we're going against
[1:53:47] the staff's recommendation to
[1:53:49] not have more restrictive open
[1:53:52] space regulations because we
[1:53:53] have already built such
[1:53:55] wonderful parks and you aright
[1:53:58] the private citizens that have
[1:53:59] done this should be thanked and
[1:53:59] respected.
[1:54:03] And now if we can buildup on
[1:54:06] every inch of the land we can it
[1:54:07] will only benefit the community.
[1:54:09] >> commissioner worth?
[1:54:12] >> I'm switching gears here just
[1:54:13] a little bit.
[1:54:17] I would like to talk about on
[1:54:20] page 12, the building height the
[1:54:21] second bullet.
[1:54:42] about the step down.
[1:54:43] Yes, robin's version.
[1:54:45] Just to clarify.
[1:54:48] We have essentially got I don't
[1:54:51] want to us auto the word
[1:54:53] precedent, it has legal
[1:54:55] implications but this is basicly
[1:54:58] what we did with the plan where
[1:55:00] we revisited that original plan
[1:55:02] and requested that the developer
[1:55:06] include a step down to increase
[1:55:07] light availability for the
[1:55:08] neighborhood.
[1:55:12] Is that what we're talking about
[1:55:13] here?
[1:55:20] >> just to clarify, that this
[1:55:22] addition or substitution would
[1:55:26] not have solved that problem
[1:55:29] because that was caused by the
[1:55:32] tremendous length of the
[1:55:36] building and its location on the
[1:55:38] southside and those buildings
[1:55:39] that would have been completely
[1:55:41] shaded would have been across
[1:55:43] the street, which neither the
[1:55:46] staff's original text nor this
[1:55:46] would have solved.
[1:55:48] >> so that's not the problem
[1:55:50] we're trying to solve.
[1:55:52] It is the abrupt difference in
[1:55:54] the variation of height between
[1:55:55] the neighborhood and this
[1:55:58] structure being developed?
[1:55:59] Is that I'm trying to figure
[1:55:59] out.
[1:56:06] >> yeah, so it is the --
[1:56:08] let's say that you have an r-4
[1:56:11] with a 60 foot height the way
[1:56:13] it's written now with the staff,
[1:56:17] and you have a a home in one of
[1:56:20] the downtown neighborhoods that
[1:56:24] is one storey like we saw on
[1:56:27] lexington avenue that the
[1:56:28] current project under
[1:56:31] construction wraps on two sides.
[1:56:33] In the zone change process on
[1:56:36] that one side on lexington
[1:56:44] avenue, they stepped it down.
[1:56:45] This in the current most of
[1:56:47] those I'm not sure that parcel
[1:56:50] but most of the parcels are r-4.
[1:56:52] In the current version by staff,
[1:56:54] they would need to step it down
[1:56:57] to 60 feet.
[1:57:01] So something around five or six
[1:57:02] storeys.
[1:57:06] Five storeys I suppose in most
[1:57:11] applications.
[1:57:12] This alternative language would
[1:57:14] mean they need to step it down
[1:57:16] to the height of the existing
[1:57:19] building so the existing context
[1:57:21] plus 10 feet.
[1:57:23] They could go a storey higher
[1:57:25] than what is currently there for
[1:57:27] the initial portion of their
[1:57:28] building.
[1:57:30] They would have a 12 foot
[1:57:31] setback.
[1:57:34] So 30 some odd feet of the
[1:57:35] building would need to step down
[1:57:37] and then they could go up to the
[1:57:38] full heighth.
[1:57:42] >> and just the other
[1:57:43] clarification, the portion where
[1:57:46] you are talking about building a
[1:57:49] project that is not as high as
[1:57:51] the current required minimum
[1:57:52] height, could you tell me what
[1:57:54] you are thinking about in terms
[1:57:56] of what that kind of
[1:57:56] development.
