[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.

Planning Commission - Zoning Items

Agenda

Transcript