[1:57:59] >> I think commissioner nicol
[1:58:00] highlighted a couple of them.
[1:58:02] We have gatton park and
[1:58:05] commissioner penn we have gatton
[1:58:05] park.
[1:58:06] >> that is not the question I'm
[1:58:07] asking.
[1:58:09] >> but those are the types of
[1:58:13] like pocket parks, public parks,
[1:58:15] of community gardens those often
[1:58:16] have accessory structures that
[1:58:18] do not meet minimums and they
[1:58:19] are called for in our plan.
[1:58:24] We have gatton park that was
[1:58:25] privately developed park like
[1:58:27] that would be subject to our
[1:58:27] zoning.
[1:58:29] They have a kiosk that serves
[1:58:30] food they have a community room.
[1:58:32] They have a stage.
[1:58:36] At phoenix park or at pocket
[1:58:40] park you might put a gazebo that
[1:58:42] would not meet the minimum
[1:58:45] building standards someone with
[1:58:46] this provision could come and
[1:58:48] show they are building a gazebo
[1:58:51] and it is in compliance with the
[1:58:52] downtown master plan that is
[1:58:57] calling for a greener downtown.
[1:59:00] The way this is written it
[1:59:03] doesn't differentiate a gazebo
[1:59:08] from an apartment building.
[1:59:11] >> so if I'm understanding you
[1:59:14] you are thinking about more of
[1:59:15] an accessory structure?
[1:59:23] >> well, it depends on the use.
[1:59:25] I think we are --
[1:59:27] I think it would be harder for
[1:59:29] someone to make the case to the
[1:59:30] planning commission if they are
[1:59:31] building apartments and coming
[1:59:34] in and asking to go below the
[1:59:36] minimums that we've set in the
[1:59:36] zone.
[1:59:40] But if someone is coming in
[1:59:43] slide from staff on one of the
[1:59:48] things that it's encouraging is
[1:59:56] artists and manufacturing.
[1:59:58] There's that you know.
[2:00:02] We've seen that business we have
[2:00:04] in town that has been doing the
[2:00:07] glass blowing with a speakeasy.
[2:00:16] That really relies on really hot
[2:00:19] kill kilometres an hour and,
[2:00:25] kiln they are doing a use that
[2:00:28] is not oriented towards a three
[2:00:30] storey building but it's called
[2:00:31] for in the zone and called for
[2:00:36] in the downtown master plan.
[2:00:37] >> okay.
[2:00:38] Commissioner davis?
[2:00:39] >> thank you, chair.
[2:00:41] I hate to put staff on the spot
[2:00:44] but I'm curious what is the
[2:00:46] minimum open space for the b2
[2:00:47] zone.
[2:00:50] It says see article 20 for open
[2:00:52] space regulations.
[2:01:01] thank you, boyd.
[2:01:02] Could you please let me know
[2:01:05] what the minimum open space per
[2:01:07] the staff version page 6 with
[2:01:08] the b2 zone.
[2:01:14] >> the b2 zone, b2a, b2b has 5%
[2:01:17] usable and 0% vegetative.
[2:01:20] And the two lou.
[2:01:25] >> b2a has the 5 prefers.
[2:01:28] B2 has zero.
[2:01:31] >> zero but usable it's 5%.
[2:01:33] >> tell me that again.
[2:01:35] In b2 you have to have 5% open
[2:01:38] space but none has to be
[2:01:39] vegetated.
[2:01:42] >> usable open space but not
[2:01:43] vegetated.
[2:01:44] >> a patio?
[2:01:47] >> we do not have usable space
[2:01:49] is space that can be used it can
[2:01:52] be a plaza, it can be a rooftop
[2:01:54] swimming area with all the
[2:01:56] amenities there.
[2:01:59] That the area has to total 5%.
[2:02:01] A vegetated space according to
[2:02:04] the ordinance is space that has
[2:02:05] vegetation.
[2:02:06] 70% vegetation.
[2:02:08] It doesn't have to be trees or
[2:02:11] shrubs it can be grass and grass
[2:02:14] will qualify as the vegetated
[2:02:16] space the 10% space that you are
[2:02:19] getting 70% of that has to be
[2:02:23] vegetated with staff like just
[2:02:23] grass.
[2:02:26] And so I'm not sure about how
[2:02:28] much just having grass on your
[2:02:30] property will add
[2:02:30] environmentally.
[2:02:33] But that's how our ordinance is
[2:02:33] written.
[2:02:35] >> so just in response to what
[2:02:38] we've been hearing a lot we
[2:02:39] don't --
[2:02:41] we're trying to reduce heat
[2:02:42] islands because if we have a
[2:02:45] built up b2 zone, we're going to
[2:02:47] need relief from the constant
[2:02:49] paving and asphalt I think that
[2:02:50] makes sense.
[2:02:52] so we don't have a lot of open
[2:02:55] space in b2.
[2:02:57] As we leave downtown to the
[2:02:58] businesses that surround it
[2:03:00] there should be a transition in
[2:03:06] what kind of green it might be
[2:03:08] in appearance that is why sorry
[2:03:12] boyd, I think commissioner
[2:03:13] michler's proposals make sense
[2:03:16] in terms of providing a visual
[2:03:18] transition and a transition from
[2:03:21] a very dense to still dense but
[2:03:21] some green.
[2:03:24] And I also think his
[2:03:26] recommendations about the step
[2:03:29] down in the b2b, does something
[2:03:33] more in keeping with the
[2:03:35] adjacent property perhaps not as
[2:03:36] it's built now is very
[2:03:37] appropriate and we've heard how
[2:03:39] much people are interested in
[2:03:40] having that.
[2:03:42] That is just what I think.
[2:03:44] >> thank you.
[2:03:48] >> clarify one thing?
[2:03:51] Just, boyd, can you just to be
[2:03:53] make sure we're all on the same
[2:03:55] page here, that vegetative open
[2:03:57] space requirement that I
[2:03:59] suggesting for the b2a on
[2:04:01] projects that are greater than
[2:04:05] one acre, that can be also on a
[2:04:08] rooftop the same way that the
[2:04:11] same way the open space can be
[2:04:12] I that correct?
[2:04:12] >> yes.
[2:04:14] It can be on the rooftop and
[2:04:15] there are incentives for having
[2:04:19] it as a rooftop or vertical
[2:04:21] walls there incentives.
[2:04:24] It goes from the ten% to smaller
[2:04:26] than 10%.
[2:04:29] >> thanks for that clarification
[2:04:31] >> commissioner?
[2:04:35] >> thank you.
[2:04:41] I can always appreciate the
[2:04:42] comrade nicol's exoments when we
[2:04:47] start talking about building
[2:04:47] about building.
[2:04:52] >> I prefer patriot, I prefer
[2:04:52] patriot.
[2:04:55] Sovereign citizen and patriot.
[2:04:57] >> building up and not out.
[2:05:01] I know I used to sit next to
[2:05:03] fellow commission member that
[2:05:05] would kick me under the desk
[2:05:09] here if I even mentioned that.
[2:05:12] But I think we're all in this
[2:05:14] together.
[2:05:17] And in looking at and I
[2:05:18] appreciate the clarification
[2:05:20] just now as far as vegetative
[2:05:21] open space.
[2:05:24] I mean we can get stuck and
[2:05:28] think about as MR. Nicol said
[2:05:30] pocket parks.
[2:05:32] But I'm going to say more
[2:05:35] nontraditional pen space,
[2:05:38] vegetated space which would be
[2:05:42] on a rooftop, inside the
[2:05:44] building or outside the building
[2:05:46] even but not necessarily on the
[2:05:48] good floor it could be second
[2:05:50] floor or third floor or
[2:05:50] something like that.
[2:05:56] I think that would be a definite
[2:05:58] plus and an amenity if we can
[2:06:00] talk the developers into it.
[2:06:01] And people would want to be
[2:06:03] there.
[2:06:05] And they MAY have to spend it on
[2:06:07] the front end but they will get
[2:06:10] it back on the back end as far
[2:06:12] as a return if we can get it
[2:06:13] built like that.
[2:06:19] I'm very much in favor of that.
[2:06:24] With the setbacks, step downs, I
[2:06:27] can see that once again I'm very
[2:06:28] much into building up and not
[2:06:29] out.
[2:06:31] But I do think we have to
[2:06:34] respect what is there currently.
[2:06:36] And it MAY change if the
[2:06:38] developer wants to gain access
[2:06:40] to that property and he doesn't
[2:06:43] have to worry about it at that
[2:06:43] point.
[2:06:46] I think this is a workable
[2:06:51] solution I will put it that way.
[2:06:55] Specifically, I think when we're
[2:06:58] talking about the side yard rear
[2:07:00] yard setback and the
[2:07:01] restrictions of mechanical
[2:07:04] stuff, I've seen I want to
[2:07:06] clarify, I've seen language or
[2:07:09] heard discussion that included
[2:07:09] generators.
[2:07:11] I don't know if that got level
[2:07:13] out or intended to be there and
[2:07:16] you can't put it all in there at
[2:07:17] one time.
[2:07:20] But I think that should be
[2:07:24] included as well.
[2:07:29] Lastly, robin mentioned that
[2:07:31] some of this language didn't
[2:07:32] apply to all three zones.
[2:07:35] And I'm wondering should that
[2:07:37] language as far as side yard,
[2:07:40] rear yard with the mechanical
[2:07:41] restrictions be included in the
[2:07:42] other two zones?
[2:07:46] That is one question I've got
[2:07:47] out of the comments I had.
[2:07:50] >> are you asking staff?
[2:07:59] Staff and or robin.
[2:08:09] >> I would be happy to.
[2:08:13] Commissioner michler.
[2:08:20] >> well, that's a reasonable
[2:08:21] question and I'm open to it
[2:08:25] because I think it's important
[2:08:30] that the as we do build larkser
[2:08:31] projects and larger buildings
[2:08:35] that these sort of mechanicals
[2:08:39] do go up on the roof or internal
[2:08:42] to the project or inside the
[2:08:45] building like the trash compact
[2:08:48] for on the project on maxwell
[2:08:49] went inside of the building.
[2:08:51] But I think it's in there
[2:08:53] because it came up really at
[2:08:57] that discussion of that
[2:09:02] intersection of the downtown and
[2:09:04] the residential neighborhoods.
[2:09:07] I think the number I mean, I
[2:09:10] think if we added the number of
[2:09:12] strictly b2 properties that
[2:09:14] intersect residential I'm
[2:09:18] guessing is probably low but
[2:09:20] maybe staff can speak to that or
[2:09:23] speak to their thought process.
[2:09:26] but I think it was really that
[2:09:28] part came up in the discussion
[2:09:30] at the intersection of that
[2:09:33] downtown frame the b2a with the
[2:09:33] residential and got included
[2:09:35] there.
[2:09:38] But I'm open to other thoughts
[2:09:43] on that.
[2:09:44] >> all right.
[2:09:47] The staff want to comment on
[2:09:48] that or no?
[2:09:52] >> I will read this.
[2:09:54] The side or year yard setback
[2:09:56] adjacent to residential zoning
[2:09:59] shall be no mechanical systems
[2:10:00] heating, ventilation,
[2:10:02] air-conditioning, or trash
[2:10:04] compacttors within this site and
[2:10:08] year yard setback from this
[2:10:10] discussion we made it clear to
[2:10:12] go to the rooftop or the garage
[2:10:16] and in the front yard.
[2:10:19] Since the front yard the way
[2:10:21] it's written.
[2:10:24] I didn't notice that until just
[2:10:26] now and listening to the
[2:10:27] discussion.
[2:10:29] And I realized you can have your
[2:10:31] mechanicals in the front yard
[2:10:32] between the street and the
[2:10:33] building.
[2:10:36] So maybe it needs more work.
[2:10:37] >> MR. Chair?
[2:10:40] Fivment we approved the staff
[2:10:42] alternative without that then it
[2:10:45] is allowed in any spot is is
[2:10:46] that correct?
[2:10:46] >> yes.
[2:10:52] We don't address where that goes
[2:10:52] in our ordinance.
[2:10:56] >> the staff just recommendation
[2:10:57] doesn't address that is that
[2:10:58] what you are saying?
[2:11:00] >> exception in the ordinance
[2:11:07] but it's for residential zones.
[2:11:10] >> we are discussing
[2:11:14] commissioner michler's proposal
[2:11:15] for having mechanical systems
[2:11:19] like the heating, ventlation,
[2:11:19] air-conditioning.
[2:11:22] >> are we saying it goes in all
[2:11:23] three sections what are we
[2:11:23] saying?
[2:11:29] >> from this language I realized
[2:11:31] this --
[2:11:32] MRS. Worth with the language
[2:11:35] discussed MR. Owens was asking
[2:11:37] if it could go in all three
[2:11:38] zones.
[2:11:39] Staff would that recommend that
[2:11:42] put be in all three zones this
[2:11:44] was described in our
[2:11:45] conversation and what we wrote
[2:11:48] on this as a recommendation for
[2:11:51] a transition between the densest
[2:11:52] portions of our downtown areas
[2:11:56] being the b2 and b2b goingna the
[2:11:58] b2a and that is the location of
[2:11:59] the protections and that gets
[2:12:02] into the adjacency of
[2:12:04] residential zones to the b2a
[2:12:07] zone that b2a being a frame.
[2:12:11] >> are you all agreeing to staff
[2:12:12] agreeing to this?
[2:12:16] >> this is as staff has reviewed
[2:12:19] it staff is comfortable with our
[2:12:20] language that has been provided
[2:12:21] today.
[2:12:23] I couldn't give you a clear
[2:12:24] recommendation from staff
[2:12:26] because we're talking about this
[2:12:28] this was done in collaboration
[2:12:29] with MR. Michler.
[2:12:31] And that staff present to do
[2:12:33] here so it fit the text that we
[2:12:34] have.
[2:12:36] >> when you are saying is
[2:12:38] language has presented today, in
[2:12:40] your version or in MR.
[2:12:40] Michler's version?
[2:12:43] >> the staff is presented the
[2:12:46] staff's version which was what
[2:12:49] boyd sewe presented today
[2:12:49] modifications would be
[2:12:51] amendments to the staff's
[2:12:53] language as proposed by MR.
[2:12:54] Michler in the document that you
[2:12:56] are seeing right now.
[2:12:59] Staff did produce that for MR.
[2:13:00] Michler following conversations
[2:13:02] to make sure it fit the
[2:13:02] ordinance.
[2:13:04] And that really represents what
[2:13:06] MR. Michler has heard from the
[2:13:07] public during the meetings and
[2:13:08] his concerns.
[2:13:11] >> can I get to the bottom line.
[2:13:14] Staff is not yet prepared to say
[2:13:16] that should be included in the
[2:13:17] version you've presented?
[2:13:20] >> bottom line is that staff is
[2:13:21] comfortable with the language we
[2:13:22] have proposed.
[2:13:24] And that the language presented
[2:13:27] here today is modifications
[2:13:28] there in to represent the
[2:13:31] concerns MR. Michler heard.
[2:13:33] >> MADAM Chair can I ask a
[2:13:35] question.
[2:13:37] It doesn't seem like we've come
[2:13:39] to any agreements can we
[2:13:40] continue this?
[2:13:42] Not postpone it because we have
[2:13:44] to start it all over again.
[2:13:46] I'm just asking?
[2:13:48] Because it seems like there are
[2:13:50] several pieces of information
[2:13:52] that staff MAY need time to look
[2:13:53] at if MR. Michler.
[2:13:56] >> I think that makes sense if
[2:13:57] somebody wants to make a motion.
[2:14:00] >> one question the staff has
[2:14:02] seen his recommendations what
[2:14:04] they are saying they are
[2:14:05] comfortable with where they are.
[2:14:09] Now the question is back to the
[2:14:11] commission.
[2:14:15] And that is do by want to put
[2:14:18] the regular format.
[2:14:21] In other words the staff is
[2:14:22] happy.
[2:14:26] >> from us we are --
[2:14:28] that is the second part the
[2:14:30] other part is too, is that the
[2:14:31] process might be that we vote on
[2:14:34] even one of these items.
[2:14:36] We don't have to vote on the
[2:14:38] whole thing even with further
[2:14:38] discussion.
[2:14:42] But I understand we need
[2:14:45] sometime to have a continuation.
[2:14:47] >> I will make a motion to
[2:14:48] continue if you would like.
[2:14:52] Because I think we need more
[2:14:55] time.
[2:14:57] >> my understanding we would
[2:14:59] continue to allow the commission
[2:15:03] time to review and digest the
[2:15:04] recommendations from
[2:15:06] commissioner michler.
[2:15:10] And then we would come back and
[2:15:13] basically vote on each item as
[2:15:15] to the appropriateness of
[2:15:16] leaving it in.
[2:15:18] >> excuse me just a minute but
[2:15:20] the problem is that while we're
[2:15:24] talking about this, we're
[2:15:28] reading this.
[2:15:28] And robin's --
[2:15:30] MR. Michler's recommendations
[2:15:34] were given to us today.
[2:15:35] >> just today.
[2:15:38] >> or yesterday, whatever.
[2:15:42] >> it was today but just today.
[2:15:46] >> I'm not comfortable saying
[2:15:48] let's just include all of MR.
[2:15:50] Michler's recommendations and
[2:15:52] neither am I comfortable saying
[2:15:55] take the staff and ignoring
[2:15:55] this.
[2:15:57] >> that the reason for the
[2:15:58] continuation.
[2:16:02] >> so I'm asking that we
[2:16:04] continue this and let's go back
[2:16:05] and try to figure out what we
[2:16:07] want to adopt and what we don't
[2:16:08] want to adopt.
[2:16:11] >> can I clarify something here?
[2:16:13] As I recall, we had a discussion
[2:16:15] about this at the work session.
[2:16:17] And I know there was concern on
[2:16:19] the staff's point about trying
[2:16:22] to get this completed.
[2:16:24] Do we have the option perhaps of
[2:16:25] continuing this at our next
[2:16:29] public hearing after at the
[2:16:30] tail-end rather than waiting
[2:16:32] until the next zoning one.
[2:16:34] Would that make staff more
[2:16:35] comfortable with this?
[2:16:38] >> just as a clarification, your
[2:16:39] next public hear something one
[2:16:41] month from now but there is a
[2:16:43] public meeting on OCTOBER 8th
[2:16:44] and I believe you could continue
[2:16:46] this it would be my
[2:16:47] recommendation that you choose
[2:16:49] that date because as you recall
[2:16:51] you just postponed four zone
[2:16:53] changes to the end of OCTOBER.
[2:16:55] And there's two zotas on that
[2:16:56] agenda.
[2:16:58] I would suggest if you do want
[2:17:00] to continue to discuss this
[2:17:02] spend more time you do so on
[2:17:03] OCTOBER 8th.
[2:17:06] >> I think that is what she was
[2:17:18] asking for.
[2:17:22] >> I'm a little bit I will be
[2:17:23] perfectly honest I'm committed
[2:17:25] to giving a talk on OCTOBER 8th
[2:17:27] at U.K.
[2:17:29] I won't be able to be here for
[2:17:34] that discussion on OCTOBER 8th.
[2:17:36] I have put a little bit work
[2:17:37] into it.
[2:17:39] I would appreciate it if we
[2:17:42] could continue it to the normal
[2:17:45] zoning meeting on the 22nd.
[2:17:47] And that's what I will put in my
[2:17:49] motion I would like to continue
[2:17:52] this move that we continue this
[2:17:59] to the zoning meeting on OCTOBER
[2:17:59] 22nd.
[2:18:03] >> I will second the motion.
[2:18:08] >> you second the motion?
[2:18:09] >> yes, ma'am.
[2:18:10] >> all right.
[2:18:12] A motion has been made and
[2:18:13] seconded to continue this to
[2:18:17] OCTOBER 22nd.
[2:18:20] Any questions from the
[2:18:21] commission?
[2:18:23] >> if we have other questions
[2:18:25] between now and OCTOBER
[2:18:28] 22nd, we should address that
[2:18:30] to staff and robin.
[2:18:32] If we have clarifications that
[2:18:32] we need.
[2:18:35] >> I would make this motion with
[2:18:38] the goal that in this month
[2:18:40] other planning commissioners
[2:18:43] have the opportunity to get
[2:18:45] their concerns raised with this
[2:18:49] text or with my amendments with
[2:18:49] staff.
[2:18:53] And also to give a month's time
[2:18:57] for staff to maybe come back
[2:18:59] with a staff recommendation on
[2:19:00] these amendments as well.
[2:19:04] >> I think the staff is already.
[2:19:06] >> the staff made their
[2:19:08] recommendation with the
[2:19:08] proposal.
[2:19:09] And they want.
[2:19:10] >> they approved their
[2:19:12] recommendation and that is would
[2:19:13] love to vote on.
[2:19:15] We have an additional
[2:19:16] recommendation that we are
[2:19:18] requesting more time to better
[2:19:20] understand because we have items
[2:19:21] here that we have to take one at
[2:19:26] a time to meet everybody's our
[2:19:28] group's consensus it's going to
[2:19:30] take more time to address each
[2:19:32] of these issues.
[2:19:36] It also gives us the ability to
[2:19:37] further think about this.
[2:19:39] But the staff's recommendation
[2:19:43] which I approve of, I don't
[2:19:45] think we should ask them to go
[2:19:46] back and change their
[2:19:47] recommendation.
[2:19:49] A lot of work went into this and
[2:19:51] it makes great sense.
[2:19:53] And I certainly hope they don't
[2:19:56] change their recommendation from
[2:19:58] approval for their own zota
[2:19:59] recommendation.
[2:20:02] >> I will call the question.
[2:20:06] >> staff wrote the language --
[2:20:07] >> call the question.
[2:20:09] You are talking about call the
[2:20:11] vote.
[2:20:13] >> commissioner davis I will let
[2:20:18] you have your last word.
[2:20:19] Okay.
[2:20:25] So the motion on the floor is to
[2:20:27] continue this until october
[2:20:28] 22nd.
[2:20:36] Are we ready to vote?
[2:20:38] >> now, MADAM Chair I only have
[2:20:41] one question if we have --
[2:20:42] if I have questions then I
[2:20:44] should address it to MR.
[2:20:48] Michler, is that correct?
[2:20:49] The clarification I need.
[2:20:50] All right.
[2:20:51] Thank you.
[2:20:55] >> okay.
[2:21:01] All right.
[2:21:02] Okay.
[2:21:06] What do we have next?
[2:21:08] Is there anything that the
[2:21:11] commission has do we have staff
[2:21:11] items?
[2:21:14] That we need to consider?
[2:21:15] Okay.